Skip to main content

What Happened To Christmas?

Written by Rick Shrader

What Happened To Christmas?

by Rick Shrader

Now that it is January and Christmas is over until next year, I can risk sounding like Scrooge or maybe even the Grinch.  I have to confess that I labored through the Christmas season moaning and groaning at Christmas store commercials, Christmas television movies (the new ones anyway), Christmas network specials, Christmas online ads, Christmas news, Christmas concerts,  Christmas decorations, and even Christmas church specials.  And when it was finally December 26, I asked myself in amazement, whatever happened to Christmas?

The one bright spot of the whole season was brought to us by a left-over, sorry-looking, crudely spoken but evidently born-again hippie named Phil Robertson.  When America, the greatest country in the age of grace, was brought so morally low and bankrupt to the point of cowering to the shameful sin of our day, Robertson was interviewed by liberal hate-baiters at GQ magazine and old Phil said it plainly and truthfully:  homosexuality is a sin and an unnatural perversion for any of God’s creatures.  He even made an attempt at quoting 1 Cor. 6:9-10, “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.”  What Phil didn’t have a chance to explain is why these verses so plainly show that no human being is born a homosexual.  God does not exclude any person from His kingdom because of how they were born, but only for how they practice, which this list of sins makes abundantly clear.

However, I want to go back to my grinching.  Doesn’t anyone any longer know what Christmas is all about?  Is it really all this complicated?  Sure, there has been a war on Christmas in this free country.  Any public figure, politician, businessman, athlete, news pundit, talk show host, et al, is scared to death to mention anything concretely having to do with Christianity for fear of repercussion.  Akin to this phobia is the fear of speaking morally, as Phil Robertson did.  No doubt the bottom line is fear.  You will be hurt in one way or another if you dare cross these lines in our society.  If we continue to let Islam take over America as it has done in our motherland, England, the repercussion will indeed be physical.  But for now the penalty for speaking plainly is loss of job or position, defamed character, name-calling, ridicule, and slander.

But I don’t think that even these fears are the problem with Christmas.  The problem with Christmas is humanism.  That’s right, that old liberal nemesis that used to be so bold as to have its own manifesto and creed, has now morphed into Christianity through the convenient season we call Christmas.  In the public square, humanism has won the old battle over sin and redemption.  We are no longer sinners. We no longer need a Savior to save us from anything but a bad attitude.  All that stuff about a pre-existent Christ Child, a virgin birth, a natal star, etc., (and especially a sinless life, a substitutionary death, and a bodily resurrection) are not only old-fashioned but entirely unnecessary.  The Grinch offers you three proofs.

Proof #1.  I will start with the easiest and most obvious loss of the Christmas message as seen in television programs and made-for-television movies.  I will call these Nick-flicks.  The real person of the new-meaning Christmas is St. Nick.  And before I lose all my cool on this re-made, historical, yet make-believe elf, let me confess my own sin of watching too much of all of this anyway.  These “shows” offer the viewer predictable plots, typical characters, and annoying emotions which is all easily figured out in the first ten minutes.  The only worthwhile lesson to be learned is the answer to the question, “why did I ever watch this?”  The real meaning of Christmas, according to these sage productions, is the existence of Santa Claus.

The plot will fall somewhere in the realm of some poor slob who is mad at the world or tied up in his job and needs a real emotional adjustment.  Then there is the typical Tiny-Tim character who has everything against him/her and is about to lose hope in the goodness of humanity, friendship, the joy of giving, or some-such humanistic attribute.  You might add a picturesque setting like a fir tree farm or a mountain lodge, and then mix in a conflict between the fair but despondent maiden and the grumpy but handsome unbeliever.  Now all you need for this story to be a Christmas story is the recovered belief in St. Nick so that the positive feelings of the season can be brought out of the infidel and he can show all kinds of human kindness and good works at the end.  But this is all too easy.  I only offer it as proof because of the ubiquitous nature of television in everyone’s life.  If you must watch movies, never watch anything made later than, say, 1979, when John Wayne died.

Proof #2.  The Fox News Christmas Special.  I must also first confess that I am a Fox News junkie.  In fact, if it weren’t for Fox News I’d have to settle for fix-ups, food, or pickers.  Good Grief! I can’t stand reality shows and I’m about done with the antics of professional athletes (right after the Super Bowl and March Madness).  So I know the good guys and the bad guys on Fox and which hours are worthwhile.   We’re all glad when Fox News champions equal time for Christmas and answers the attacks on religion and morality.

Yet according to Fox News the real meaning of Christmas is patriotism, conservatism, morality, and the bravado it takes to say Merry Christmas on the air.  I enjoy hearing carols sung but I must confess I am really tired of the interpretive style of singing that makes me watch the vocal cords of the singer (even a nice looking serviceman) to wonder how in the world he could fluctuate between all those notes in a single stanza.  The wise men never traveled so far in such a short amount of time.  But then the wise men and their Objective were never really the point.  There were the stories of our war heroes for which I am a great sympathizer, the little children with presents, even Cardinal Dolan giving the evening devotional thought.  Yet I don’t think the name “Jesus” was even heard.  The real meaning of Christmas to a television station seemed to be the guts it took to put on a production with the name “Christmas” in it.  I guess that’s a real victory in our PC culture, but it left me still searching for a message of salvation and hope.

Proof #3.  The three wise men.  I think that these men may all have been on the Fox News special but I can’t remember, I was so enthralled by it all.  But in this season I have seen interviews from each of them.  Let me say first of all, that I do not doubt the born again nature of these men (with the definite exception of the second).  I also can sympathize with the difficult task of talking specific Biblical doctrine on the air on any program.  (But I remember that old prophet Adrian Rogers scolding the young Bill Hybels after the latter schmoozed his way through a Presidential Prayer Breakfast without confronting a sinning president.  “Perhaps thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this,” said the older preacher.  So we cannot excuse the lack of clarity in a preacher at such a critical time as this Christmas).

From the west came Rick Warren.  And what is he offering the waiting public at this needy time of year?  A book on dieting.  This may actually be a great benefit now that the time of Christmas partying is over, but I missed any straightforward message of incarnation and redemption from “America’s pastor.”  From the Mid-West came Joel Osteen.  And what is he offering us at this Christmas season?  I can confidently say I have no idea except a lesson on how to smile or do your hair.  Frankly, I have never heard this man give an explanation of the gospel.  No Christmas message here.  From the east came Andy Stanley, an unusual appearance for him (now that his father is lesser known to this generation).  A born-again man I am sure, yet what was his new book about?  How to use your money as a Christian.  Good enough I suppose for a pastor to his people, but I was listening for the real meaning of Christmas and didn’t hear it from this preacher either.

The wiser man I usually appreciate when he is interviewed is Franklin Graham.  He at least tries to interject the gospel.  But he is busy with his gifts to the needy and no chance was given him for the gospel on the air either.  So much for my last hope of hearing the real meaning of Christmas from the men who are supposed to be wise and speak God’s truth.  Where have all of us been in this regard?  I may have fared no better in a public setting either.  Would you?  Have we as God’s people lost our boldness when it comes to the message of the most important time in the world’s history?  Maybe.

There is a final irony to my quest for the historical Christmas.  I mean, the real meaning of Christmas.  On the Sunday before Christmas day, half the nation was kept from coming to church due to the worst ice storm in years.  Many of us had to stay home like pagans and search in vain for a message somewhere else.  But maybe this is a good reminder of something good and precious at the Christmas season—the local church of Jesus Christ is still proclaiming the real meaning of Christmas.  Outside of God’s born again people there is no hope of hearing that message.

The churches, having the Word of God in our hands and the Spirit of God in our hearts, rightfully proclaim our Savior’s birth.  He is the divine Son of God Who existed from all eternity, Who took upon Himself humanity at the very conception of the virgin Mary, Who lived a sinless life satisfying all the law which none of us could ever do, Who then gave His life on the cross for the sins of the whole world and was resurrected by the power of God, Who will accept anyone who will willingly put his/her faith and trust in Him as Savior.  There was no other hope for this sinful world.  God loved us and gave His Son for us, that He might redeem us from all iniquity.  That is the meaning of Christmas.

Our local church resumed services on the Sunday after Christmas with hymn-singing, carols, and a nice presentation by our music people.  It was simple and nice.  Real.  No false humanism.  Just the truth of our Savior’s incarnation.  Praise God for His unspeakable Gift!

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

The Virgin Birth of Christ

Written by Rick Shrader

The Virgin Birth of Christ

by Rick Shrader

There is no more precious doctrine in the Scripture than the virgin birth of Christ.    The truth that the God of all creation, the Holy One of all eternity, the One Who loved us and became a man in order to redeem us from our sin, is the greatest thought of the human mind.  The fact that the world will not receive it and shuts out all testimony to it, especially at this time of the year, is a testimony to its truth.  If we were not sinners there would be no need for such an incarnation, and the lost world knows this and would prefer it to be that way.  But fact is fact, and there is no ignoring it—Jesus Christ came from heaven to redeem us.  “And thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21).

Christ’s incarnation is testimony to the fact that life in the womb is precious.  Human life begins at conception and is a living, eternal soul from that moment on.  Christ, however, existing from all eternity, entered the womb as the eternal Son of God without ceasing or beginning to be.  Gabriel said to Mary, “thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.  He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest . . . . Therefore also, that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:31, 35).  Son of God, of course, is a term for deity, the second Person of the Godhead.  One of the attributes of God is eternality, the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending.  For Jesus to be our Savior, He had to be divine, and to be divine He had to be eternal, and to be eternal, He had to exist before, during, and after the birth in Bethlehem’s manger.  The life in Mary’s womb was the Eternal Life that would light the world!

The Pre-incarnate Christ

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  The same was in the beginning with God” (John 1:1-2).  Jesus is the Word because He speaks God’s thoughts to mankind.  ”Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son” (Heb. 1:2).  “In him was life; and the life was the light of men” (John 1:4).  The “Word” of verse one is the “Him” of verse four.   Three things are said in this magnificent introduction to John’s gospel.

The Word was eternal.  This Word “was.”  The imperfect tense means an ongoing action, what L.S. Chafer called “the eternal present.”1  Luther said, “Something was before the world and the creation of all things.  That must be God.”2  In that familiar Christmas verse from Micah it is said, “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting” (Mic. 5:2). 

The Word was preexistent.  This Word was “with God.”  Eternality goes hand in hand with preexistence but they are not the same.  The Son and the Father (and the Spirit) dwelt together in perfect unity, three persons but one God.  The Word was “with” God.  This little word, pros, means to be face to face with someone.  The word for “face” is pros?pon.  F.B. Meyer wrote, “The face of the everlasting Word was ever directed towards the face of the everlasting Father.”3  This was the Angel of the Lord of the Old Testament, the One Who met Moses at the burning bush and Who conversed with Abraham on the plains of Mamre.  The Angel never appears again after He became flesh in Mary’s womb. 

The Word was deity.  This Word “was God.”  It cannot be translated any other way, as unbelievers attempt to do.  The article goes with the subject in the nominative case, and for emphasis the Greek puts the predicate noun first, “and God was the Word.”  That is like saying, “the boy was a good student, and David was the boy!”  But the proper meaning is, “the boy was David.”  This is what caused Charles Wesley to write,

Christ by highest heav’n adored,

Christ the everlasting Lord:

Late in time, behold Him come,

Off-spring of a virgin’s womb.

Veiled in flesh the God-head see,

Hail th’incarnate Deity!

Pleased as man with men to dwell,

Jesus our Emmanuel.

Hark! The herald angels sin,

“Glory to the new-born King.”

 

The Prophesied Christ

The Old Testament prophecies of Christ leave no doubt that the baby in Mary’s womb was the eternal Son of God.  The angel quoted Isa. 7:14 to Mary that a virgin would “conceive.”  Whereas humans pass on their seed through a woman and a man so that it is impossible for a virgin woman to conceive, the eternal Son of God came into Mary’s womb through “the power of the Highest” overshadowing her (Luke 1:35).  She was just the channel for the Word to take on human form from a preincarnate state to an incarnate state.  The Son that the virgin would conceive is Immanuel, which, Matthew interpreted, means “God with us.”  He had no beginning and will have no ending.  He is Alpha and Omega.  He did not begin life at conception, much less at birth!

Isaiah’s prophecy in 9:6 includes the wonderful news that this baby is the “Mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.”  Again we read that the eternal God simply took up residence in the womb of a human girl for a period of time. 

He is the Mighty God of creation as John had also said of the Word, “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made” (John 1:3).  Paul said to the Corinthians, “But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him” (1 Cor. 8:6).  He upholds all things that He made by the word of His divine and almighty power (Heb. 1:3).  He is also the “everlasting Father,” not that there is any mixture of the persons of the Father and the Son, but, as the older writers term it, “the Father of eternity, as if even everlasting duration owed itself to his paternity.”4  The prophet is clear, the eternal Being was in the womb of the virgin and would soon be born into the world.

The Psalmist revealed that God had called Jesus “a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek” (Psa. 110:4).  Whereas the Old Testament priesthood was served by priests humanly born of parents and therefore serving only a life-time, this Priest has no such limitations.  The writer of Hebrews uses this powerful argument for the ending of the law, and describes Melchisedek, king of Salem, as “without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life” (Heb. 7:1-3).  This of course is applied to Christ literally when he writes, “And it is far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedek there ariseth another priest, Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life” (7:14-15).  

In the last and great prophecy of the book of Revelation, Jesus appeared to John on the Isle of Patmos in His eternal splendor and said, “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, said the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty” (Rev. 1:8).  It is not enough to say that He is the Omega without saying that He is also the Alpha.  These terms mean that He has neither beginning nor ending.  And if He has no beginning, He was existing eternally at His conception in Mary’s womb waiting to be born nine months later, taking upon Himself the garment of human limitation.

The gospel of Christ

“But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons” (Gal. 4:4-5).  The gospel of Jesus Christ is not a gospel of example from one human to another.  Jesus was not a good man who showed us how to live and die.  If that is the case, we need not bother ourselves with sin and hell, or with a divine Savior and redemption by His blood.  But if we are sinners by birth and face an eternal punishment in hell, then we need a Savior Who is more than we, a Savior Who is human but divine, a Savior Who knows our humanity but rises above it in sinless perfection.  We need an eternal Savior. 

Lenski writes, “The Son’s going out from God on his mission is seen in his becoming man.  He did not cease to be the Son of God when he became man.  He did not drop his deity, which is an impossible thought.  He remained what he was and added what he had not had, namely a human nature, derived out of a woman, a human mother.  He became the God-man.”5  Paul’s description is that of Isaiah’s, a virgin born Son, “made of a woman” and not of a man.  And note that this all happened “in the fullness of time.”  “Late in time behold Him come,” not early in time, not the beginning of His existence, but late, when time was at its fullest, when this eternal One took up residence in Mary’s womb. 

Why do we have no gospel without a virgin birth?  Because we do not need a human-only savior who is but a good example.  We need a Savior Who can be the sacrifice for our sins, accepted by a holy God as our Substitute.  When the Pharisees were accusing Jesus of having an earthly father He replied, “I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins” (John 8:24).  He meant that they must believe that He is the I AM, the eternal Jehovah, the Angel of the Lord, Who met Moses at the burning bush.  John uses this expression again in 18:5 at His arrest in the garden.  At the mere mention of this title, the soldiers fell backward to the ground.  He had said before, “Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58).  This Jesus can be your Savior.  This Jesus is God in the flesh.  This Jesus died, was buried, and rose again for you, coming out of the grave with the same eternity with which He came into this world.

And So . . .

Jesus said “Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28). 

If words like these came from the greatest, holiest, best of men, we should fling them back with indignation.  But they are the words of Him by whom and for whom we were created; of Him who spoke from Sinai, and knows the guilt and penalty of sin; of Him to whom all judgment has been committed, and who can anticipate the decrees of the Great Day; of Him-let us not forget-who ‘took part of flesh and blood,’ and knows our burdens and our toils.  And when spiritual men dwell upon His words, with thoughts like these filling their hearts, they do not sit down to frame a Christology; they cast themselves at His feet and worship Him.6

Notes:
1. L.S. Chafer, “The Preexistence of Christ,” Vital Christological Issues, R. Zuck, Gen. Ed.(Grand Rapids:  Kregel, 1997) 13.
2. By Hengstenberg, The Gospel of John (Minn.:  Klock & Klock, 1980) 16.
3. F.B. Meyer, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids:  Zondervan, nd.) 14.
4. Albert Barnes, Isaiah (Grand Rapids:  Baker Book House, 1980) 193.
5. R.C.H. Lenski, Interpretation of Galatians (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961) 199.
6. Sir Robert Anderson, The Lord From Heaven (Grand Rapids:  Kregel, 1980) 51.

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

Pilgrims and Strangers

Written by Rick Shrader

Pilgrims and Strangers

by Rick Shrader

As believers in a country that is fast becoming ungodly, we are at that point where we are wondering what freedom will actually look like in the near future.  It is difficult to follow all the details in the news about how the government works and what the issues are that affect us.  What seems to be obvious is that the leaders of government who are in control of things feel they can do whatever they want regardless of what the constitution says and that those who disagree cannot oppose them, even if they follow the constitution, without being unloving and uncaring.

Right now our governmental leaders are giving people whatever they want.  This is how they get elected and stay elected.  And right now people want the most selfish and immoral things they can get.  So if women (and men) want to be promiscuous, they need to be able to kill the babies they produce rather than quit being immoral or they insist it is their right to have society pay for their birth control.  If anyone disagrees he/she is un-American.  Why?  Because he/she would be denying someone what they want.  To be American today is to be free to do whatever one wants and have whatever one wants to have.  The constitution is irrelevant.  If a law exists that would limit this freedom, it must be opposed.  If someone objects, he must be opposed.

Liberal thinkers in government are spending so much it can only be considered dishonest if not immoral.  No honest individual could spend his own money in such a way.  If  the constitution says they should make a budget and live by it, it really doesn’t matter.  If the constitution says the debt must be paid before entitlements, it doesn’t matter.  It is more important to make sure people are getting things they want from government than to pay our debt.  If conservatives point out that the constitution demands the debt be paid first, even and especially if only one of the two can be paid, they are considered un-American.  Why?  Because they want to do something that limits someone’s freedom even though it is “constitutional.”

It is interesting how people see their own desires as trumping all other laws or morals.  The rule of law can only be the law of the land if people are humble and see their own fallibility and need of law.  In a country like ours (at least these days), people cannot tolerate the rule of law because that would put a limit on their desires.  Politicians who feed those desires in people become patriotic and those who oppose them become unpatriotic.  The constitution is irrelevant.

Benjamin Franklin is the one who protested that if people sacrificed liberty for freedom they deserved neither.  If that is true, then Americans do not deserve the freedom they insist upon nor the liberty that brings it to them.  It was Alexis de Tocqueville who said that America is great because America is good, and when America ceases to be good America will cease to be great.  At this point it seems that America is good only in theory because, as a democracy, it can vote to fund its most base desires.  A minority might object, for various reasons, but basically America is what the majority of people say it is.

The Christian response in such a time of national turmoil is varied.  There are the hawks and the doves.  There are those who name anyone a coward who doesn’t believe he should become more politically involved.  These usually believe that if the American ship of state goes down, our Christian compartment goes down with it.  Others are very aloof in their concern over America’s problems and don’t seem to care what happens.  I believe that there is some leeway for disagreement.  But I also believe that the Scripture is clear about how a Christian should be living and reacting in the secular culture in which we find ourselves.

We are to be strangers and pilgrims in the world.

The believer is a citizen of two worlds.  He has a foot in each one.  This is simply because, though a regenerated child of God, he must live out his time in the flesh as a pilgrim and stranger passing through a world that has now become a wilderness to him.  Yet at the same time, he is looking for a city that has permanent structure for him whose builder and maker is God.

This is a life-style change for the believer.  The change happened when we were converted.  Rather than being at home here, we’ve become foreigners.  Even Abraham, after God called him away from his earthly home, became a traveler until his death.  When Sarah died he had to beg for a burial plot.  “I am a stranger and a sojourner with you,” he said, “give me a possession of a burying place with you, that I may bury my dead out of my sight” (Gen. 23:4).

Peter “beseeched” his readers as “dearly beloved” to consider themselves as “strangers and pilgrims” even though they were also elect. (1 Pet. 2:11)  “Strangers” (paroikous) are people  “without a house,” the same word translated “sojourners” in 1:17.  “Pilgrims” (parepidemous)  are people  “without kin.”   Though conversion changes everything for the believer in wonderful ways on the inside, it is not always wonderful on the outside.  Depending on the country and people around us, we can either be accepted or rejected.  This does not change our pilgrim standing with God.

We are to obey laws and submit to authority.

In this journey, the new believer finds that he has become an adversary to his former friends rather than a partner, “Whereas they speak against you as evildoers” (1 Pet. 2:12).  “Evildoers” here means criminal.  The early Christians were considered enemies of the state and therefore potentially harmful to the peace of the country.  They were enemies politically because they spoke of another King, Jesus; they were enemies religiously because they could not participate in the ubiquitous idolatry; they were enemies ethically because they would not live the immoral lifestyle so common in a Greek/Roman world.

Peter again says, “For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries:  Wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you” (1 Pet. 4:3-4).  Again, they consider you to be an enemy of the state and of society.

Peter and Paul make it especially plain that such is our new lot in life and, rather than look at this new situation as a detriment, we should consider it an open door for witness.  “They may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation” (1 Pet. 2:12).  This conversion of the unbeliever will most likely happen through the believer’s willing submission to the very people who are hostile to him.  To the believer, there is no such thing as “civil disobedience.”  That is an oxymoron in Christian vernacular.  “Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation” (Rom. 13:2).  To “riot” is never a Christian option.  Not to do so is to witness of the grace of God.

We are to be salt and light in a corrupt world.

The Lord’s admonition to be salt and light comes in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:13-16) and is open to various applications.  No doubt Israel failed in their stewardship as a nation to have such effect on themselves and the nations around them.  Jerusalem was the city set on a hill, Zion, to which all nations will flow one day in the presence of their King.  Yet the Christian believer is also to let his “speech be always with grace seasoned with salt” that he may how he ought “to answer every man” (Col. 4:6).  The believer was also “sometimes darkness” but now is “light in the Lord” and he is (we are) to “walk as children of light” (Eph. 5:8).

 G.K. Chesterton wrote, “The saint is a medicine because he is an antidote.  Indeed, that is why the saint is often a martyr; he is mistaken for a poison because he is an antidote. . . . Salt seasons and preserves beef not because it is like beef; but because it is very unlike it.”1  Separatists have often been accused of retreating into a monastic type of life rather than affecting the culture as they should.  But this is not verified by history.  Separatists have always known they cannot escape the world but must be in it and walk through it.  Paul admonished the Corinthians, “I wrote unto you in an epistle not to keep company with fornicators.  Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go of the world.  But now I have written unto you not to keep company . . . “ (1 Cor. 5:9-11).  The problem is not when the ship is in the sea, but when the sea is in the ship.  Then the salt no longer seasons but is mere sand that must be thrown out and walked upon.

In Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, Christian travels through the town of Vanity which is having a Fair.  The people at the Fair look with disgust at Christian and bid him to leave for two reasons:  his speech and his clothes, neither of which fit in with the others at Vanity’s Fair.  Bunyan, writing from prison himself, would not have considered having his pilgrim change his clothes and speech in order to appease the crowd.  Rather Christian kept pressing toward the Celestial City.

We are to be worshipers in a heavenly tabernacle.

With all the talk about worship today, it is a wonder that this perspective could be missed.  Some have proposed that God acts as the audience while He watches us perform worship; that our artistic abilities open the door to God’s throne and bring His smile upon us.  But the whole point of the book of Hebrews is that our Advocate, Jesus Christ the Righteous, ever lives to make intercession for us (7:25).  By His own blood He is before the throne of God forever so that we may have eternal redemption (9:12).  This is why Paul emphasized to the Ephesians that we are a heavenly people, “seated together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 2:6).  Charles Wesley expressed it this way,

Five bleeding wounds He bears, Received on Calvary.

They pour effectual prayers; they strongly plead for me.

“Forgive him, O, forgive,” they cry.  “Forgive him, O, forgive,” they cry,

“Nor let that ransomed sinner die.”

The Father hears Him pray, His dear Anointed One;

He cannot turn away, the presence of His Son.

His Spirit answers to the blood, His Spirit answers to the blood,

And tells me I am born of God.2

 I have often said to my folks, “We do not come together to worship, we are worshipers who come together.”  We must remember that Jesus is continually performing the true worship within the true tabernacle, and we are observers of that in our daily lives.  Corporate worship is not our performance but His.  For us, when we come together, it is a recognition in Spirit and Truth of what we know to be the case through Jesus Christ.

We are to be church members in our locality.

We recognized, as noted above, that the whole Church of Jesus Christ is constantly dependent on the atonement made by Him, and that we will all make up the Bride of Christ in the rapture and at the bema seat.  Yet, the New Testament speaks more about the gathering of ourselves together with other believers of like faith in the place where we live.  The word for “church,” ekklesia, appears 115 times in the New Testament and well over 100 times it refers to the local church.

Hebrews 10:25 commands us to not forsake the assembling of ourselves together even though that is the manner of some, even some who may name the name of Christ.  One such command is all we need, if we understand it in its proper context.  The purpose of such gathering is the subject of most of the New Testament written to the local churches.  In Hebrew 10:21-25, it is for drawing near to God in assurance with a clean conscience; for holding forth the profession of our faith; and for provoking one another to love and good works.

In this “brotherhood” of believers, we are to do what believers do.  We invite any who would come to stand beside us and try to understand what it all means, but we do not do it for them.  We often make the mistake of thinking that we will lose the person if they are not happy, or entertained, or comfortable.  In actuality, that would be a detriment rather than an asset.  If it dawns on the lost man what we are doing, he will, by Holy Spirit conviction, be the most uncomfortable man in the room.  Our nervousness about that shows our lack of trust in the Spirit’s work.

We are to be heavenly minded if we would be any earthly good.

We would not be good pilgrims if we did not have more thought of our destination than of our present circumstances.  “For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.  And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned” (Heb. 11:14-15).  It is not possible to be too heavenly minded to be any earthly good.  Jonathan Edwards said,

We ought to be continually growing in holiness; and in that respect coming nearer and nearer to heaven.  We should be endeavoring to come nearer to heaven, in being more heavenly; becoming more and more like the inhabitants of heaven, in respect of holiness and conformity to God; the knowledge of God and Christ; in clear views of the glory of God, the beauty of Christ, and the excellency of divine things, as we come nearer to the beatific vision.3

C.S. Lewis wrote, “Those who want Heaven most have served Earth best.  Those who love Man less than God do most for Man.”4  We are to be looking unto Jesus because He is the “author and finisher of our faith” (Heb. 12:2).  In a race, the starting line is often also the finishing line.  We start out at that point with energy, but we approach it at the end almost spent.  But if we will look at Jesus, Who endured His cross, we will finish our pilgrimage well.

We are to be holy as He is holy.

The premise for Peter’s first epistle is built on this proposition, “[Live] as obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance: but as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy” (1 Pet. 1:14-16).  In some cases we have the English word “conversation” as our politics (Phil. 1:27, 3:20).  Here, however, the word means our citizenship or deportment (anastrephō, to turn back, to settle).  While we are on this earth, we must be as He was when He was on this earth.  As short as we may come of that objective, it is the only worthwhile and justifiable goal.

There are those who cringe at the word holiness.  For them, it is too often used as a hammer to punish people who lack expectations.  But if we see our own unworthiness, and we realize the depth of our own sin, and how utterly hopeless we would be in our own effort, how wonderful the holiness of Jesus Christ becomes!  He is our righteousness.  He is our standing before a holy God, and not we ourselves.  We are pilgrims to that end.

Notes:
 
1. G.K. Chesterton, St. Thomas Aquinas (New York:  Image Books, 1956) 23.
2. Charles Wesley, “Arise My Soul Arise.”
3. Randall Pederson, Day by Day with Jonathan Edwards (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005) 348.
4. C.S. Lewis, Present Concerns (New York: HBJ, 1986) 80.
 

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

Our Bible Is The Word Of God (Part 2)

Written by Rick Shrader

Our Bible Is The Word Of God (Part 2)

by Rick Shrader

%%tb-image-alt-text%%

This is the second part of a two part article.

We have a preserved Bible

The doctrine of the preservation of Scripture has become controversial within Christianity especially among many conservatives.  While it is abundantly true that God has preserved His Word and that God’s people, in hundreds of languages, have the Word of God in their hands, some have limited preservation to one language group, even to one translation within that group.  Having grown up in the midst of that controversy, I have heard good and gracious men on both sides, and unkind men on both sides.  The wonderful preservation of the Bible should not divide us but rather unite all who name the name of Christ, in whatever language they may speak, and with any translation which faithfully translates those original languages into their own language.

McCune touches the real issue  when he says, “The work of preserving Scripture has been and basically is a providential, as opposed to a miraculous, work.”14  This has been a dividing issue within the doctrine of preservation.  If we have a perfect, errorless translation today then preservation would have to involve the miraculous.  If preservation, however, is a matter of God’s providential protection, using fallible men who make errors, then we cannot expect a perfect translation.  That is why the translators of the KJV wrote, “But the difference that appeareth between our translations, and our often correcting of them, is the thing that we are specially charged with.”15

The treatment of the preservation of our Bible is therefore partially negative and partially positive.  For those of us who still use the KJV, we must realize that it is not a perfect translation (indeed none are), but at the same time rejoice that God’s Word has been preserved in this and other faithful translations.  I will give five reasons why I think this view of preservation is correct.

1. Miraculous preservation  contradicts Biblical cessationism.  Most conservative Bible believing people believe that the miraculous gifts of the Spirit such as healing, tongues, prophecy, and infallibility, ceased when the New Testament was completed.  This has been our interpretation of passages such as 1 Cor. 13:8-13.  The revelatory and sign gifts ceased with the passing of the apostles including the miraculous inspiration of Scripture (see 2 Cor. 12:12).  This is why we do not allow charismatic gifts in our churches and also why we do not accept cultic claims that more/other Scripture has been written.  If we allow miraculous preservation beyond the completion of the New Testament, we have nothing to say to Mohammad or Joseph Smith when they claim to have received a miracle from God.

Jude said that the Faith was “once for all” delivered to the saints (Jude 2).  Like the Incarnation of the living Word, the written Word came once as well.  In Psalm 68:11 David wrote, “The Lord gave the word: great was the company of those that published it.”  God gave it through miraculous inspiration but it is published through men who are called “great” but not infallible.

2. Miraculous preservation obviously did not happen.  This is a fact with which all of us must grapple.  There is no perfectly preserved manuscript or translation of a manuscript.  That is, of the 5000+ New Testament manuscripts that exist, no two of them are exactly alike.  Of all of the English translations of the KJV or any other translation, no two editions of them are alike.  The documentation for this statement is abundant.  For example, D.A. Carson says, “no manuscript agrees perfectly with any other.”17  Daniel Wallace is referenced by Ed Glenny pointing out that the most similar manuscripts disagree six to ten times per chapter!18  No text family, including the TR, can claim unanimity either.  Even in the TR, no two manuscripts agree.

This forces us to ask some pertinent questions.  Did God miraculously preserve all the manuscripts with all their differences so that every one of them is perfect?  Yet how could even two things that differ both be perfect?  Did God preserve only one manuscript out of the 5000+ and it alone is the perfect one?  If so, no Bible is based on it.  And which one would that be?  Which one of the thousands of manuscripts that make up the TR is the perfect one?  This seems unlikely also.  In addition, did God preserve one English translation perfectly?  Again, which one would that be?  Even in 1611 there were two editions of the KJV and those differed in over 2000 places.19

It is not enough to say that such differences were printers’ errors and obvious mistakes.  To say that is to admit that God did NOT miraculously preserve manuscript or translation, and that we must practice textual criticism at any level of preservation.  What is also clear is that if any one of those manuscripts or translations is perfect, then nothing before it or after it was or is perfect since nothing before it or after it agrees with it in every detail.  Therefore, miraculous preservation cannot be sustained by the historical evidence.

3. Miraculous preservation is not presented in any Biblical text.  Does the Bible actually say that God will preserve His Word in a particular manuscript or translation?  It would not be hard to find the word “preserve” in a verse, but the question would be whether that verse is talking about miraculous preservation.  For example, Psalm 12:5-6 is often quoted because it mentions “the words of the Lord” and also the word “preserve.”  Yet it is begging the question to conclude that this verse proves miraculous preservation of the Bible.  It is actually promising preservation of the people of God as God’s Word has promised.  Matthew 24:35 says, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”  But does that mean miraculous preservation?  It is actually a promise to tribulation Jews that God’s covenants with them will not be rescinded in the midst of tribulation judgments.

Kutilek is right when he says, “A careful examination of the ‘proof texts’ set forth in support of perfect preservation in the KJV demonstrates that NONE of them is talking about the copying or translation process of transmitting Scripture.”20  This is where many believers choose to differ because we all have the right to interpret for ourselves.  But I have had to also consider this with the previous point and ask myself, if these verses promise a miraculous preservation, where is it?

4. Miraculous preservation is not the historic position of the church.  Although one may find a believer somewhere in history that held to miraculous preservation, it would be fair to conclude that such a position has escalated among a few in the late twentieth century.  My experience has been that some are uncomfortable unless their position is farther to the “right” than anyone else’s and this position seems to make one more conservative than others.  Perhaps this position seems to make one identified with the good fundamentalists at the turn of the century who fought against the liberals for the integrity of God’s Word.  But miraculous preservation is not what the early fundamentalists stood for.

The voices of fundamentalists have been quoted by a number of writers on this issue.  Rolland McCune concludes, “Historically, fundamentalists have held that the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible pertained to the autographs only,”21  There is an informative booklet published by Mount Calvary Baptist Church in Greenville, SC that quotes well-known fundamentalists and conservatives on this issue.22  Space does not permit me to quote each of these men but the list of 31 men includes John Smyth, John Owen, John Wesley, F.H.A. Scrivener,  C.H. Spurgeon, A.T. Pierson, D.L. Moody, F.B. Meyer, Alexander Maclaren, C.I. Scofield, Oswald Chambers, R.A. Torrey, G. Campbell Morgan, H.A. Ironside, Noel Smith, John R. Rice, Bob Jones, Sr., and Bob Jones, Jr.  Bob Jones, Jr., writes, “There are other good translations in the midst of all the bad ones.  Unfortunately, there are no perfect ones, including the Authorized Version, as evidenced by the many corrections and amendments that have been made through the years.”23

5. Providential preservation, however, is abundant in Scripture and history.  If we can understand the preservation of Scripture in the context of God’s providence, we can affirm and rejoice in the fact that God indeed has preserved His Word and that we can call our Bible the Word of God.  Through His control of history and people, God has seen to it that we can have confidence in proclaiming any good translation as the Word of God.

The Scripture does promise this kind of preservation.  Rolland McCune presents what he calls “sufficient preservation.”  In referring to Matthew 5:17-18 on the “jot” and “tittle” he writes, “Here the references to the ’smallest letter’ . . . are hyperbolic, indicating the inalterability and thus the continuing authority of God’s entire revelation. And, if this revelation has continuing authority, the implication is that the text will be sufficiently preserved so that it may continue to govern each generation of believers.24

In addition to Scriptural promises, the facts are clear that no other book even comes close to the reliability of the Biblical text, whether Hebrew, Greek, or English.  We can be more sure of what Jesus said than any other figure in history.  Geisler and Nix give this example:

Next to the New Testament, the Iliad has more extant manuscripts than any other book (543 papyri, 2 uncials, and 188 minuscules for a total of 643).  Like the Bible, it was considered sacred, and experienced textual changes and criticism of its Greek manuscripts.  While the New Testament has about 20,000 lines, the Iliad has about 15,000.  Only 40 lines (400 words) of the New Testament are in doubt, whereas 764 lines of the Iliad are in question.  Thus the 5% corruption of the Iliad stands against the less than 1% of the NT text.25

J. Gresham Machen, who loved and used the KJV, showed in his writings that it was not a perfect translation.26 Concerning the preservation of Scripture he went on to say,

No, my friends, these things did not come by chance.  God did these things.  He did not do them by a miracle.  But it was just as much God that did them as it would have been if He had done them by a miracle.  He did them by His use of the world that He had made and by His ordering of the lives of His creatures.  Very wonderfully and very graciously, according to our view of the Bible, has God provided for the preservation, from generation to generation, of His Holy Word.

What is the result for you, my friends?  The result is that you can take down your Authorized Version from the shelf, the version hallowed, for many of you, by many precious associations, and be very sure that it will give you good information about that which stood in the autographs of the Word of God.27

We have a translated Bible

Translation is the process of transferring the meaning of one language into another.  If the meaning is properly transferred into the second language, we may say that we have what the original writer intended to say and therefore have his words.  At Pentecost, when the people from 18 different countries heard the disciples speak, each in a different language, they replied, “we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God” (Acts 2:11).  They did not hear with the same letters, words, and syntax, but they heard the meaning in each language’s letters, words, and syntax.

The translators of the KJV wrote in their preface,

The very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession . . . Containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God: as the King’s speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King’s speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere.28

Our English versions, and all other language versions, are translations done by fallible men who do their best to transfer the meaning from the original languages into another language.  The original writing, done by the hand of original writers, is what was inspired.  That was the miracle of God which gave us the very Word of God without error.  Each translation is good in as far as the meaning of the original is transferred.  Therefore any translation that faithfully gives the meaning of the original writers is and should be called the Word of God.

In 1876 a Baptist pastor in New York named John Quincy Adams printed a book titled “Baptists Thorough Reformers.”  Spurgeon used the book as a text in his Pastor’s College.  Adams wrote, “Let it be remembered, that the Bible which we possess is a translation.  The words of our English version are invested with Divine authority, only so far as they express just what the original expresses.”29  Adams warned of a growing error in his day, “In England and America the English version, which is acknowledged to have many defects, is made the standard, instead of the original.”30

Conservative believers, especially Baptists, have always understood what a translation is.  It is not the original manuscript nor can it be.  Those were written under miraculous inspiration in original languages.  A translation is a human attempt to transfer the meaning, as best as fallible human beings can do, into languages that people now speak.  When this is done in a good and honest way we should rejoice that we have the Word of God in that language.

And So . . . .

The words of the great prince of preachers, C.H. Spurgeon, should suffice as a conclusion.

No Baptist should ever fear any honest attempt to produce the correct text, and an accurate interpretation of the Old and New Testaments.  For many years Baptists have insisted upon it that we ought to have the Word of God translated in the best possible manner, whether it would confirm certain religious opinions and practices, or work against them.  All we want is the exact mind of the Spirit, as far as we can get it.31

From the revelation to the inspiration to the preservation of God’s Word, God’s people can rejoice in the reliability of our translations.  No other book in the world has ever come close to the credibility of this Book.  No other book has been so studied, scrutinized, criticized, translated, printed, and read as the Bible.  You can hold high the translation you use and say, “thus saith the Lord.”

 

Notes:

14. Rolland McCune, 49.

15. The Translators To The Readers, The Bible, Authorized king James Version With Apocrypha (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997) lxiv.

16. This fact is noted in almost any book on textual matters.

17. D.A. Carson, The King James Version Debate (Grand Rapids:  Baker Books, 1979) 18, 26, 56, 119.

18. Roy Beacham & Kevin Bauder, Gen. Eds., One Bible Only? (Grand Rapids:  Kregel, 2001) 76.

19. Doug Kutilek,  ”The Error of Verbal Plenary Preservation,”  As I See It, 12:11.

20. Kutilek, Ibid.

21. Rolland McCune, “Doctrinal Non-Issues in Historic Fundamentalism,”  Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, Fall 1996, p. 171.

22. Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, infor@mountcalvarybaptist.org.

23. Ibid.  p. 11.

24. McCune, 51-52.

25. Geilser & Nix, p. 181.

26. Machen, p. 38.

27. Machen, p. 42-43.

28. Translators, Ibid.

29. John Quincy Adams, Baptists Thorough Reformers (New York:  Backus Book s, 1980) 129.

30. See chapter VIII on “The Establishment of the Correct Principle of Biblical Translation.”

31. Trusted Voices, p. 5, quoting the Metropolitan Tabernacle pulpit, vol. XXVII, pp. 342-343.

 

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

Our Bible Is The Word Of God (part 1)

Written by Rick Shrader

Our Bible Is The Word Of God (part 1)

by Rick Shrader

%%tb-image-alt-text%%

This world is no friend of grace and it is no friend of the Book that brings us grace.  As the centuries have come and gone it seems that all controversies over the Christian belief in God, in Christ, in salvation, eventually come back to the reliability of our Bible.  Surely such will be the case as we approach the end of the age.  Already we can feel the animosity and antipathy from the world when we speak of the Word of God, or speak as though we were speaking for God Himself, as Peter admonished us, “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God” (1 Peter 4:11).  The unbeliever chafes at the idea that someone might actually have the very Word and therefore the very authority of God to tell him of his soul’s destiny.

Many have said, in effect, that the Bible is something in which a child can wade and an elephant can swim.  Rabbi Eleazer’s words are often quoted,

If all the seas were of ink, and all ponds planted with reeds, if the sky and the earth were parchments and if all human beings practiced the art of writing—they would not exhaust the Torah I have learned, just as the Torah itself would not be diminished any more than the sea by the water removed by a paint brush dipped in it.1

Perhaps that was the inspiration for one of the most beautiful verses of hymnody,

Could we with ink the oceans fill,

and were the skies of parchment made;

Were every stalk on earth a quill,

and every man a scribe by trade;

To write the love of God above

would drain the ocean dry;

nor could the scroll contain the whole,

tho’ stretched from sky to sky.2

 

It is enough that we face all the forces of Satan in this world against the Bible without having to face disagreement and controversy from within Christianity.  We must first read the Bible.  Statistics abound which point to the fact that Christians who say they believe the Bible is the very Word of God spend precious little time reading it.  We must also believe it.  The present age demands that we have confidence in this Book as we face such critical unbelief.  We must also understand what we read and believe about this Book, that though it was given by inspiration once years ago, and though it has been handled by human hands over the centuries, it remains the Word of God spread over the whole globe, translated in scores of languages, and preached by faithful men in all cultures.

We have a revealed Bible

When we speak of biblical revelation we mean that God has made known to us things which we could not have otherwise known.  Paul makes it clear to the Corinthians,  “But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.  But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God” (1 Corinthians 2:9-10).  If God is the God of Whom the Bible speaks, then such revelation is not only possible but probable and necessary.

Revelation is usually divided into two areas:  general and special (or non-miraculous and miraculous).  General revelation refers to  how God has made Himself known in nature.  “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork” (Psalm 19:1); “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse” (Rom. 1:20). Though nature does not delineate the gospel of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ it does reveal enough about God to leave man without excuse.

A second area of general revelation is man’s conscience.  Conscience isn’t a complete revelation either, but it is God’s witness to us about things we should know.  “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:  Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another” (Rom. 2:14-15).

When speaking of Scripture, however, we usually speak of special or miraculous revelation.  We understand that God has revealed Himself to humans many times throughout history.  We only know some of what God spoke to Adam when they walked in the garden.  The same could be said for Enoch who walked with God, or any of the prophets who wrote some of the things they heard from God.  Miracles, dreams, visions, and the like were also various means of revelation, as the book of Hebrews begins, “God, who at various times and in different ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets” (Heb. 1:1, NKJV).

There were two magnificent and final ways in which God revealed Himself.  The writer of Hebrews continues to say, “but has in these last days spoken to us by His Son” (1:2).  The incarnation of God in the flesh in the person of Jesus Christ was the greatest revelation of God to man.  “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him” (John 1:18).  When the disciple Thomas asked Jesus to show him the Father Jesus answered, “Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?” (John 14:9).  This incarnation happened only once.  Jesus resurrected and ascended back into heaven with the same fleshly existence which He gained by His journey to earth.  His post-resurrection appearances only showed the truth of His incarnation.

The other great and final way God revealed Himself was through Scripture.  As we will see next, inspiration was also a one-time event, that is, though it was accomplished over a fifteen hundred year span, it is finished and no more inspiration has happened since John finished the book of Revelation.  This was indeed a miraculous revelation, as 1 Cor. 2:9-10 above shows.  To claim that God again opened the gift of inspired written revelation would be as serious an error as claiming that the Son of God was again incarnated.  Neither revelation had to happen twice for either one to be authoritative, final, and a powerful truth that transforms lives throughout the rest of history.  Jude called Scripture, “the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3).

We have an inspired Bible

Paul wrote,  “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:  That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim. 3:16-17).  The claim of having the only book in the history of the world that is completely without error and therefore completely truthful does not sit well with this postmodern, deconstructive culture.  Yet that is exactly what we do claim.  The miraculous writing of the Scriptures was as perfect in every detail as the incarnation of the Son of God.

It is common to use the words “plenary” and “verbal” to describe the process of inspiration.  “All Scripture” is inspired, the apostle said.  That is, it is “God-breathed.”  God made man a living soul when He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life” (Gen. 2:7).  “By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth” (Psa. 33:6).  So God created the Scripture when He breathed into them by His Holy Spirit the very words He wanted on the paper.  This process happened sixty-six times so that they were all, “plenarily,” inspired yet making up only one Book with inspiration extended to all its parts.  J. Gresham Machen described the process of various writers with various talents and vocabulary as many musicians blending their various instruments together into one great harmonious song.3

That the Bible was inspired in a plenary fashion speaks to its broadness.  The Bible was also inspired in a verbal fashion which speaks to its narrowness.  Verbal, of course, means pertaining to the very words.  The word “scripture “ comes from the word graphe, which means writing, or the marks on the page.  David declared that “the words of the LORD are pure words” (Psa. 12:6).  The mind of God could not be made clear to us merely by thoughts.  W.H. Griffith Thomas said, “Surely inspiration cannot mean an uninspired account of inspired thoughts.”4  He also quoted Abraham Kuyper as asking if we can have music without notes, or math without numbers?  Neither can we have a meaningful inspiration that does not pertain to the words.

This process of inspiration was for the purpose of giving us the Word of God.  When that process was complete the miracle of inspiration ceased.  That’s why Jude said it was “once for all” given to us (Jude 3), and why Paul called it a “perfect” thing (1 Cor. 13:8-13) which when it came, incomplete things would be finished.

Rolland McCune offers three reasons why inspiration pertained only to the original documents or autographs.  First, God’s direct involvement with the text was only with the originals, seen in various texts which state that God spoke by the mouth of a certain author (Acts 1:16; 4:25; 28:25).  Second, the Bible’s various warnings about adding or subtracting from the text “presuppose” that only the originals were guaranteed from error and not subsequent copies.  Third, there are warnings about corrupting the meaning of a text because that would not properly represent the text as originally written (Mk. 7:9; 2 Cor. 4:2; 3:5-6).  “Therefore,” McCune says, “to tamper with meaning one must corrupt the original revelation’s words, presupposing again the complete, uncorrupted state of the original.”5

We have a canonized Bible

When we say this we mean that the “canon” is complete, i.e., the number of books God intended to have in the Bible are all in the Bible and none others.  We can’t expect the unbelieving world to accept this concept either because it would take an unmistakable, providential work of God to put together such a book.  They would rather believe that the Bible was an invention of man from beginning to end.  To them, some men with an agenda made the Bible with these 66 books and eliminated books that would have contradicted their purpose.  To this end, every generation throughout the church age has resurrected this old canard in an attempt to discredit the Bible.  Dan Brown’s make-believe book, The Davinci Code, is built upon the theory that the doctrine of the deity of Jesus Christ was fabricated by the established church, and if they would have allowed other books into the Bible they would have to admit that Jesus had a child by Mary Magdalene who carried on the secret bloodline.  It is always interesting to see unbelievers opt for the most fantastic things so long as they don’t have to believe the Bible.

It is for the above reason that W.H. Griffith Thomas says, “The Bible is not an authorized collection of books, but a collection of authorized books.”6  He means that the canon was not made by men but was recognized by men to be from God.  This field has been studied, critiqued, investigated, attacked, and vindicated as much as any field of study.  Therefore, good men write about it from a variety of profitable ways.  Almost all speak of the tests that were applied to the Biblical books.  Ryrie uses authority, uniqueness, and acceptance by the church.7  Geisler and Nix ask, were the books authoritative, prophetic, authentic, and dynamic?8  Thomas says, “The basis of our acceptance of the New Testament is what is called in technical language, ‘Apostolicity’; because the books came either from Apostolic authors, or through Apostolic sanction.’  Our view of the Old Testament [also] corresponds to this.”9

We can also place the process of canonization into different stages.  The first stage would be the self-authentication stage, i.e., when the books were being written and recognized by the church.  Ryrie says, “The books were canonical the moment they were written.  It was not necessary to wait until various councils could examine the books to determine if they were acceptable or not.  Their canonicity was inherent within them, since they came from God.”10  That’s why Paul could begin the book of Galatians by saying, “Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead” (Gal. 1:1).

To Timothy Paul says, “For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn.  And, the laborer is worthy of his reward” (1 Tim. 5:18).  It is significant to note that Paul quotes Moses from Deut. 25:4 and also Jesus (and therefore Luke) from Luke 10:7.  Before the whole New Testament was even completely written, Paul calls the words of Jesus and the writing of Luke, “Scripture.”  In another example of self-authentication, Luke 11:51 says, “From the blood of Abel, unto the blood of Zechariah, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.”  The blood of Abel is recorded in the first book of the Old Testament (Genesis 4), and the blood of Zechariah is recorded in the last book of the (Jewish) Old Testament (2 Chronicles 24).  In this way Jesus was including all of our 39 books of the Old Testament in the canon.

The second stage of canonicity would be debating authentication, or the time after the first century when the church affirmed our 66 books to be the canon of the Bible.  Of this Ryrie says, “People and councils only recognized and acknowledged what is true because of the intrinsic inspiration of the books as they were written.  No Bible book became canonical by action of some church council.”11  This stage of the canon was complete by the council of Carthage in 397 A.D.  There seems to be no serious question about the canon after this time.

The third stage could be called ongoing authentication.  Throughout the history of the church, no other books have been able to lay any serious claim to authenticity.  From Carthage forward books were categorized as homologoumena (accepted by all); pseudepigrapha (rejected by all); antilegomena (disputed by some); and apocrypha (accepted by some).12  But in all of this, only our present canon remain as the 66 books of the Bible.

Geisler and Nix summarize by writing that “the vast majority of the New Testament books were never disputed from the beginning.  Of the books originally recognized as inspired but later questioned, all of them came to full and final acceptance by the universal church.”13

This article will be finished in the next issue as we talk about preservation, translation, and interpretation.

 

Notes:

1. I have this quote even from the French skeptic Jacques Derrida in his Grammatology (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997) p. 16.

2. Frederick M. Lehman, The Love of God, verse 3.

3. J. Gresham Machen, The Christian Faith in the Modern World (Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 1947) 53.

4. W.H. Griffith Thomas, How We Got Our Bible (Chicago:  Moody Press, 1926) 89.

5. Rolland McCune, A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity, vol. I (Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, 2008) 94-96.

6. Thomas, 25.

7. Charles Ryrie, Basic Theology (Wheaton:  Victor Books, 1987) chapter 15.

8. Norman Geisler & William Nix, From God To Us (Chicago:  Moody Press, 1974) chapter 6.

9. Thomas, 22-23.

10. Ryrie, 105.

11. Ryrie, 105.

12. See Geisler & Nix, chapter 10, for a thorough discussion of these terms.

13. Geisler & Nix, 125.

 

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles, Featured
Leave a Comment
Read More

The Second Coming of Christ

Written by Rick Shrader

The Second Coming of Christ

by Rick Shrader

As a sixteen year old boy, the thing that drew me back into church more than anything else was the study of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.  Jesus plainly said  to His disciples these words before He died,

 

 

             “Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.  In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you.  I go to prepare a place for you.  And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there you may be also”

(John 14:1-3).

Here was a reason, a cause if you will, that I could put my whole self into.  Not just that I was going to go to heaven when I died, or that Jesus was with me wherever I might go, but that the same person Who came to earth two thousand years ago was going to appear the second time, and that He would cause me immediately to rise to see Him, and be with Him forever more!  I might not make it through algebra class the next day.  I could be taken to see Him at any moment.  I’m sure I was a happy addition to the youth group.  I attended a public high school some forty miles away. I was highly involved there and well known through sports and other things.  But this was going to change my life.  I had been saved when I was eleven but our family, being so far from a good church, didn’t attend very much during my early teenage years.  For the last two years of high school, however, I would be a Christian on fire for God. 

I remember that I loved those line graphs that the Sunday School teacher would put on the board when explaining prophecy (this was a church of thousands and there were no youth pastors in those days).  Maybe that’s because I did much better in geometry than in algebra, but I still use those lines and graphs and charts whenever I have a surface to write on.  “Here is the cross, then a long space for the church age, then a reverse arrow for the rapture, then a double three and a half years for the tribulation, then the big arrow coming down to earth, followed by a large space for a thousand years.  At the very end is a chair-like thing which will represent the White Throne Judgment.”  I think I have reproduced that line graph a thousand times.

I found that the expectation of an imminent return of Christ will motivate the believer to worship (Heb. 10:25); to holiness (1 Jn. 3:3); to duty (1 Cor. 15:58); to ministry (2 Tim. 4:1-3); to consolation (1 Thes. 4:18); and to endurance (Rev. 3:11).  I also found that it encouraged me in witnessing to my high school friends.  There is nothing so attractive about our faith as an enthusiastic faith.  Imagine a teenager telling a friend at the lunch table not to worry if he disappeared before they were done eating!  “If I do, here is a tract that will tell you where I went.”

Of course, I was also in for various disappointments.  Not everyone else was as excited about the doctrine as I was.  Even my mother, the English teacher at the school, had to throw some cold water on my enthusiasm now and then.  This was in the sixties and teenagers were being pressured in many ways besides religion and morality.  My Catholic coach rolled his eyes when he found me sitting around the whirlpool with some other guys reading about Jonah and the whale.  He later became a good life-long friend.  I saw many of my classmates make professions of faith and soon realized that not all of them would follow through on those verbal commitments.  I had a hard time understanding that.

I remember many Bible conferences at our church by many well-known preachers, but I always loved the prophecy conferences best.  There seemed to be an excitement in those days about the coming of Christ that has waned a lot over the years.

Like many doctrines in the Bible, the truth about the Rapture does not appear all at once.  Revelation about it was given progressively through the first century as the New Testament was being written by inspired writers. 

The fact about the Father’s house

The words of Jesus the night before He died (John 14:1-3) were spoken about AD 32 and not written down until almost AD 90.  However, the apostles were the first hearers so they had first-hand knowledge of what was said.  The events revolving around the coming of Messiah and the resurrection of the dead were known from the Old Testament prophets.  What was new to the disciple’s ears was that He was going away and yet would come back to get them, that they could be where He was going. 

How many times have we quoted, “let not your hearts be troubled?”  Yet we seem to live a life of trouble and worry.  We are afraid the government won’t do right, or that the culture will get worse and worse, or that apostasy in the church will grow—all of which will happen the closer we get to the great promise of rapture.  Rather than being troubled, we ought to be expecting to see the Lord at any moment.

“Ye believe in God, believe also in me.”  What further proof of the deity of Jesus Christ do we need than that?  Who would say a thing like that who was not either crazy or truly equal to God?  “In my Father’s house are many mansions.”  Many good expositors understand “the Father’s house” to be the same as the New Jerusalem described in Revelation 21.1  John saw the city descending from God out of heaven, where it evidently had been dwelling.  If this four-square city is truly the Father’s house, which it seems to be, its approximate 6000 mile circumference would cover half of the United States, just for one city!  Plenty of room for “many mansions” regardless of how one may want to describe the “dwelling places.”  I’ve never tired of singing “I’ve got a mansion, just over the hilltop,” and precisely because the song is old and takes me back to a time of more direct application of the Scripture to prophetic things.

The promise is that Jesus will come again and receive His church to Himself and take us to the Father’s house.  No other detail of how and when was given at that time.  It would not be for another twenty years until Paul would receive further revelation.

Those who will go to the Father’s house

Paul was on his second missionary journey in the city of Corinth, recorded in Acts 18:1-17, when he would be inspired to write a letter to the Thessalonian church, about AD 52.  He had just been in Thessalonica for three weeks (Acts 17:1-9) and had taught them concerning the coming of Christ.  They seemed, however, to have a question.  When Christ comes to receive believers unto Himself, what will happen to those brethren who have died?  Will they miss it.  Will they be taken later?  The great passage in 1 Thes. 4:13-18 answers that question.

Paul uses the great euphemism that Jesus introduced at the grave of Lazarus:  “Our friend Lazarus sleepeth, but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep” (John 11:11).  Paul wrote, “But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep . . . Them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him . . . We which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent (lit. precede) them which are asleep.”  This is not some soul sleep as some have suggested.  No one who has died, saved or lost, is in an unconscious state.  The rich man died and was buried, “and in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments” (Luke 16:23).  On the other hand, for the believer, “to be absent from the body [is] to be present with the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:8).  This is the sleep of the body only, until at resurrection it is reunited with the spirit.  Paul said that the believers who have died already, would be resurrected just prior to when the living believers will be “caught up” and then they will all rise to meet the Lord in the air.  This is the clearest teaching on the Rapture to this point.

In verse 14, “Those who sleep in Jesus” is literally “through Jesus (dia).”  If you have died with previous faith in God through the Lord Jesus Christ, your body will rise at that time.  Then again, in verse 16, “the dead in Christ (en)” refers to the fact that all Christians from Pentecost to the Rapture are “in Christ” by virtue of Spirit Baptism and will rise as His bride.  “Shall rise first” (vs. 16) means literally “to stand up.”  Imagine being the lawn mower in the cemetery when the trumpet sounds!  But, actually, we find later in 1 Corinthians that all of this happens in the twinkling of an eye.

When will believers go to the Father’s house?

Paul remained in Corinth long enough to hear that the Thessalonians were being taught that they had already missed the Rapture.  He immediately wrote to them again, the book of Second Thessalonians.  It is amazing that there were those among the churches so early in its history who were pretending to write Scripture like the apostles.  In 2 Thes. 2:1-12 Paul tells them not to be shaken in their minds or troubled, “neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, that the day of Christ (lit. “the Lord”) is at hand” (vs. 2).  They had been taught that they were already in the tribulation period, that the “Day of the Lord” was “at hand” (lit. already begun). 

Paul had a quick and easy answer to their fears, “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition” (vs. 3).  The Day of the Lord cannot begin until two things (mentioned in this verse) happen first.  The first is the “falling away” or “apostasy.”  Pretribulationalists (I was a happy teenager when I learned I was one of these) take this to be one of two things.  Most take this to be a falling away from the faith in the latter days just prior to the coming of Christ (see 1 Tim. 4:1, 2 Tim. 3:1).  Very few would deny that such sinful days will come and most of us think we are seeing them already.  Some others take the  word “apostasy” to mean “a departure” which the word often means in Scripture.2  If this is the case, this is a definite reference to the rapture and an absolute proof for a pretribulational rapture.  I happen to agree with this but either view explained here maintains a pretribulational rapture. 

The second thing that will happen before the Day of the Lord begins is the revealing of the antichrist.  Daniel predicted that in Dan. 9:27, describing the tribulation period officially beginning when the antichrist signs a peace treaty with Israel.  There obviously was no such treaty signed in AD 52.  Israel was being scattered and the “Times of the Gentiles” were in full swing.

In vss. 6-7 Paul adds a third reason why the church cannot enter the tribulation period.  The Holy Spirit, the “Withholder,” will be taken out of the way before that time begins.  Of course, the Holy Spirit indwells the church and if the church is taken out, the Holy Spirit goes with her.  Myron Houghton sees this, and the following verses, as a restatement of the first two reasons (departure of the church and revealing of the antichrist).3 

The point of 2 Thes. 2:1-12 is that the rapture is imminent, meaning that it could happen at any moment.  The Tribulation Period is not imminent because these two (or three) things must happen before it begins.  This and one more important fact about the rapture was made known to the church a little later in Paul’s life.

How will believers go to the Father’s House?

Paul returned to Jerusalem after his second missionary journey but did not stay long.  He immediately left on his third and final journey spending over two years in Ephesus in about AD 54-55 (Acts 19:1-41).  The major challenge he faced on this journey was the trouble in the church at Corinth and Paul wrote two letters to them on this third journey.  Part of their trouble was their misunderstanding of the resurrection and Paul devoted a long chapter to that doctrine.  At the end of that chapter he turned his attention to the subject of the rapture (1 Cor. 15:51-58).

He began by writing, “Behold, I show you a mystery, we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed” (vs. 51).  This is a profound statement!  Jesus told us we would go to the Father’s house with him; Paul told the Thessalonians that the dead would go when the living go; and he told them that this must happen before the Tribulation Period; but now he also explains that “all” believers, dead or living, will be changed into an existence fit for the Father’s house.  This, Paul says, is a “mystery,” something true but not yet made known.  They knew what change resurrection entailed for deceased believers, but no one knew yet what change rapture entailed for the living believers. 

Since, “we shall not all sleep,” or die, before the rapture happens, living believers will be taken directly to the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, then on to heaven.  Now, I once jumped out of an airplane with a parachute, but that’s as high as I want to go without some supernatural help.  Paul said, “For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.”  The raptured saints will be “changed” exactly as the resurrected saints will be, so that we can all live in the Father’s house.  We will be there for seven years and then return with Christ to reign with Him for a thousand years.  It seems probable that the Father’s house, the New Jerusalem, will be above the earth during that time and accessible to those of us who are in incorruptible and immortal bodies.  In this way, death is truly “swallowed up in victory” and that victory is “through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

And So . . .

I have often heard or read of an old Civil War illustration that someone observed long ago.  In a snowy camp, some soldiers were sleeping, covered with a perfect blanket of white snow.  Others were walking around with snow on their head and shoulders.  Suddenly, a trumpet sounded and every soldier jumped into action.  Those who were sleeping quickly stood up with those who were on guard, while all shake off the snow and then run after their commander—A unique picture of the resurrection/rapture that will take place when the last trump sounds!

The word “sleep” comes from the word koima?from which we get our word “cemetery.”  A grave yard is like a dormitory with many sleepers.  When the morning bell sounds, all will have to rise.  Scripture explains that there is a first and second resurrection (Dan. 12:2).  “Marvel not at this for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice.  And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation” (John 5:28-29).  Only faith in the Lord Jesus Christ will make one qualified for the first resurrection.  And who knows, we could hear the shout and the trumpet before we even sleep!

“Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13).

 

   Jesus may come today, Glad day! Glad day!

   And I would see my Friend; Dangers and troubles would end,

If Jesus should come today.

 

 

Notes:
1. See J. Dwight Pentecost, Things To Come (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1969) 575. Also, John Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ (Chicago:  Moody Press, 1974) 312.
2. Such writers are E. Schuyler English, Leon Wood, Kenneth Wuest, Myron Houghton, J. Vernon McGee.  Dwight Pentecost says it is “possible” (Things To Come, 332) and John Walvoord says if true, it would “definitely place the rapture before the tribulation” (The Thessalonian Epistles, p. 119).  See my March, 2012 Aletheia article supporting this view.
3. Myron Houghton, “The Rapture in 2 Th. 2:1-10” in The Faith Pulpit, April, 2002.

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

Whatever Happened to Morality?

Written by Rick Shrader

Whatever Happened to Morality?

by Rick Shrader

The contemporary moral climate does not favor a faith as tough and fibrous as that taught by our Lord and His apostles.  Christ calls men to carry His cross; we call them to have fun in His name! He calls them to suffer; we call them to enjoy all the bourgeois comforts modern civilization affords!  He calls them to holiness; we call them to a cheap and tawdry happiness that would have been rejected with scorn by the least of the Stoic philosophers!1 (A.W. Tozer)

The frothy entertainment culture in which we live is a narcotic: not only is it addictive, so that we always want more; it also eats away at us, skewing our priorities, rotting our values as surely as too much sugar rots our teeth.2 (Carl Trueman)

How often have we all spoken, written, taught, or preached on the subject of morality over the last twenty years?  Yet it seems as if every year the subject becomes more needful and the current cultural malaise even more dire.  Nothing seems to shock us, surprise us, or even anger us.  Within the last week of this writing, four NFL players have been arrested for everything from murder to wife-beating.  On one news station a pastor and a pro-homosexual were debating and when the pastor mentioned that God has said that homosexuality is wrong, the other man said no one has a monopoly on God and that his god disagreed.  Around our country this week the American Atheists are erecting monuments next to the 10 commandment monuments stating that America was in no way founded upon Christian principles.  In a scene captured on a home video, a large man bursts into a home with a young child and her mother, punches the woman multiple times in the face, slams her to the floor, throws her down the basement steps, and then calmly proceeds to rob the house.  Meanwhile, a well-known rock singer and sex-symbol does a lewd dance for the king of a foreign country for a cool million dollars and no one even bats an eye.  And these things were news just this week!  No wonder most Christian parents feel that if they can just keep their kids free from sex and drugs until they’re 18, they have raised exceptional kids!  Sadly, maybe they have.

The church seems pretty good at pointing out the speck of immorality in the world’s eye while ignoring the beam of immorality in its own eye.  We have our cussing preachers, our rapping gospel singers, our tattooed professional athletes, our pants-on-the-ground teenagers, and reputation-in-the-world mega-pastors.  But in the church we have repentance and restoration of sinning and erring brethren because the church is a society within a society.  Regardless of what the world does, we can and should act Biblically.  That doesn’t mean we always do, but we should.  Sure, we have our times when we overlook too much or overreact too much, but that is not the norm.  Love is the norm.

I do not mean to diminish nor malign the brother or sister in Christ.  A true believer is and always will be a child of God.  And, in addition, a human being is a fellow creature made in the image and likeness of our God and we cannot easily speak positively of God and negatively of those made in His image (James 3:9).  But in the same parable of the speck and beam (Luke 6) the Lord Jesus said a good tree will bear good fruit and a corrupt tree will bear corrupt fruit.  An evil heart will bring forth evil treasure and a good heart good treasure.  “And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?”  (Luke 6:46).  Adrian Rogers used to say what goes down in the well of the heart will come up in the bucket of the mouth.  A judgment of thought and motive is presumptuous and wrong, but a judgment of immoral actions spilled out for all to see is only honest and necessary.  “All things that are reproved are made manifest by the light” (Eph. 5:13).

The word “moral” or “morals” is practically nonexistent in our English Bible.  The KJV does not have the word at all, The NASV uses it once in Job 11:15 as “moral defect” and twice in 2 Peter 1:5 as “moral excellence” where the KJV has “virtue.”  The NIV uses it once in James 1:21 as “moral filth.”  The ESV does not use the word.  This is interesting because Biblical words have a weightier effect on our everyday lives.  A word like “holiness” seems to retain its meaning whether used in a positive or negative sense.  I’ve not heard anyone say, “Don’t push your holiness on me,” but I hear “don’t push your morality on me” all the time.  The same thing has happened with the word “culture” which is not found in our English Bibles either.  That word has changed dramatically over the last fifty years.  We know we can’t love the “world” but it seems we have no problem loving the “culture” even though the two may be identical.

Morality has become a relativistic word.  A quick look at the history of Webster’s dictionary shows this.  Noah Webster, in his 1828 dictionary, which was basically his own writing, said that “the word moral is applicable to actions that are good or evil, virtuous or vicious, and has reference to the law of God as the standard by which their character is to be determined.”3  He also defines “moral law” as “the law of God which prescribes the moral or social duties, and prohibits the transgression of them.”  My Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary published in 1967 never uses the word “God” in the definition but only says “conformity to a standard.”  That “standard” could be anything anyone wants it to be.

In spite of all of that, I think people today basically know what we mean when we talk of morality.  They know it so well that to them it is a matter of someone judging them.  Well, that is correct.  An immoral thing is wrong and to say so is to make a proper judgment about it.  But our society has made the judgment itself the immoral thing, and the thing itself is only a cultural phenomenon.  Homosexuality is such an obvious sin in the Bible that only hermeneutical gymnastics could avoid it.  Yet homosexuality has become a “normal” lifestyle and speaking against it in any way has become the social sin of “judging.”  When Israel of old fell into this same moral contradiction, God told Isaiah to say, “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Isa. 5:20).

The Basis For Morality

We Christians are making a big assumption when we talk this way.  We understand, and we have been accustomed to society understanding, that we can call something immoral because God has said that it was immoral.  Whether we talk of God’s Word, the Bible, or talk of “the moral law,” we have understood that there is a God to whom we all have to answer.  At times we have even appealed to societal norms, for example, that our country has always believed in the traditional definition of the family (a man and a woman).  But this appeal to societal norm will come back to haunt us when the majority of society believes a different way.  It is hurting us now because a few amoral judges can usurp society’s wishes anyway.

Revelation from God will become the key issue (again) very soon.  We can say that a thing is moral or immoral because we can appeal to what we know God has said.  But when society no longer believes the Bible is God’s Word, there is no longer any certain way of saying what God thinks.  B.B. Warfield wrote often that there are only two kinds of religion in the world:  humanistic and revealed.  Christianity is a revealed religion and everything else was dreamed up in the heart and head of man.  This is why I believe that the next battle for the Bible will be theism vs. atheism.  Praise the Lord for those believing textual scholars who reinforce the historicity and reliability of the Scriptures.

During WWII C.S. Lewis gave theistic talks over the London radio which became the book “Mere Christianity.”  He started his lecture with the illustration of a man getting on a bus and beginning to sit in a seat.  Just as he does someone slips in before him.  The man turns around and says, “hey, that was my seat.”  From this example Lewis built his case that we all appeal to a moral law for right and wrong and that that moral law must eventually appeal back to the God Who originated it.  When we have no belief in God, we have no appeal to a moral law because it has no appeal to an Authority who can enforce it, that is, God.

The Weakness Of Morality

The Bible also teaches the fallen nature of human beings.  Theologians call it a lapsarian view, that man has lapsed, or fallen, into sin beginning with Adam and Eve in the garden.  The Fall, as we call it, separated human beings from their relationship to God and has brought upon them a depravity that reaches to all parts of their being.  Because of this, man, at his best, is still a condemned sinner awaiting God’s judgment.  Isaiah said that even our righteousnesses are as filthy rags in God’s eyes (Isa. 64:6).

Fallen man has gravitated gladly to modern teachings of evolution or historical revisionism because this removes the historical possibility of a real fall and therefore relieves man of real guilt.  Add to that a Star Wars view of the future and man no longer believes there is a real judgment coming.  Even some so-called believers are positing a view that a literal hell would be unworthy of a holy and just God.  Say what you will, but when we have removed a literal view of the Scriptures, especially regarding these things, the human nature feels free to behave the way it likes, and that way is not acceptable with God.

The age of grace is a conundrum to sinners.  Even Peter prophesied that the scoffers of the last days would credulously ask, “where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation” (2 Pet. 3:4).  How can there be a God who cares when He has not intervened into human affairs in the last two thousand years?  As the world gets worse and worse, and bad things continue to happen to good people, either God does not care or He is unable to do anything about it.  The conclusion has been to eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die!

But the age of grace is designed for man to be left with the Scriptures, the Holy Spirit’s conviction, and the historical fact of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  God will not miraculously intervene into the sinfulness of this world and open up the earth as He did in the wilderness when Korah and his followers rebelled and “went down alive into the pit, and the earth closed upon them” (Num. 16:33).  God is longsuffering because of the atonement for sin made by Jesus Christ (2 Pet. 3:9) and will wait until the end of this age and then judge the world severely for its unbelief and the immoral result of its actions.

The Triumph Of Morality

That coming judgment will be the triumph of morality.  Paul explained to the Thessalonians that in this age believers suffer at the hands of an unbelieving world, but this only confirms that judgment, when it comes, will be righteous.

“So that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God, for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that ye endure: which is a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer: seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you; and to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Thes. 1:4-8).

That is a New Testament passage, and there are many more that explain that severe judgment is still coming on unbelievers because their sin is not forgiven through faith in the cross-work of Jesus Christ.  Rather, sinners treasure up for themselves “wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; who will render to every man according to his deeds” (Rom. 2:5-6).

In addition to the triumph of morality at the judgment of God, Jesus Christ will usher in His kingdom that will last for a thousand years, the millennium, and will bring universal righteousness at last to the earth.  The promises, Old Testament and New Testament, will be literally fulfilled and morality will be the norm for the first time since Adam’s sin.  Zechariah says it will be so pervasive that, “In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses, HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD; and the pots in the LORD’s house shall be like the bowls before the altar” (Zech. 14:20).  Rather than now, when every billboard, every commercial, every advertisement, every program, song, movie, or video, is semi pornographic or worse, then every bell that rings will be dedicated to the holiness of God!

In the mean time, we can remember that the truth of God’s morality cannot change even in this age.  Marriage cannot change in God’ eyes; fornication cannot change in God’s eyes; the Word of God cannot change; and sin and the sin nature cannot change from what God has said that it is.  Man may redefine it, disbelieve it, curse it, or flaunt it in our faces, but truth will be truth with God, sin will be sin, and righteousness will be righteousness.

The Battle For Morality

For now we understand, like Paul, when he was almost stoned to death yet exhorted the believers in Lystra “to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God” (Acts 14:22).  Paul reminded the Roman believers that they were joint heirs with Christ, “if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together” (Rom. 8:17).  We are here on the earth, in this time, to earnestly contend for the faith (Jude 3).  It is enough to know that we are fighting a losing battle.  The world will not be converted and we will not bring in the kingdom of God by our own efforts.  It is ours to be faithful and to preach a gospel of deliverance for any individual who will believe to the saving of his/her soul.

The churches in the last days will, no doubt, have to address current issues in the country where believers live.  How much can we give unto Caesar before we have to stop and give the rest unto God?  How much social and political involvement can we do before we are merely wasting precious time for ministry?  How long can we maintain properties, exemptions, licenses, accreditations, and other requirements without bowing too far to earthly authority?4  But more important than all of those, how much can we continue loving this world more than heaven?  When will we become too earthly minded to be of any heavenly good?

And So . . .

When the maniac of Gadara was cleansed of his demons (Luke 8), the towns people were “afraid” when they saw him sitting and clothed and in his right mind (vs. 35).  The world is afraid of the power of righteousness.  Paul told the Philippians, “and in nothing [be] terrified by your adversaries: which is to them an evident token of perdition, but to you of salvation, and that of God” (Phil. 1:28).  God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power, and love, and a sound mind (2 Tim. 1:7).  We must always remember, “greater is he that is in you than he that is in the world” (1 John 4:4).

Notes:
1. A.W. Tozer, Mornings With Tozer (Camp Hill: Wing Spread Pub., 2008) reading for march 20th.
2. Carl Trueman, Reformation: yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow (Kindle Version) 111.
3. Noah Webster, American Dictionary of the English language , 1828 (Chesapeake, VA:  Foundation for American Christian Education, 1995).
4. I’m not being flippant, I am suggesting that the future may hold the necessity for some very tough decisions for local churches and other ministries in this country as well as others.  Paul called  the last days a “perilous time.”

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

There is One God

Written by Rick Shrader

There is One God

by Rick Shrader

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5)

This is such an age of conformity, unanimity, and ecumenical oneness that we can hardly speak of God except in all-inclusive terms.  If one were to express that he believes his God to be the only real or true God, and every other god to be false, he would be branded as narrow and hateful.  To a lesser degree, one can hardly say that his country is better than another or that his form of government is superior to another.  Surely we cannot say that our values (much less our moral standards) are better than someone else’s.  Of course, this is also why we are not allowed to criticize anyone for their actions.  We might actually be positing that there is an absolute truth to which all other notions are subordinate!  But we get to this eclectic, ecumenical quagmire by first eliminating God Himself.  If there is no God, the First Cause of everything, the One who has revealed Himself in truth and equity, then there is no final appeal to which we can judge or compare all else.

Christians in twenty-first century America are observing a unique time of change and redefinition by an atheistic, polytheistic, multi-cultural,  and perverse generation.  In this time we see Christianity under attack from almost all cultural voices, while other religions enjoy unprecedented amnesty from criticism or scrutiny.  Christianity, which teaches that the wheat and tares of belief and unbelief must grow together in this age and cannot be forcibly rooted out of society by church or government, receives the hubris and persecution by that same society.  Yet, Islam, which teaches that the tares of unbelief in their doctrine must be rooted out and even physically destroyed and at best kept as second-rate citizens, is given fawning protection and religious liberty that no other religion enjoys, even in this country of religious freedom.  Could it be that this is due to the simple threat of physical reprisal if society does not acquiesce?  No doubt.  Christianity will only preach to you of truth and peace.  Islam will attack you on the street and attempt to dismember you.  So to which will this culture bow?  It is all too obvious.  This began with my baby-boomer generation in the 60s when we threatened to burn buildings and destroy campuses if we did not get our way.  It worked.  And now that same compliant society is faced with even bigger and more savage threats.  If we didn’t have the stomach  for it then, we surely don’t now.

My objective, however, is not political but theological.  Was the apostle Paul correct in saying that there is only one God?  Our world today is insisting that Allah is the same as Jehovah, the Mormon God is the same as the Jewish God, the Watchtower God is the same as the Catholic God.  Our problem is that we have to figure out the approach that is right for us.  Some Christian apologists would even argue that all religions worship the same God but most do not know enough about Him to obtain salvation, and the Christian mission is to fill in the gaps and bring their religion up to speed.  Of course, there have always been those universalists who believe God loves all people to the extent that no one will be lost forever but that all will eventually find their way to heaven and the God they have always believed in.

The God of the Old Testament as well as the New has called all other worship of a deity idolatry.  The God of the Bible claims to be the only God.  The Bible clearly teaches that no one can come to the true God except through Jesus Christ, Who also claimed unequivocally to be God in the flesh.  The bottom line seems to be that either the universalist view is correct or the Christian view is correct, but not both.  The Christian God cannot also be the non-Christian’s God.

 

Paul’s Direct Statement

Why is Paul correct when he says that the God whom he is preaching is the only God?  Precisely because he also says, “and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time” (1 Tim. 2:5-6).  Only the Christian God is able to become a Mediator between Himself and sinful humanity.  Other Gods not only do not have this capability, they thrust upon mankind the false notion that salvation is up to them, not to God.

First, we should remember that the true God has revealed Himself solely in the Christian Scriptures, the Bible.  I understand that we will need to continually reaffirm our belief in the revelation and inspiration of Scripture, and that other religions can also claim that their holy books are really the true Word of God.  But Bibliology is not my task here either.  The textual criticism of two thousand (plus) years continues to affirm the reliability and uniqueness of the Christian Scriptures.  Second, Paul says that not only is there only one God, but there is also only one Mediator Who can sufficiently stand between a holy God and sinful humanity and bring both of them together.  This Mediator is both God and man, the “God our Savior” from verse three, as well as “the man Christ Jesus” of our text.  What Paul is saying is that only a God Who can be both is the true God.  That is, only the triune God of the Christian Scripture is the true God.  There must be God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit to be the true God.  This Mediator is “Christ Jesus” the God-man.  Only a Being Who is divine could be sinless Himself and qualify as our sinless Substitute.  And only someone Who is also fully human could take the sinner’s place and die for our sins and not for His own. 

Job, in his agony over his sinful condition, cried out to a holy God, “For he is not a man, as I am, that I should answer him, and we should come together in judgment.  Neither is there any daysman betwixt us, that might lay his hand upon us both” (Job 9:32-33).  The old word “daysman” is usually noted as “umpire” or a person that is on equal footing in behalf of both sides.  Paul’s word for mediator is mesites, a middle person, a go-between.  This is the same word that the Jewish translators of the Old Testament used in their (LXX) Greek translation of Job 9:33. 

Third, this one God Whom Paul extols, could give Himself a “ransom” for all.  Christ Jesus was a ransom, an antilutron, or “payment in the place of,” a Substitute for all sinful humanity.  Peter wrote, “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit” (1 Peter 3:18).   Only God is “just” and only a divine Substitute could pay the price for our sins.  Only the triune God of the Christian Scriptures is such a God.

 

Cultish Misstatements

One thing is true about the multi-cultural non-Christian gods; they are all alike in their ineptness to redeem sinful humanity.  But that is why they are all alike in their imagined reality.  They are all a figment of the sinner’s imagination because such a god does not really exist, as Paul said to the Corinthians, “For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many), but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him” (1 Cor. 8:5-6).  Paul did not see the pagan gods as uneducated forms of the true God, but as they truly are—no gods at all. 

There are some good examples  today of false gods.

The Muslim Allah.  Islam teaches that God is not a father and does not have a son.  To them, the trinity is pure polytheism.  They admire Jesus as they admire Mohammad, and even admit his virgin birth.  They deny He really died on the cross, and of course deny any atonement or resurrection.  I have read the Koran, and I was left asking the question, “where is the salvation?”  There is no Savior, no atonement for sin, no Substitute in my place.  One is left to himself to try to gain Allah’s favor by his own goodness.  No wonder such a religion cannot evangelize the world with a message of love and forgiveness, but rather must seek to conquer the world by human force. 

The Mormon Adam-god. Mormon theology is as confused as Joseph Smith’s Book of Mormon.  God was actually conceived as Adam who eventually became the god of this earth only, from a sexual union between Elohim and one of his many wives.  The trinity to Mormonism is tri-theistic and polytheistic.  Yet Mormonism itself is “henotheistic” i.e. one principle god among many who rule in other worlds.  Jesus was the first-begotten son of a physical union of Elohim and Mary, who then also became a god.  There is no redemption in Mormonism either.  It is a system of works both for the life here and for those who have died already.  I toured a new Mormon temple before it was dedicated and observed the three floors of progressive good works leading to the top celestial room, or the greatest glory.  There is no Mediator for the Mormon, only the hope of becoming a god himself and begetting many spirit children like God had done.

The Witnesses Jehovah.  To Jehovah’s Witnesses all other beliefs are part of pagan “Christendom” or “religionists.”  Though they say they believe the Bible, they alone have the right to interpret it and only then from their biased translation.  They insist on only one person, not three.  Jesus was created by God (thus and only God’s “Son”) and has existed in three forms.  First He was Michael the archangel, then became Christ at His birth, and lastly became the new Michael recreated by resurrection in a perfect manner.  In addition, there is no personal Holy Spirit, but only a “force” of God.  If you are faithful enough to be in the 144,000 at resurrection, you could become a perfect spirit as Jesus became at His resurrection.  Though a JW will always talk of faith in Christ, his faith must be coupled with faithfulness, and that faith is not in the God-Man, Jesus Christ.

The Catholic Mary-god.  The Catholic church is actually closer to Christian theology than what is normally called a cult.  They do profess the triune God in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  But though their theology proper is correct, their bibliology and soteriology precludes having only one Mediator between God and man, for rather than having “the man Christ Jesus” alone, they insist on having Mary, the mother of God and intercessor for the believer.  At the Council of Ephesus (431) Mary was declared to be the Mother of God (Theotokos) as well as the Mother of Christ (Christotokos).  In 1854, Pope Pius IX declared the doctrine of her immaculate conception, that Mary was free of original sin at her own conception.  In 1950, Pope Pius XII declared the doctrine of bodily assumption of Mary, that she could not see corruption in death but was resurrected bodily upon her death and ascended bodily into heaven. 

But beyond all of that, it was Bernard of Clairvaux (10th Cent) who declared that Mary was the Mediator between Christ and men, since Christ is also a Judge and men need help to be able to approach Him.  Though we may not disagree with Rome’s doctrine of the trinity, how can we believe in the one true God and His own mediation for us, and at the same time believe that there is another mediator between the man Christ Jesus and sinful men?  These contrary beliefs have come to Rome because of its belief that Tradition is equal to the Christian Scripture.  In that view, the Christian God must be defined by both sources of revelation. 

 

Practical Statements

All religions have their own hypocrites.  It would not be fair to judge any religion by those who do not follow its doctrines.  Biblical Christianity as seen in the Christian Scriptures has had as many hypocrites and heretics as any other religion.  But that is why we stress Sola Scriptura, or the Scriptures alone for our belief.  When the world judges Christianity, though this hardly ever happens, we would wish that they would judge it by what the Bible says, not always by how people try to live it. 

What many people call Christian growth is really only normal human growth.  After all, as any human being grows older, he/she becomes smarter, more experienced, more friendly, more helpful to others.  When this happens around the church we may mistakenly call it Christian growth.  It may actually be a hypocritical faith, a person only growing older, not growing in Christian graces.  At some point we will act surprised when he/she is at a total loss to express any Christian fruit, showing only the wisdom of the world rather than true Christian spirituality.

If we could observe at least one true follower of each of the world’s religions,  we may not be able to distinguish a major difference at first glance.  The Bible promises, however, that over time the believer in the true God, through the only Mediator, Jesus Christ, will show old things passing away and all things becoming new.  Yet, still the real difference between that true believer and the world’s religionists, is faith in God as the Bible describes Him through the Mediator as the Bible describes Him.  Any other faith is a faith in a false god.  It is a faith in a god that does not exist.  It will always produce a religion of human works rather than redemption through the grace of God.

 

And So . . . .

I should end this article the way Paul ended his statement to Timothy, “Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity” (1 Tim. 2:7).  Paul was insistent that this Christian message of the one true God and Mediator be proclaimed to all men.  Of the three descriptions of Paul, one is unique to him and a few other men of the first century, that is that he was an apostle.  This gift from Christ was given to those men specially selected by Christ to be witnesses of His resurrection.  They were men who also wrote the Christian Scriptures under inspiration and established our foundation for the church (Eph. 2:20). 

Paul was also a preacher and a teacher, two words used to describe the ongoing offices of church leadership.  It is essential that the Christian faith be preached around the world until Jesus comes.  A preacher is a heralder (kerux) of the truth.  He does this by preaching (keruss?) and the message (kerugma) that he preaches is that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, and that no man comes unto the Father except through Him (John 14:6).  The Word of God is the seed he sows and the field in which he sows is the world (Matthew 13:3-23).  Only some of the seed will fall into good ground.  Most of it will be unproductive.  The preacher cannot be discouraged because the world refuses the good seed of the gospel.  It is his job to sow it.

Paul also was a teacher in faith and verity (aletheia-truth!).  This faith of ours must be taught to saints and sinners alike.  Sometimes it takes a long process for the truth to sink into a sinner’s heart.  We also know it takes a life-time of study for the believer to mature in Christ.  With the Word of God, and the faithful preaching of its doctrines, and the constant teaching of its truths, we can be partners with God, Christ, the apostles, and the great saints, in proclaiming the one true God.

Jesus Thy blood and righteousness,

My beauty are, my glorious dress;

Midst flaming worlds, in these arrayed

With joy shall I lift up my head.

 

Bold shall I stand in Thy great day,

For who aught to my charge shall lay?

Fully absolved through these I am,

From sin and fear, from guilt and shame.

 

Lord, I believe Thy precious blood,

Which at the mercy seat of God,

Forever doth for sinners plead,

For me, e’en for my soul, was shed.

 

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

Not By Bread Alone

Written by Rick Shrader

Not By Bread Alone

by Rick Shrader

And when the tempter came to him, he said, if thou be the Son of God,

command that these stones be made bread. But he answered and said,

It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, 

but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”

                          Matthew 4:3-4

 

Do you know that feeling of intending to read a long way and then being struck by a single verse so that you stop and meditate on it a long time?  I had always dwelt on the statement of the Word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.  But this time I was struck by the fact that bread alone is not enough, it must be accompanied by that Word, that is, by God Himself and His will. 

The second and third temptations (I think Matthew’s is the actual order of the temptations) seem clearer in their presentation:  you don’t tempt God by insisting He must do something you have decided He must (catch me as I jump); and you don’t give Satan what he asks for (your soul for the kingdoms of the world).  But what’s wrong with bread when you’re hungry?  Isn’t a hunger for food something God has created in us?  Is it only because Satan has suggested it that it becomes wrong?  Partly so. 

We first have to see a bigger picture of what was going on that day in the wilderness.  This was an ordained meeting of Jesus, the Son of God, with Satan.  Verse one says He was led of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by him.  Here Jesus was beginning His ministry by giving notice to His enemy that He will surely crush his head.  He will not give an iota to Satan’s subtlety and thereby be disqualified as the Lamb of God that will take away the sins of the world. 

We should also realize that Jesus was fasting forty days, meeting Satan face to face, succeeding in every way, so that we don’t have to.  It was not just an example for us, it was the Second Adam doing what the first Adam failed to do, and what the rest of us have failed to do since.  If this were merely an example so that we could do as Jesus did and thereby be accepted by God, we would all be doomed.  In the first place, Jesus succeeded so that we don’t have to.  He becomes our Lord, not by our striving to be accepted by Him but by His being our great Substitute.  But in the second place, though we are accepted in the Beloved, we are also called to walk as He walked, and it is our stewardship to strive to do the same things however imperfectly.  Practical Lordship comes on this side of the cross.

 

The bread of this world

To exist by bread alone is to exist without God.  This is how the world exists.  Some poor man may exist just to find his next meal, or a glutton may spend his day fulfilling every cry of his body for food.  A rich and cultured man may sit every evening to the finest cuisine and eat the perfect amount of the best foods, yet Jesus said a man, any man, can’t live by bread alone.

We should always be cautious when bread is offered to us either from the world, the flesh, or the devil.  There are always strings attached that make the eating of it unsavory.  The world has many things it sees as necessary to the body and justifies the using of them by pointing out that God made us with these desires.  It is this independent spirit that we are not to love (John 2:15) and about which the Lord here warns us.  James also warned that we sin when we are drawn away of our own lusts and enticed (James 1:14).  The animal world lives by such instincts.  Whatever it wants it takes in any way necessary.  The devil offered Eve what seemed necessary to her.  Perhaps it is this tragedy that bread alone most pictures.  The fact is that there are many things in this world like bread to which we must not give ourselves without God.

Food.  Adam was told, even after he sinned, that he would eat bread by sweat and hard work (Gen. 3:19).  The priests were to look at their bread (i.e. food) as “the bread of their God” (Lev. 21:6, 8, 17, 21-22).  Jesus made bread for the 5000 and then the 4000 and made bread part of the very ordinance of the church.  I am sitting here eating a snack and drinking a diet Coke as I write these lines.  Is anything wrong with that?  Well, Paul said that “every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer” (1 Tim. 4:4-5).  Paul also told the pagans in Lystra that God “did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness” (Acts 14:17).  To eat without recognition of God as the Source of all food and sustenance is to eat bread alone and not by what proceeds out of the Source Who is God.

Sexual reality.  Is there any doubt that this physical need of the body is the world’s number one sin against God and His Word?  Though God made us with this capability, it can be the most powerful temptation against the will of God in this world.  Just ask David, a man after God’s own heart, who sang the psalms of praise to God, when he allowed this urge to go unchecked by God’s will, and was overcome in a second and driven even further to the sin of murder.  To live by this physical desire or need alone is not to live at all.  Any poor harlot, thinking at first that this was just a neutral activity necessary in order to make ends meet, knows this is not living. 

We all know that it is the “marriage bed” that is undefiled (Heb. 13:4) but sex out of marriage is always wrong, even the lustful thought of it is always wrong (Matt. 5:28).  Polls tell us that as high as 50% of Christian teens engage in sexual activity out of marriage but I have to doubt that a believer can continue in such a sin without remorse and sorrowful repentance (see 2 Cor. 7:9-11).  Even the unbeliever, by a God-made conscience, cannot live by this “bread” alone.

Sleep.  Now, as the lady told the preacher, I’ve stopped preaching and started meddling!  No, even a necessary and blessed thing such as sleep cannot be done “alone” or without being informed by God and His Word.  The first sleep that a human being ever took was Adam’s while still in the garden (Gen. 2:21).  And someone said that when he awoke he had bigger problems than before he went to sleep!  But actually, of course, God-given sleep always brings blessing precisely because it is done according to every Word that proceeds from God’s mouth. 

God warns us against the sluggard because such a one ought to be awake and doing something productive at that time rather than sleeping.  The disciples could not watch with Jesus for one more hour in the garden when His very life was at stake.  The cherubim that guard the throne of God rest not day and night (Rev. 4:8) but rather continue their “holy, holy, holy” without sleep or rest.  How well we all know that the untimely urge to sleep in church is the enemy of worship.  How we all know also that the urge to sleep is the enemy of our prayers and Bible reading and other service to God.  The believer especially, with this bodily appetite, left “alone,” cannot live such a life.

Entertainment.  God has given us many things to enjoy or to be entertained with in this world.  Sadly, our generation usually thinks of cheap forms of enjoyment found only in the neon glitter of man-made kitsch.  Entertainment can be only a narcotic to somehow make it through another day.  No wonder some sink into the couch with a remote in one hand and a drink in the other, or lose themselves at the arcade, the mall, or the ball game.  As with the other things we’ve mentioned, these are not wrong when used in the light of God and His Word, but when used “alone” they cause us to find our enjoyment and fulfillment of life in ourselves and a worldly culture which is selfishness and sin.  This is why the believer is admonished, “And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men” (Col. 3:23).

Work.  Man is made by God to work!  Adam was commanded to keep the garden, which he did with joyful obedience to God.  Even after he fell he was to work, though in the sweat of his face and among the thorns of the ground.  Paul said that the believer is to “Study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we have commanded you” (1 Thes. 4:11).  The believer is to be “working with his own hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth” (Eph. 4:28).  As with many human activities, work is good and produces good fruit. 

Yet this good thing can be used for selfish reasons and to fill our own barns without regard to our own souls (Luke 12:18).  The workaholic does it for the love of money which is the root of all kinds of evil, “which, while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows” (1 Tim. 6:10).  Life cannot be lived for work “alone” but must be done to glorify God Who made us to work. 

Talk.  God made us verbal creatures.  In fact, God saw fit to walk and talk with Adam, evidently every evening in the “cool of the day” (Gen. 3:8).  In this way instruction was given and God’s will was made known to His creatures.  When the disciples were perplexed about the death of Christ, Jesus walked and talked with two of them on the Emmaus road that Sunday afternoon.  They said, “Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the Scriptures” (Luke 24:32).  Paul talked to the church at Troas until midnight (Acts 20:7).  There is no greater joy for the Christian than to talk of heavenly and Godly things.  This is why we were given this great gift, even to the preaching or heralding of the gospel. 

Yet, Paul had to warn Titus that on his island of Crete there were “many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers . . . Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake” (Titus 1:10-11).  It is appropriate that when Jesus told of a Pharisee who made an open show of his speaking ability said, “the Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself” (Luke 18:11).  Man cannot live by talk “alone” either.  By our speech we can praise or blaspheme our Creator; we can tell the truth or we can lie; we can cry out, “God be merciful to me a sinner” or we can justify ourselves. 

Life itself.  Man cannot live by this earthly life alone.  Even his own life, his very soul, must also be lived by every Word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.  The sinner is “dead in trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1) and has no life without life from God with which He “quickens us” (Eph. 2:5).  The natural life all people have is an earthly, soulish (psyche) life.  The life God gives is a higher life (zoe).  “The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [Christ] was made a quickening spirit” (1 Cor. 15:45).  “Quickening spirit” literally means “a life-giving spirit,” a zoe giving spirit. 

Man cannot live by “life” (psyche) alone either.  He must be truly made alive by the life (zoe) that only comes by regeneration from the Spirit of God.  He must be born again.  As with all of these things we have mentioned, life on this earth is only temporary.  One may live a temporary life by bread alone, or by earthly pleasures alone, though never knowing the fuller life God intended.  But human beings are eternal creatures and must live beyond this world, in a heaven with God, or in a hell without God and without hope.  You cannot live in heaven by the bread of this world, but only by every Word that proceeds out of the mouth of God your Creator. 

 

And So . . .

When we know Christ as Savior, we truly do not eat our bread “alone.”  We have learned in every thing to give thanks “for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you” (1 Thes. 5:18).  We even pray “that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.  For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior” (1 Tim. 2:3-4). 

As believers we have learned to live within the boundaries that God has graciously made for us.  His Word is a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path (Psa. 119:105).  To live a temporary life by temporary bread alone is to miss the abundant life God has given to His children.  The Word that proceeds out of the mouth of God is a precious Word that does not confine us, but opens to us a beautiful and fulfilling world both here and hereafter.

We have learned to eat our bread to the glory and praise of God.  “And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him” (Col. 3:17).  Even if we are ridiculed as being too “holy” or “religious,” Peter wrote, “If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the Spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you; on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified” (1 Peter 5:14).

We have learned that eating our bread with God’s Word and in God’s will, brings the power of God to our lives for all that is asked of us.  “For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind” (2 Tim. 1:7).  With Him, we can do all things through God Who strengthens us (Phil. 4:13).  “Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us” (Rom. 8:37).

 

And Also . . .

Where would we be if Jesus had made stones into bread that day?  He was hungry, having fasted for so long, and after Satan left the angels came and ministered to Him anyway.  Notwithstanding the impeccability of Jesus Christ, had Jesus sinned in simply making bread when He was hungry from the wrong motive and authority, we would not have a sinless Savior Who could die in our place, the Just for the unjust, to bring us to God (1 Peter 3:18).  We would still be without hope and without God in the world (Eph. 2:12).  No wonder Paul rejoiced when he wrote, “Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift” (2 Cor. 9:15).

My dear Redeemer and my Lord,

I read my duty in thy word;

But in thy life the law appears,

Drawn out in living characters.

 

Such was thy truth, and such thy zeal,

Such def’rence to thy Father’s will,

Such love, and meekness so divine,

I would transcribe and make them mine.

 

Cold mountains and the midnight air

Witness’d the fervor of thy prayer;

The desert thy temptations knew,

Thy conflict, and thy victory too.

 

Be thou my pattern; make me bear

More of thy gracious image here;

Then God the Judge shall own my name

Amongst the followers of the Lamb.

   

     The Example of Christ, Hymn 139

      Isaac Watts

 

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

What’s In A Name? Why We Should Retain

Written by Matt Shrader

What’s In A Name? Why We Should Retain the Name Baptist (Part 2)

by Matt Shrader

             This article will appear in two parts.  The first part was written by Rick Shrader, president of Aletheia Baptist Ministries.  The second part is written by Matt Shrader, Educational Consultant at Aletheia Baptist Ministries.

Part II

Because this article carries on with the theme from the previous article, I do not get the enjoyment of providing a title for this essay. But if I did…I would name it something along the lines of: “A Plea for Wardrobes, Lampposts and other Enigmas.”In C. S. Lewis’ famous children’s books The Chronicles of Narnia we are introduced to much of Lewis’ sanctified imagination. Most people have not read all seven books from this series. If you have read one (or seen any of the movies), it is probably The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. In this book two particular items stick in the mind’s eye: the wardrobe in the spare room and the lamppost in the woods. They are clouded with mystery and enchantment. The wardrobe leads the Pevensie children from the drab mansion in the countryside to the wonderful woods of Narnia. The lamppost provides light in the middle of the woods seemingly without any outside energy source. The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe does not bother to reiterate from where these came and to what their magical qualities point. Imagination compels readers to try their own wardrobes for secret passageways and causes readers to look at most lampposts with a bit of wonder.Oftentimes there are certain things that seem mysterious and sometimes unneeded (what good does a lamppost do in a random part of the woods?). Are such mysteries worthwhile? Can we do without them? Of course for the person who has read all the books, the wardrobe and the lamppost did not pop into existence out of thin air. The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe was the second book in the series. The first book, The Magician’s Nephew, provides the narrative by which we understand both the lamppost and the wardrobe to have significance in that they point to the awesome creative power of Aslan. The absence of the meaning behind the wardrobe and the lamppost is of consequence. Maybe not earth-shattering, but still important.Often times we see certain markers that are not fully understood and we may pass over them as if they are inconsequential or they are even hindrances. Perhaps the memorial stones of Joshua 4 were seen in a similar light? The “plea” that I made reference to is really concerning attitude. More specifically, attitude toward history. I would argue here for conservatism over progressivism. At its heart, conservatism is the idea to prolong something as long as possible with the understanding that we owe much to the past and to the future along with the present. I see keeping the Baptist name on Baptist churches as consequential because it is trying to preserve certain ideas for as long as possible because we owe something to the past that struggled with these ideas and we owe it to the future to pass on a worthwhile legacy.

Ideas, of course, are much more important than the name attached to them. However, I will argue that downplaying the name often downplays the idea, especially in certain contexts, be they cultural, historical, or theological. I also want to be careful that my concern for history is not just a romanticized sentimentalism that sees the past as the longed-for-pristine-environment needed in the present. I rather want a critical appropriation. Paul Hartog succinctly summarizes my point: “Those who are self-consciously indebted to the early traditions without naively romanticizing them often demonstrate an ideal mix of sympathy and critique.”1

The main points of this article will show why I believe the Baptist name is worth keeping. Several objections will be mentioned throughout and in closing that can be answered by considering the main points.

 

The “Baptist” Argument:

There is a recognizable Baptist identity that is important and needed, and fellowship at a local church needs unity on certain issues. “Baptist” as a label refers to a certain understanding of doctrines related to a certain denomination. These doctrines are important in that they create a boundary by which fellowship at a local church is enjoyed. Agreement or disagreement with each doctrine has consequence upon whether full fellowship in a church can be enjoyed. Let me list the basic ideas of Baptist ecclesiology:

Biblical authority and New Testament priority; believer’s baptism by immersion; regenerate and baptized church membership; soul competency seen in the priesthood of the believer and individual soul liberty; congregational government, local church autonomy, and the offices of pastor and deacon; and the separation of church and state.2

“Baptist” on a church name signifies these important church doctrines, or at least it should. It labels what happens at that church. It performs a great service. Disagreement over the subject and mode of baptism is important and these are proper issues to consider when joining a church. Disagreement with one or all of these church doctrines does not equal denial of the gospel. Though, disagreement over Baptist ecclesiology will affect whether full local church fellowship with someone is possible.

It is not hard to find examples of people or churches who use the name Baptist and have no intention of agreeing with Baptist doctrine. However, I do not think that the exception disproves the fact that there is a clearly identifiable Baptist theology. Also, taking the Baptist name out does not mean that someone disagrees with Baptist doctrine. I can understand that as well. But it does make me wonder about one’s attitude toward several other issues, which are the remaining points.

The “Theology” Argument:

Theology is important and we downplay it at quite a risk. One’s view of church polity is important. One’s view of comprehensive theological systems (covenant or dispensational theology) is important. One’s view of Jesus’ deity is important. One’s view of inspiration is important. One’s view of the authorship of Ephesians is important. All these are important, but they are not all important in the same way. We must recognize that there are levels of doctrinal  importance. But, each doctrine we have has importance at its own level.

When someone takes Baptist out of the church name, it makes me wonder what view he may have toward the importance of certain doctrines. In matters of salvation, the doctrines of the gospel are going to be important. In the local church setting, the doctrines of the church are going to be important along with the doctrines having to do with the gospel. To remove the denominational name communicates to me a few things about one’s stance toward church doctrine. For one, the church may no longer be Baptist. Of course a church is free to do that. Or, the church may subscribe to non-denominationalism (which is its own kind of denominationalism). To be purposefully non-denominational is making a theological statement and does downplay the doctrines of the church (I will say more about this below).

When the name is removed, I assume there is a reason for doing so. Whatever the reason is, it communicates to me a certain view of doctrines, especially “churchly” doctrines (those having to do with the church).

Again, the ideas are more important than having the name. Some take the Baptist name out to prove that point, though they remain “Baptistic.” Is that shame of being Baptist? No, I actually do not think so. Is that because Baptist theology is misunderstood? Yes, quite often, but surely we can be patient and explain what we are. To argue that ideas are more important than names (I agree) and then to remove the Baptist name and claim that such a move somehow reinforces the idea does not understand that in the evangelical culture of the last sixty years removing denominational names has almost always meant exactly the opposite. Plus, it has insinuated a certain view of how a Christian ought to relate to culture with which I do not agree. Such a move by the church makes a cultural statement, let me explain:

The “Cultural” Argument:

Omitting the name can make the statement that a church is not Baptist and it can make the statement that a church does not see certain doctrines as worthy of disallowing church fellowship. Similarly, getting rid of the Baptist name makes a cultural statement. Actually, it makes cultural statements. It makes a statement in the evangelical culture we currently live in and it makes a statement about a church’s attitude toward broader culture.

Evangelicalism re-made a name for itself in the middle of the 20th century through its emphasis on interdenominational cooperation. This type of cooperation was not invented by those evangelicals, but it was given a new  emphasis and thus a new problem. They emphasized the need to cooperate across denominational lines and to avoid unnecessary separation in order to do so. One problem this spawned was that of not emphasizing certain doctrines, especially ecclesiastical ones. Carl Trueman, commenting on the death and significance of Carl Henry, 1913-2003 (who was the frontrunner for this new-evangelicalism), writes:

The problem of interdenominational, popular-front evangelicalism is that, by its very nature, it serves to relativize significant theological distinctives and thus, ironically, to weaken the theological dimension of evangelical Christian identity. It is, in a sense, always doomed to be sub-Christian because it forecloses the debate on many of those things that are important to Christian orthodoxy.3

Trueman, who is also grateful for the new-evangelical enterprise, goes on to explain that the problem is the downplaying of churchly doctrine.

Taking out the Baptism name does not mean that one agrees mutatis mutandi with interdenominationalism. However, it is hard to see how there is not at least some identification (or acceptance) with the evangelical culture of the last 70 years; and, by extension, its interdenominationalism and downplaying of churchly doctrine. It is making a certain statement in the evangelical culture we live in. These Baptist church doctrines are specifically those that were mentioned above in the “Baptist” section; and, as Trueman (who is a Presbyterian) noted, such churchly doctrines are important for the life of the church.

Another argument is that taking the Baptist name out of a church can make a statement concerning broader culture and the church’s relationship to it. If someone is taking the name out because they are worried someone outside the church is offended by or misunderstands what the name means, then they are saying that someone outside the church determines how we identify ourselves as a church. That kind of cultural acquiescence makes me uncomfortable. It reminds me of the seeker-sensitive emphasis of Rick Warren, and merits a question: How much should those outside the church determine what we do inside the church? I would say not much, especially (and this is the issue at play with the Baptist name) if the issue is how a church identifies itself or how a church worships. Such activity is questionable.

Taking the Baptist name out often does makes cultural statements, and some are those with which I am uncomfortable.

The “Historical” Argument:

I made this point in the introduction, but I will repeat it here and add another. Church history and church tradition mean something and to discard them also means something.  The whole idea of “tradition” and “confessional” Christianity is largely misunderstood. Quite simply, I would say every church has its own tradition and its own confessional history it holds their people to.

The church looks to its past in order to see how others (who were also indwelt by the Holy Spirit) faced similar issues. We all recognize that the church of today needs to find agreement with its past, in some measure, in order to be properly Christian. A critical appropriation or dismissal of history is important. Likewise, an uncritical appropriation or dismissal is dangerous.

Discarding church history and tradition, even removing the Baptist name, argues that some part of that history and tradition is no longer needed and such action should not be done without due consideration. That is why this essay asks why we still need the Baptist name. I have argued that Baptist theology still means something very important. I have argued that removing the name makes me wonder about the church’s stance toward theology and culture.

Another argument I want to make in this section is that it is good to have history and to identify with the parts of that history with which you agree and which you find important.

History and tradition become  great tools to us. There is no need to constantly reinvent the wheel (unless the wheel becomes worthless). As the church has aged, it has experienced practical dilemmas that needed theological answers. The word Trinity is not found in the Bible, though the ideas are. At a certain point in church history, those ideas were under attack and church tradition gave us the doctrine of the Trinity. We agree with the doctrine of the Trinity through our exercise of critical appropriation. Likewise, as a Baptist, I agree with the doctrines of Baptist identity. Therefore, I hold to the word Baptist. And, since it is a set of churchly doctrines, and has consistently been understood as such, I attach it to the name of my church. Unless the Baptist ideas are of no consequence or need not be fought over any more, I cannot discard them if I agree with them.

Identifying with our past is not only good because it publically states what we believe, but also because it does a great practical service to the life of the church by creating theological standards of agreement by which our church functions in its day to day life. We are stating what we believe is acceptable and not acceptable in the church. Identification with a “churchly” history (in my case: Baptist) is important for at least these reasons: it gives ecclesiological roots, theological definition, and practical boundaries. The next section will talk more about the boundaries.

The “Fellowship” Argument:

This is really the “fundamentalist” argument. But, because fundamentalism and its ideas are usually misunderstood, I will focus on the central idea of fundamentalism as I understand it.

When we are asking about the Baptist name, we are asking about how a specific church intends to identify itself. We are asking a local church question. Every local church performs certain functions which are necessary for any church. For the church to function correctly, doctrines at the boundaries of church identity are important. These boundary doctrines provide the  essential elements of agreement by which “local church fellowship” is attained. To have meaningful church fellowship, surely we have to agree on what baptism means, what the communion means, who is a member, what a member can and cannot do, and agreement on the other “churchly” ideas. The local church is to desire as much unity and fellowship as possible and that can only happen when local church doctrines are agreed upon. Agreeing upon Baptist theology and identifying with it provides a ready made practical boundary by which to attain unity and fellowship.

The fundamentalist idea mentioned is that there are different types of fellowship and different levels of doctrinal importance. Depending on what kind of fellowship we desire, we must have a corresponding level of doctrinal agreement. This is because fellowship is a function of unity. 

If we desire the most basic kind of Christian fellowship, we must agree simply on the doctrines of the gospel. These would include sinfulness, the reality of judgment and penalty for sin, the substitutionary atonement of Christ, and the deity of Christ. Another type of fellowship is organizational or quasi-organizational fellowship. If cooperation is desired, we must decide what kind of fellowship we want. A missions organization will desire more doctrinal agreement than only the doctrines of the gospel. A Bible college and seminary will also. The question becomes how much doctrinal agreement those who fellowship together in those organizations want to require. This will be answered by determining the type of fellowship they want or need to fulfill their purposes.

Another type of fellowship would be local church fellowship. To have local church fellowship we must have unity on those doctrines which pertain to the definition, purpose, and activities of the local church. For a Baptist, these would certainly include those Baptist distinctives mentioned already.

Having the Baptist name affirms certain doctrines which are necessary to define the proper doctrinal boundary for church membership and fellowship. As I have said already, when the name is removed I wonder if these churchly doctrines are being downplayed. The point of this section is to say that when churchly doctrines are downplayed the result is that the kind of fellowship within that church is reduced because less unity is needed, and specifically, less unity on issues that fellow church members should be united around. To me, removing the Baptist name makes theological, historical, and cultural statements concerning the things that a church wants to unite around. This produces a certain kind of fellowship, but not full local church fellowship.

Objections and Conclusion:

Here are some further common objections or arguments for removing the name:

Some argue that the New Testament churches simply put the name of the city on their title. This argument is countered by the historical argument and the need for doctrinal clarity and refinement as history has progressed.

One objection to my viewpoint says that I have made denominationalism more important than the Bible. This objection could only be correct if I had no argument at all but just wanted to keep the Baptist name. Theology is important, and church theology is important for the life of the local church. This is not putting the Bible in subjection to denominationalism. It is asserting that the Bible communicates meaning for our praxis. Plus, this objection reveals a serious historical naïveté.

In the end, having the Baptist name is not necessary (!?!?). In the right circumstances I would not have a problem not identifying as a Baptist. But I have a hard time imagining that such days are nigh at hand. If taking the name avoided the problems that I have with such a move, then I could do it. But that would demand a climate when doctrines of the church, theology in general, cultural statements, historical appropriations, and local church fellowship are all understood in vastly different ways. Perhaps the theological, cultural, ecclesiological, historical, and political environments could all change and produce such a climate. Today, I find no compelling reason to remove the name. Meanwhile, I do find compelling reasons to keep .

G. K. Chesterton was once asked by the London Times to submit an essay on the topic: What’s wrong with the world? Chesterton wrote back: “Dear Sirs, I am. Sincerely yours, G. K. Chesterton.” Such a short answer to a good question, though accurate and witty, of course makes more implications than actual statements. Chesterton made this short statement, but he also wrote a book-length discussion of the issue entitled: What’s Wrong with the World. I have answered the question: why keep the Baptist name? I feel like I have given the short answer. It may not have the wit of Chesterton, but I hold that the points made are as serious and tenable as his short answer. A longer answer is certainly possible, though this is not the venue.

Good questions deserve good answers. Short answers (when given seriously) to good questions ask for patience to understand their full implications. The Baptist name is often discarded because someone sees more value in removing it than in keeping it, and often no value is found in the name. I mentioned in the beginning that I am concerned about the attitude that such a response reveals. It is an attitude toward history, theology, culture, church fellowship, and the importance of Baptist theology. Reactionary responses, refusals to understand reasons why something is there, and pot shots are best replaced by patience, generosity, and understanding. In controversy I will listen to history and tradition before I listen to culture and pragmatism. Lampposts, wardrobes, and the Baptist name are not meaningless novelties destined to be discarded. They are rich reservoirs fed by deep springs.

Why keep the Baptist name? Because there is a Baptist theology that is identifiable, important, and agreeable (I am a Baptist!). That being understood, keeping it means something and removing it means something. I would rather stand with the meaning of the former.4

Notes:
1. Paul A. Hartog, “Evangelicals and the Tensions of Ressourcement,” in The Contemporary Church and the Early Church: Case Studies in Ressourcement, ed. by Paul A. Hartog (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2010), 204.
2. For further discussions of each Baptist distinctive, I would recommend: Kevin T. Bauder, Baptist Distinctives: and New Testament Church Order (Schaumburg, IL: Regular Baptist Press, 2012).
3. Carl Trueman, “The SBJT Forum: Testimonies to a Theologian,” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 8, no. 4 (Winter 2004), 93.
4. Some may self-consciously agree with the theological, historical, and cultural points that I disagree with. They are free to do so. But, most I have spoken with simply believe there are no reasons at all for keeping the name. Hopefully, they can see that arguments can be made. If disagreement is there, let it be informed disagreement. That is my point. However, if someone wants to remove the name, they should! This is so because they have already departed from, or never had, these convictions.
 
 

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More