Luke 7: 18-19
18 The disciples of John reported all these things to him. And John [from prison], 19 calling two of his disciples to him, sent them to the Lord [Jesus], saying, “Are you the one [the Messiah] who is to come, or shall we look for another?”
Devotional Thought
Here is an amazing thing. John the Baptist is struggling with questions about the person of Jesus. Is He really the Messiah? From prison, in low point, and because he go himself, John sends His disciples to ask Jesus, “Are you really the Messiah?”
Now remember this is the man who out of prison was inspired to declare, “Behold [look] Jesus is Lamb of God who takes away sin!” (John 1:29).
At that time, John the Baptist according to Jesus was the greatest man to live and yet he too is occasionally plagued with doubt and questions (Matt 11:11)
Reject your doubt as a plaque from the Wicked One who seeks to destroy your faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. The wicked say there is “no God” but the just live by faith (Ps 10:4; Gal 3:11).
There is no need to look for another but there is still a need to look for His return—are you looking? Are you anxiously awaiting His glorious return for His church—I hope so. The challenge is to keep our eyes off of the world and keep them on the prize that awaits those who long for and love His Second Coming!
Learning from Noah & Sons
Genesis 9:20-23
Noah began to be a man of the soil, and he planted a vineyard. 21 He drank of the wine and became drunk and lay uncovered in his tent. 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and told his two brothers outside. 23 Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were turned backward, and they did not see their father's nakedness.
Commentary
Notice the respect for preserving modesty in the text. Set aside the fact that Noah should not have been so drunk that he didn’t know whether he was clothed or NOT! Notice the actions of the brothers in the respect for keeping the body properly clothed and not looking upon nakedness.
Where is that in the 21st Century? Christians dressing in just as revealing ways as non-Christians—how can that be?
Cover it up! The sons covered the nakedness of their father. It was the father’s responsibility to remain properly attired, but he didn’t and the boys took over.
One brother taking care of another family member or one sister encouraging another sister to speak to nakedness can all be described as acts of love done with the intent of covering up nakedness in the body of Christ.
Anytime a Christian is out and about in a coed environment they should be concerned with the degree of nakedness they are revealing. Christians should be more modest than the world around them.
Never let yourself get to the point where someone else feels it their duty to cover up your nakedness.
Thighs, breasts, midpoint of the stomach all need to remain covered with cloth. After Adam and Eve sinned God established the standard by clothing our first parents Himself and from that moment forward set the standard that men, women, boys and girls are not to run around partially naked—even if everyone else is doing it!
Noah began to be a man of the soil, and he planted a vineyard. 21 He drank of the wine and became drunk and lay uncovered in his tent. 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and told his two brothers outside. 23 Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were turned backward, and they did not see their father's nakedness.
Commentary
Notice the respect for preserving modesty in the text. Set aside the fact that Noah should not have been so drunk that he didn’t know whether he was clothed or NOT! Notice the actions of the brothers in the respect for keeping the body properly clothed and not looking upon nakedness.
Where is that in the 21st Century? Christians dressing in just as revealing ways as non-Christians—how can that be?
Cover it up! The sons covered the nakedness of their father. It was the father’s responsibility to remain properly attired, but he didn’t and the boys took over.
One brother taking care of another family member or one sister encouraging another sister to speak to nakedness can all be described as acts of love done with the intent of covering up nakedness in the body of Christ.
Anytime a Christian is out and about in a coed environment they should be concerned with the degree of nakedness they are revealing. Christians should be more modest than the world around them.
Never let yourself get to the point where someone else feels it their duty to cover up your nakedness.
Thighs, breasts, midpoint of the stomach all need to remain covered with cloth. After Adam and Eve sinned God established the standard by clothing our first parents Himself and from that moment forward set the standard that men, women, boys and girls are not to run around partially naked—even if everyone else is doing it!
BEWARE: God's Mercy in a Unique Way
Just the other day I learned a great lesson and saw the hand of God working in a unique and merciful way. Let me tell you about it. My son and I were driving to Mt. Holly for a day of skiing and a local pastor friend of mine came up on the Gmail instant messaging on my smart phone. We exchanged pleasantries and then he told me he was vacationing in London and had the unfortunate event of being robbed. He described in detail the event and we went back and forth in discussion. He said that they took all his cash and he was in need of $400. He is a fellow pastor and I know him well enough to trust him. He asked if I would Western Union the cash to help him out of a bind and promised to repay when he and his wife were stateside again. I made a phone call and asked someone at church to help this fellow pastor out. The staff person began working on setting up a Western Union account and getting the help to this pastor he needed. I let my friend know we were working on it and making it happen. While the staff member was working on the computer our Internet connection went down and all the work was lost. My friend was asking me what was taking so long and I explained we were working on it. After the Internet came back up the staff member went back to work and then sent me all the data so I could relay it to my friend on the Gmail instant messaging feature.
The Gmail instant messaging was going in and out so we were having trouble communicating. The necessary data to make a Western Union cash pickup was not getting through so I decided to send it to both of the email addresses I have for my friend.
To be frank I was trying to ski and my fingers were freezing every time I had to chat with him on my blackberry. Don’t misunderstand I wanted to help my buddy out in London but I also had already paid for my ski ticket and was ready to enjoy the snow and the skiing.
My friend got the email I sent on his smart phone and realized that someone was fraudulently using his Gmail account and we were about to get ripped off. He immediately called the church and told the staff to stop the transaction; it was all a fraud. He was not in London; he was in Virginia driving back from Christmas vacation. My staff called Western Union to stop the transaction and we were able to do so.
Now is where I get to tell you about the sovereign mercy of God. If the Internet had not went down the first time during the initial setting up of the account it is doubtful we would not have been able to realize we were being scammed and stop the transaction.
And if I had not sent the email out to get back to skiing my friend might not have called the church and we would not have caught the scam soon enough. Isn’t God good!
And I certainly learned an awesome lesson! Yes, I know you are saying I can’t believe you fell for that. But I must tell you; it never crossed my mind even for a moment that the person I was chatting with wasn’t my friend. The idea that someone could hack into his Gmail account and begin instant messaging was beyond my comprehension. Yes, I know that email accounts get compromised, but that’s for famous people like Sarah Palin. Until this event it just never crossed my mind that the average guys email account could be hacked into and data compromised. I have changed the complexity of my password and do not have it written down anywhere.
I know after reading this that you, like me, will verify and verify if anyone ever comes up on email or chat asking for anything. And I again am so thankful for God’s mercy in this situation.
The Gmail instant messaging was going in and out so we were having trouble communicating. The necessary data to make a Western Union cash pickup was not getting through so I decided to send it to both of the email addresses I have for my friend.
To be frank I was trying to ski and my fingers were freezing every time I had to chat with him on my blackberry. Don’t misunderstand I wanted to help my buddy out in London but I also had already paid for my ski ticket and was ready to enjoy the snow and the skiing.
My friend got the email I sent on his smart phone and realized that someone was fraudulently using his Gmail account and we were about to get ripped off. He immediately called the church and told the staff to stop the transaction; it was all a fraud. He was not in London; he was in Virginia driving back from Christmas vacation. My staff called Western Union to stop the transaction and we were able to do so.
Now is where I get to tell you about the sovereign mercy of God. If the Internet had not went down the first time during the initial setting up of the account it is doubtful we would not have been able to realize we were being scammed and stop the transaction.
And if I had not sent the email out to get back to skiing my friend might not have called the church and we would not have caught the scam soon enough. Isn’t God good!
And I certainly learned an awesome lesson! Yes, I know you are saying I can’t believe you fell for that. But I must tell you; it never crossed my mind even for a moment that the person I was chatting with wasn’t my friend. The idea that someone could hack into his Gmail account and begin instant messaging was beyond my comprehension. Yes, I know that email accounts get compromised, but that’s for famous people like Sarah Palin. Until this event it just never crossed my mind that the average guys email account could be hacked into and data compromised. I have changed the complexity of my password and do not have it written down anywhere.
I know after reading this that you, like me, will verify and verify if anyone ever comes up on email or chat asking for anything. And I again am so thankful for God’s mercy in this situation.
How Can the Bible Affirm Both Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom?
God is most glorified when men wrestle with deep things like this. Enjoy.
by William Lane Craig
The biblical worldview involves a strong conception of divine sovereignty over the world and human affairs even as it presupposes human freedom and responsibility (cp. the accounts of Saul’s death in 1 Sm 31:1–6 and 1 Ch 10:8–12). An adequate doctrine of divine providence requires reconciling these two streams of biblical teaching without compromising either. Yet this has proven extraordinarily difficult. On the one hand, the Augustinian-Calvinist perspective interprets divine providence in terms of predetermination, God choosing in advance what will happen. It is hard to see how this interpretation can preserve human freedom or avoid making God the author of sin, since (for example) it would then be He who moved Judas to betray Christ. On the other hand, advocates of revisionist views (e.g., open theism) freely admit that as a consequence of their denial of God’s knowledge of future contingent events a strong doctrine of providence becomes impossible. Ironically, in order to account for biblical prophecies of future events, revisionists are often reduced to appealing to the same deterministic explanations that Augustinian-Calvinists offer.
Molinism offers an attractive solution. Luis Molina (1535–1600) defined providence as God’s ordering of things to their ends, either directly or indirectly through secondary causes. In explaining how God can order things through secondary causes that are themselves free agents, Molina appealed to his doctrine of divine middle knowledge.
Molina analyzed God’s knowledge in terms of three logical stages. Although whatever God knows, He knows eternally, so that there is no temporal succession in God’s knowledge, nonetheless there does exist a sort of logical order in God’s knowledge in the sense that His knowledge of certain truths is conditionally or explanatorily prior to His knowledge of certain other truths.
In the first stage God knows all possibilities, not only all the creatures He could possibly create, but also all the orders of creatures that are possible. By means of this so-called natural knowledge, God has knowledge of every contingent state of affairs that could possibly be actual and of what any free creature could freely choose to do in any such state of affairs.
In the second stage, God possesses knowledge of all true counterfactual propositions (statements of the form “If x were the case, then y would be the case”), including counterfactuals about what creatures would freely do in various circumstances. Whereas by His natural knowledge God knew what any free creature could do in any set of circumstances, now in this second stage God knows what any free creature would freely do in any set of circumstances. This so-called middle knowledge is like natural knowledge in that such knowledge does not depend on any decision of the divine will; God does not determine which counterfactuals are true or false. By knowing how free creatures would freely act in any set of circumstances He might place them in, God thereby knows that if He were to actualize certain states of affairs, then certain other contingent states of affairs would be actual as a result. For example, He knew that if Pontius Pilate were the Roman procurator of Judea in A.D. 30, he would freely condemn Jesus to the cross.
Intervening between the second and third stages of divine knowledge stands God’s free decree to actualize a world known by Him to be realizable on the basis of His middle knowledge. By His natural knowledge, God knows the entire range of logically possible worlds; by His middle knowledge He knows, in effect, the proper subset of those worlds that it is feasible for Him to actualize. By a free decision, God decrees to actualize one of those worlds known to Him through His middle knowledge. In so doing He also decrees how He would freely act in any set of circumstances.
Given God’s free decision to actualize a world, in the third and final stage God possesses so-called free knowledge of all remaining propositions that are in fact true in the actual world, including future-tense propositions about how creatures will freely behave.
Molina’s scheme effects a dramatic reconciliation of divine sovereignty and human freedom. In Molina’s view God directly causes certain circumstances to come into being and brings about others indirectly through either causally determined secondary causes or free secondary causes. He allows free creatures to act as He knew they freely would when placed in specific circumstances, and He concurs with their decisions in actualizing the effects they desire. Some of these effects God desired unconditionally and so wills positively that they occur. Others He does not unconditionally desire but He nevertheless permits due to His overriding desire to allow creaturely freedom, knowing that even these sinful acts will fit into the overall scheme of things, so that God’s ultimate ends in human history will be accomplished. God thus providentially arranges for everything that happens by either willing or permitting it, and He causes everything that does happen, yet in such a way as to preserve freedom and contingency.
Ted Cabal, Chad Owen Brand, E. Ray Clendenen et al., The Apologetics Study Bible: Real Questions, Straight Answers, Stronger Faith (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2007), 1850–1851.
by William Lane Craig
The biblical worldview involves a strong conception of divine sovereignty over the world and human affairs even as it presupposes human freedom and responsibility (cp. the accounts of Saul’s death in 1 Sm 31:1–6 and 1 Ch 10:8–12). An adequate doctrine of divine providence requires reconciling these two streams of biblical teaching without compromising either. Yet this has proven extraordinarily difficult. On the one hand, the Augustinian-Calvinist perspective interprets divine providence in terms of predetermination, God choosing in advance what will happen. It is hard to see how this interpretation can preserve human freedom or avoid making God the author of sin, since (for example) it would then be He who moved Judas to betray Christ. On the other hand, advocates of revisionist views (e.g., open theism) freely admit that as a consequence of their denial of God’s knowledge of future contingent events a strong doctrine of providence becomes impossible. Ironically, in order to account for biblical prophecies of future events, revisionists are often reduced to appealing to the same deterministic explanations that Augustinian-Calvinists offer.
Molinism offers an attractive solution. Luis Molina (1535–1600) defined providence as God’s ordering of things to their ends, either directly or indirectly through secondary causes. In explaining how God can order things through secondary causes that are themselves free agents, Molina appealed to his doctrine of divine middle knowledge.
Molina analyzed God’s knowledge in terms of three logical stages. Although whatever God knows, He knows eternally, so that there is no temporal succession in God’s knowledge, nonetheless there does exist a sort of logical order in God’s knowledge in the sense that His knowledge of certain truths is conditionally or explanatorily prior to His knowledge of certain other truths.
In the first stage God knows all possibilities, not only all the creatures He could possibly create, but also all the orders of creatures that are possible. By means of this so-called natural knowledge, God has knowledge of every contingent state of affairs that could possibly be actual and of what any free creature could freely choose to do in any such state of affairs.
In the second stage, God possesses knowledge of all true counterfactual propositions (statements of the form “If x were the case, then y would be the case”), including counterfactuals about what creatures would freely do in various circumstances. Whereas by His natural knowledge God knew what any free creature could do in any set of circumstances, now in this second stage God knows what any free creature would freely do in any set of circumstances. This so-called middle knowledge is like natural knowledge in that such knowledge does not depend on any decision of the divine will; God does not determine which counterfactuals are true or false. By knowing how free creatures would freely act in any set of circumstances He might place them in, God thereby knows that if He were to actualize certain states of affairs, then certain other contingent states of affairs would be actual as a result. For example, He knew that if Pontius Pilate were the Roman procurator of Judea in A.D. 30, he would freely condemn Jesus to the cross.
Intervening between the second and third stages of divine knowledge stands God’s free decree to actualize a world known by Him to be realizable on the basis of His middle knowledge. By His natural knowledge, God knows the entire range of logically possible worlds; by His middle knowledge He knows, in effect, the proper subset of those worlds that it is feasible for Him to actualize. By a free decision, God decrees to actualize one of those worlds known to Him through His middle knowledge. In so doing He also decrees how He would freely act in any set of circumstances.
Given God’s free decision to actualize a world, in the third and final stage God possesses so-called free knowledge of all remaining propositions that are in fact true in the actual world, including future-tense propositions about how creatures will freely behave.
Molina’s scheme effects a dramatic reconciliation of divine sovereignty and human freedom. In Molina’s view God directly causes certain circumstances to come into being and brings about others indirectly through either causally determined secondary causes or free secondary causes. He allows free creatures to act as He knew they freely would when placed in specific circumstances, and He concurs with their decisions in actualizing the effects they desire. Some of these effects God desired unconditionally and so wills positively that they occur. Others He does not unconditionally desire but He nevertheless permits due to His overriding desire to allow creaturely freedom, knowing that even these sinful acts will fit into the overall scheme of things, so that God’s ultimate ends in human history will be accomplished. God thus providentially arranges for everything that happens by either willing or permitting it, and He causes everything that does happen, yet in such a way as to preserve freedom and contingency.
Ted Cabal, Chad Owen Brand, E. Ray Clendenen et al., The Apologetics Study Bible: Real Questions, Straight Answers, Stronger Faith (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2007), 1850–1851.
Christmas Offering for Youth
I hope you are getting as excited as I am about giving our Youth the Christmas present of a new place to worship and enjoy God and God’s people.
The youth building will soon be a completely new building from the ceiling to windows to bathrooms to carpet to kitchen area to flat screens for PowerPoint songs.
The men are making great progress and I believe if everyone does their part in the Christmas offering we can give to our youth for years and years a great place to worship and grow as Christians.
Pastor Joe was out early Friday taking advantage of some very good sales making the most of the limited resources we have to dedicate to this project.
In the end, I know we will hardly be able to recognize what the old building looked like.
I have been quite bogged down in a church administration class thus by absence on the blog.
One more thing, are you going skiing with us this year? I am really looking forward to a great day of skiing on the Mountain this year.
The youth building will soon be a completely new building from the ceiling to windows to bathrooms to carpet to kitchen area to flat screens for PowerPoint songs.
The men are making great progress and I believe if everyone does their part in the Christmas offering we can give to our youth for years and years a great place to worship and grow as Christians.
Pastor Joe was out early Friday taking advantage of some very good sales making the most of the limited resources we have to dedicate to this project.
In the end, I know we will hardly be able to recognize what the old building looked like.
I have been quite bogged down in a church administration class thus by absence on the blog.
One more thing, are you going skiing with us this year? I am really looking forward to a great day of skiing on the Mountain this year.
Christian First American Second
Most recently we have heard quite a bit of criticism suggesting that citizens of America must be citizens of their country first and religious (Christian, Muslim, etc.) second. This is unacceptable for me. I am a Christian first and foremost. I am a citizen of this great nation second and that priority cannot change. The reason this is not an issue is because Christ never suggested for even a moment that violence would be necessary to be a good Christian. In fact, I can be a fanatical, religious right kind of a guy and this is no threat to the society at all. Moreover, the more I am bananas for Jesus the better for the nation because Christ has called me to be a model citizen.
I am to pray for my President, vote, obey those appointed over and pay my taxes and all of this does not conflict with my service to my King! My fellow Christians do not allow anyone to suggest to you that you can be religious as long as you keep it separate from your politics. I don’t separate it; I can’t separate it; the Bible does not allow for it to be separate. The idea of creating a duplicite life where I am separate in my thinking between God and the Nation is unacceptable. Stay focused; remember you will only be a citizen of America for a few years, but you will be a citizen of the Kingdom of God for all eternity—keep your priorities where they need to be.
I am to pray for my President, vote, obey those appointed over and pay my taxes and all of this does not conflict with my service to my King! My fellow Christians do not allow anyone to suggest to you that you can be religious as long as you keep it separate from your politics. I don’t separate it; I can’t separate it; the Bible does not allow for it to be separate. The idea of creating a duplicite life where I am separate in my thinking between God and the Nation is unacceptable. Stay focused; remember you will only be a citizen of America for a few years, but you will be a citizen of the Kingdom of God for all eternity—keep your priorities where they need to be.
Is Bible Burning Really Peacemaking?
An amazing thing actually happened last night, October 31st, in Canton, NC. On Saturday, I was driving back from our Fall Festival and the local radio station reported this event as national news. A Baptist church full of Christians intentionally destroyed the Word of God. Copies of the Word of God were destroyed by cutting them to shreds. (The intent was to burn them but they got rained out). Christians destroying the Bible—how is that God-honoring or God-glorifying? Bibles which contained the gospel and the message of God’s redemption were destroyed. Bibles which told of God’s love for man and the story of salvation were destroyed. This event was billed as that which is pleasing to God—was it?
When has the destruction of His Word, or books that contain His Word, ever been pleasing to God?
The defense from Amazing Grace Baptist Church is that these Bibles only contain a perverted version of the Word of God because they are NOT the Word of God. In their opinion, only KJV Bibles are the Word of God. All other English Bibles translated into language that is less archaic are not acceptable. The old English must be preserved; anything less is not God-glorifying.
But why is this? Why did God choose to do something for English speaking people that He didn’t do for Hebrews, or Greeks, or those who speak Latin? Why did He do it only for English speaking people?
Why didn’t He do it for the Germans or the French?
Where is the prophetic promise to English speaking people that God would inspire an English translation that would be superior to all other translations?
God’s promises of the preservation of His Word are not unique only to a particular culture or language. Has not God preserved His Word in German? Has not God preserved His Word in Korean? The answer is YES—unequivocally YES!
But there is NO indication that God has chosen to stop permitting the translation of His Word.
Some ridiculously suggest: Only one of these renditions is the Word of God and it is the rendition that preserves the whosoever not whoever or the one that preserves the “th” in believeth instead of believes.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.
Is there a difference between eternal and everlasting? Or do both communicate the same truth? If both are acceptable words indicating life without end, then are both the Word of God when describing the life we receive from God to those who believe upon the name of Christ Jesus?
Now this does NOT mean “any old (or new) Bible will do,” but that certainly doesn’t mean I must burn anything that doesn’t meet my standard.
If you prefer the KJV, praise the Lord—but is it really God’s will to see less than KJV Bibles burned?
Since Roger Williams founded the first Baptist Church in Province, Rhode Island, Baptists have consistently stood for religious freedom.
If another Christian, who is a priest unto themselves before God and man, chooses to read a book from Pastor Rick Warren or do their devotions with the New International Bible, what right do I have to condemn them—isn’t that the role of the Holy Spirit to guide them in all truth?
Likewise, if I choose to bring to someone’s attention the failure to properly translate a verse in the TNIV, what right does someone else have to condemn me, in the execution of my pastoral responsibilities, before the flock that is called Berean Baptist Church?
If a precedent is set for burning books we don’t agree with, as an act that is pleasing to God, where does it end and who will ultimately make the final decision on what books are permitted in America and which ones are not permitted? Will we have a book czar?
I really don’t think anyone wants to go down that road, do we? I think the Book of Mormon is pure fiction having no value whatsoever—however, I am willing to fight for a Mormon’s right to have and read the Book of Mormon because I recognize that same right also preserves my right to have and to read the Bible (in any and all translations) as I am led by God the Spirit.
Baptists who burn Bibles and books, as a religious ceremony, are only one or two steps away from much more violent acts which surely could not be pleasing to our Lord who said, “Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God.”
You can be sure of one thing; no one thinks of burning books as an act of making peace.
There are some still alive today who can remember the first news reports of Germans burning Bibles in the months before the invasion of Poland and the start of World War II—what, my friends, is the difference?
Why was it wrong for Nazis to burn books before World War II, but today it is an act of worship, pleasing to the Lord, begun with prayer, associated with the body of Christ, done in a church and accompanied by hymns of worship and much rejoicing—how is that?
See for yourself how the pastor is promoting this church service on his website and is quite frustrated with other Baptists who chose not participate in such an event.
http://www.amazinggracebaptistchurchkjv.com/Download99.html
He even laments, why is it that Baptists will unite against the liquor industry but will not unite against the perversions of the Word of God—how is that?
Am I to compare a bottle of Jack Daniels to the NIV and have just as much a passion to destroy both? Is that how I am to think? I think not.
If I could only see the same definitive prohibitions against the ESV as I see against drunkenness, I would consider taking such a stand.
Ask me to show you where drunkenness is prohibited in the Bible, and that is easy to do.
If you prefer to show me a passage where the ESV translation committee did not do justice to the text, I will gladly listen to such an opinion and evaluate your position—but burn the entire book—is that really the correct solution?
If there was just one Bible verse that says God loves the KJV better than other translations—if there was just one Bible verse that indicates He prefers Elizabethan English to contemporary English--but the opposite is found to be true with the reality that the New Testament was written in common Greek. Jesus spoke to the common people in a way that the common person could understand what He said.
The preacher who uses the KJV will, throughout His sermon, seek to help the congregation understand what the Bible is saying to the people and he, the preacher, speaks in the language of his people. He doesn’t seek to preserve the Elizabethan English with the way he speaks. And when there is a word like “concupiscence” in the text he is preaching from, notice how he stops and explains the word often using words found in other translations—indirectly, what is the difference?
Passages from the Psalms, originally written in Hebrew, are quoted to justify God’s love for Elizabethan English—how is that? I believe God is well pleased anytime a group of translators assembles with the primary purpose of giving a people the very Word of God in their own language beginning with the Septuagint and moving forward today.
If you prefer the Elizabethan English, Praise the Lord, I will fight for your right to love, cherish and use the KJV Bible with the exact same energy I will devote to preserving another brother in Christ’s right to use his ESV for which he has the same right to love, cherish and use.
That is precisely the religious freedom this great country we call America was founded upon, and we must fight to keep those precious rights with our very blood if that becomes necessary.
When has the destruction of His Word, or books that contain His Word, ever been pleasing to God?
The defense from Amazing Grace Baptist Church is that these Bibles only contain a perverted version of the Word of God because they are NOT the Word of God. In their opinion, only KJV Bibles are the Word of God. All other English Bibles translated into language that is less archaic are not acceptable. The old English must be preserved; anything less is not God-glorifying.
But why is this? Why did God choose to do something for English speaking people that He didn’t do for Hebrews, or Greeks, or those who speak Latin? Why did He do it only for English speaking people?
Why didn’t He do it for the Germans or the French?
Where is the prophetic promise to English speaking people that God would inspire an English translation that would be superior to all other translations?
God’s promises of the preservation of His Word are not unique only to a particular culture or language. Has not God preserved His Word in German? Has not God preserved His Word in Korean? The answer is YES—unequivocally YES!
But there is NO indication that God has chosen to stop permitting the translation of His Word.
Some ridiculously suggest: Only one of these renditions is the Word of God and it is the rendition that preserves the whosoever not whoever or the one that preserves the “th” in believeth instead of believes.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.
Is there a difference between eternal and everlasting? Or do both communicate the same truth? If both are acceptable words indicating life without end, then are both the Word of God when describing the life we receive from God to those who believe upon the name of Christ Jesus?
Now this does NOT mean “any old (or new) Bible will do,” but that certainly doesn’t mean I must burn anything that doesn’t meet my standard.
If you prefer the KJV, praise the Lord—but is it really God’s will to see less than KJV Bibles burned?
Since Roger Williams founded the first Baptist Church in Province, Rhode Island, Baptists have consistently stood for religious freedom.
If another Christian, who is a priest unto themselves before God and man, chooses to read a book from Pastor Rick Warren or do their devotions with the New International Bible, what right do I have to condemn them—isn’t that the role of the Holy Spirit to guide them in all truth?
Likewise, if I choose to bring to someone’s attention the failure to properly translate a verse in the TNIV, what right does someone else have to condemn me, in the execution of my pastoral responsibilities, before the flock that is called Berean Baptist Church?
If a precedent is set for burning books we don’t agree with, as an act that is pleasing to God, where does it end and who will ultimately make the final decision on what books are permitted in America and which ones are not permitted? Will we have a book czar?
I really don’t think anyone wants to go down that road, do we? I think the Book of Mormon is pure fiction having no value whatsoever—however, I am willing to fight for a Mormon’s right to have and read the Book of Mormon because I recognize that same right also preserves my right to have and to read the Bible (in any and all translations) as I am led by God the Spirit.
Baptists who burn Bibles and books, as a religious ceremony, are only one or two steps away from much more violent acts which surely could not be pleasing to our Lord who said, “Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God.”
You can be sure of one thing; no one thinks of burning books as an act of making peace.
There are some still alive today who can remember the first news reports of Germans burning Bibles in the months before the invasion of Poland and the start of World War II—what, my friends, is the difference?
Why was it wrong for Nazis to burn books before World War II, but today it is an act of worship, pleasing to the Lord, begun with prayer, associated with the body of Christ, done in a church and accompanied by hymns of worship and much rejoicing—how is that?
See for yourself how the pastor is promoting this church service on his website and is quite frustrated with other Baptists who chose not participate in such an event.
http://www.amazinggracebaptistchurchkjv.com/Download99.html
He even laments, why is it that Baptists will unite against the liquor industry but will not unite against the perversions of the Word of God—how is that?
Am I to compare a bottle of Jack Daniels to the NIV and have just as much a passion to destroy both? Is that how I am to think? I think not.
If I could only see the same definitive prohibitions against the ESV as I see against drunkenness, I would consider taking such a stand.
Ask me to show you where drunkenness is prohibited in the Bible, and that is easy to do.
If you prefer to show me a passage where the ESV translation committee did not do justice to the text, I will gladly listen to such an opinion and evaluate your position—but burn the entire book—is that really the correct solution?
If there was just one Bible verse that says God loves the KJV better than other translations—if there was just one Bible verse that indicates He prefers Elizabethan English to contemporary English--but the opposite is found to be true with the reality that the New Testament was written in common Greek. Jesus spoke to the common people in a way that the common person could understand what He said.
The preacher who uses the KJV will, throughout His sermon, seek to help the congregation understand what the Bible is saying to the people and he, the preacher, speaks in the language of his people. He doesn’t seek to preserve the Elizabethan English with the way he speaks. And when there is a word like “concupiscence” in the text he is preaching from, notice how he stops and explains the word often using words found in other translations—indirectly, what is the difference?
Passages from the Psalms, originally written in Hebrew, are quoted to justify God’s love for Elizabethan English—how is that? I believe God is well pleased anytime a group of translators assembles with the primary purpose of giving a people the very Word of God in their own language beginning with the Septuagint and moving forward today.
If you prefer the Elizabethan English, Praise the Lord, I will fight for your right to love, cherish and use the KJV Bible with the exact same energy I will devote to preserving another brother in Christ’s right to use his ESV for which he has the same right to love, cherish and use.
That is precisely the religious freedom this great country we call America was founded upon, and we must fight to keep those precious rights with our very blood if that becomes necessary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)