Independent Baptist Churches are--well--independent. Just as a significant variety of belief and practice may be found in the IFB movement, so one can find a great variety in the quality of independent Baptist preaching. On one end of the spectrum, one can find careful expository preaching with strong application that leads to both a stronger church and stronger pastoral leadership through the years, such as the large majority of the preaching at Bethel Baptist Church in El Sobrante, CA, both in the regular services and during the Word of Truth conferences. A Biblical basis for this kind of preaching includes the fact that in the command to "preach the Word" (2 Timothy 4:2), the noun "Word" has an anaphoric article in Greek referring back to the "all Scripture" of 2 Timothy 3:16 (as noted, e. g., in the study here). That is, the Apostle Paul's inspired command in 2 Timothy 3:15-4:2 includes the heaven-given directive that Timothy preach all the inspired Scripture in the church of God--something that will only take place if expositional preaching through books of the Bible is a key aspect of the regular preaching ministry.
This is not to say that every single message in a sound church must be a verse-by-verse exposition. The book of Acts contains sound--indeed, inspired--topical sermons, and it is reasonable to conclude that the model in Acts indicates that evangelistic preaching should generally be topical, while Biblically-based topical preaching is indubitably also lawful for the saints in the church of God.
However, not all independent Baptist churches are careful in the preaching and teaching of the Word. Sadly, many of them too often commit the wicked sin (2 Peter 3:16) of wresting the Scriptures, taking them out of context in their sermons, and in this manner being like the devil in their use of Scripture rather than being like Christ (Matthew 4:1-11; Genesis 3:1-6).
The question of this post involves the following. I would like to hear comments based on Biblical wisdom in the comment section to this post that help to answer these questions.
1.) Not all the Apostles had an equal level of education--Paul, for example, had more "theological" training than Peter did, and his epistles reflect greater complexity than Peter's writings, yet both are part of the invaluable inspired deposit of the New Testament. When, however, does a lack of ability to understand and interpret Scripture become a disqualifying lack of being "apt to teach" (1 Timothy 3:2)? How does aptitude in teaching differ for a bishop/overseer and for, say, a children's Sunday School teacher?
2.) Everyone can commit the wicked sin of misinterpreting Scripture on occasion. When, however, does this rise to the level where a church should separate from another one that is guilty of this sin too often?
3.) How does one distinguish the fact that some qualified preachers may more easily commit this sin, while others are more liable to different sins of a different type (e. g., prayerlessness, unbiblical anger, etc.), with the unrepentant practice of Scripture-twisting? Nobody, or just about nobody, will boldly say "Yes, I don't care if I am taking God's Word of context." How can the kind of regular lack of watchfulness and care against this sin indicate a separation-worthy situation?
4.) How does one confront another brother, or even a spiritual leader, who is guilty of this sin? How does one church and its leadership deal with another church and its leadership about this sin? What should a church member do if he is in a church where the pastor or pastors are too often guilty of this sin? How does one seek to show reverence for whatever parts of God's truth are in a message that contains exegetical fallacies, receiving that truth with reverence and godly fear, while also hating the sin of Scripture-twisting, as one must hate all sin?
5.) How can the principle of 1 Corinthians 14:29 be applied to preaching, and how can a man instruct his family to not receive and believe exegetical fallacies in a sermon or sermons he has heard without turning the situation into one of "roast preacher" after a message?
6.) How does one treat a church-run Bible college or institute that is producing men who believe the right doctrine but do not know how to preach what a text actually says and do not know how to interpret Scripture, or are seriously deficient in this area?
7.) What role can other pastors in a church and/or deacons or other spiritual leaders play in helping a head pastor to take Scripture-twisting seriously if it seems he does not do so as much as he should, without these other men becoming people who are unsupportive or critical instead of helpfully supportive of their shepherds?
8.) What kind of accountability can the pastor of a church, perhaps a smaller church with spiritually immature Christians who would not know if the pastor is taking the Word of context, institute for himself to guard against this sin? How can he make sure Scripture-twisting is not happening if he does not have as much time as he would like to study because he has to work one, or maybe even two or three secular jobs because the church cannot yet support him financially?
9.) How can a church distinguish between a man training for the ministry who is not yet "apt to teach" to the point where hands should be laid on him and one who still has (as do we all) room to continue to grow in this area, but one who is qualified and whom a church could ordain and/or send out to evangelize for the purpose of seeing churches established elsewhere?
9.) How can a church distinguish between a man training for the ministry who is not yet "apt to teach" to the point where hands should be laid on him and one who still has (as do we all) room to continue to grow in this area, but one who is qualified and whom a church could ordain and/or send out to evangelize for the purpose of seeing churches established elsewhere?
I certainly do not think that I have the definitive answer to these questions, and I would like to hear thoughtful, Biblically-based ideas in the comment section. One thing that I do believe can be definitively stated, however, is that the answer is not "we cannot do anything about Scripture-twisting." Furthermore, the too-common practice among independent Baptists to (commendably and rightfully) warn carefully about many sins, but never to warn about this one, is a great evil.
--TDR
33 comments:
Well, Bro. Ross, these are peculiar questions, but hopefully I may have something beneficial to say concerning them.
First, if I may reprove you for the immediate appeal to Greek. 2 Tim. 4:2 "the word" is clear enough to refer to the whole extent of the word of God in total since it is singular and applies to the whole word of God therefore, so that one does not have to appeal to any kind of Greek knowledge. You could reference instead that Paul told the Ephesian leaders in Acts 20:27 that he declared all the counsel of God to them and that would back up your point effectively enough. Appealing to Greek knowledge is a dangerous thing that many are wrongly using to set themselves up as the end-all of knowledge that one must come to (Nicolaitanism), just like a Catholic priest would arrogantly (wrongly) say he is about knowing God's word.
Thank you for the concession given to topical preaching as well--expository preaching is not solely Biblical, as you well illustrate there, and I am irritated at those that clamor to say that only expository preaching is Biblical. What about the Sermon on the Mount? Jesus went from topic to topic to topic, not taking all that long to drill deep, but He left enough to really chew on to the end of time.
As for your questions,
1) The example is very peculiar to compare Paul to Peter--Peter himself did acknowledge the difficulty of understanding Paul's writings (2 Pet. 3:16) in (probably his own) comprehension. But that doesn't mean reading his writing is like reading some uneducated person's writing--I find reading 1 & 2 Peter to be nearly as challenging as reading Paul. For that matter, the Apostle John, also from a fisherman's background, also has difficult material in his Gospel account, epistles and Revelation.
I would only say in answer to your question that obviously it must be a Holy Spirit led choice for a church to call a particular man as pastor, and "apt to teach" does not necessarily imply he has everything down yet. A qualifier I would say that fits what you're looking for is 3:6 "Not a novice". That would not imply he needs to be some professional, but that he's not a newbie to the things of God. It's always safer a church calls a man of God that has experience serving the Lord, ministering to people. It's more important what is God's choice, God's hand on the man, Spirit filling, than a incredibly deep knowledge of the word of God (there's no qualifier even from the "more educated" Paul that there be a "Bible college degree or doctorate"). Sometimes I feel the more a man thinks he knows about the word of God, the less likely he is appropriate because he just might be doing preaching/teaching in the arm of the flesh and not under the guidance of the Lord. The most important preparation is a preparation of the heart. I think it was Hort that actually went and attended a meeting of D.L. Moody's in England, and said he'd like to never go back, probably treating Moody like a lot in England that he was "slaughtering the king's English". But yet God mightily used Moody to see a lot of people saved and bring revival. Education was a barrier to Hort and others from getting a blessing from the Lord. But God was using His man in the moment.
Apparently my comment was too long so I have to do it in parts
2) I would say the prescription by Jesus in Matt. 18 should apply as a guideline that such a person must be privately approached, and then if not listened to, to bring more with them, and then if not listened to, then the whole church to reprove such, or even kick them out. That would be within one church. If, on the other hand, you are dealing with someone outside your church, I would say the example of Paul toward Peter in Gal. 2 would apply, where he withstood him to the face (v.11--and that no matter the notoriety Paul already knew Peter had, as in v.9). He confronted him; that may be included or may be separate from v.14 (which starts his statement to Peter with no clear end to his statement to him, possibly even being to the end of the chapter) when he rebuked Peter in front of all people present. He was following his own advice to Timothy in 1 Tim. 5:20, "Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear." The false doctrine and position Peter was taking was affecting people (Gal. 2:13), and it had to be addressed so that other people wouldn't fall down that path either (there's no statement that Peter ever accepted Paul's rebuke and that they ever were friends again--it might lead to you never seeing or ministering with them ever again, but be "valiant for the truth"!).
3) I'm not sure I understand the question. I'd say apply what I pointed out in #2 and you just might find yourself being separated from anyway by them. A point that ought be made here is that we need to factor in that it is God's prerogative to rebuke them (e.g. Jude 9), and that whatever we do ought be prayed over and God led. Otherwise, what we say could make a hard-case even harder. Sure, we have the authority to rebuke (2 Tim. 4:2, Titus 2:15), but we had better make sure we are not inadvertently rebuking the wrong person (Mt. 16:22)!
4) Please see my response to #2. Another note to add about if it is someone in another church, vote with your feet. You don't always have to have a meeting/conference with them. Your presence at a meeting they are speaking at implies agreement (Silence means agreement). A preacher doesn't have to take all invitations to him to come preach! Nor a church to go to another church for a meeting. As for the church member towards a pastor, see Mat. 18. The last question requires discernment on the part of the hearer (Heb. 5:14) which every church goer ought have, never just accepting what is dished out like a baby bird swallowing whatever a mother bird pukes up.
5) Again, everything ought be dealt with personally first before carrying it out any wider than that. My pastor has said that I am to come to him on anything I don't feel is correct; he freely acknowledges he is a fallible man (as is everybody), and that we should be discerning believers. People should be challenged from Phil. 2:3 that "nothing be done through strife or vainglory". Why would they want to cause strife and "roast" the preacher? Also, there ought not be any "murmurings and disputings" (Phil. 2:14), therefore, no "roast preacher" behind his back (that'd be backbiting).
6) Church-run is the best (and should be the only) way to go! Just want to clarify in case someone takes your statement as negative of that. I see you've had much experience from your testimony with various Bible colleges and you likely have your own opinion. It's a tricky thing if you're not connected to them because they may treat it like a "momma bear" thing and any criticism may make them lash out at you in protection of one of their "young". Talk to the man in charge--the pastor. If he can't handle straight talk (in a godly way) then he may not deserve to be in the spot... It is a local church matter, and no Christians have any right dictating to other churches, or members of other churches. You can preach the Bible to them, reveal the Bible guidelines, mention areas that need to be done, proving beyond a doubt your point from the Bible, but you are to leave it in their (and the Lord's) hands, never to dictate to them or lord over them.
7) Pray first and make sure the Lord would have something be said. And then follow Matt. 18. There's no guarantee someone would never become unsupportive/critical, but hopefully those people were put in their role because they have a good amount of spiritual maturity to handle the position and would not get that way. People are unpredictable though, so there's no fool-proof way they won't end up unsupportive/critical. Even God-chosen, God-anointed leaders can become that way (think of King Saul).
8) For a pastor's accountability he just needs to have a heart to be faithful to the Lord, to stay close to him, a heart for the truth, and I bet you he probably will turn out all right. A pastor is in the top position in a church, and is above all accountable to God. He's the under-shepherd to the chief shepherd, the one the church folks are told to obey and submit to because he's watching over their souls (Heb. 13:17). Who's a shepherd "accountable" to? One of the sheep?? I'm very much against these "deacon boards" as a kind of oversight committee--there is NOTHING in the Bible about that. That's like the sheep trying to take charge of the shepherd. As for about that he just might not have as much time to prepare, he just needs to get after it and study to show himself approved. Do what it takes!
9) Good question--as always, prayer, Spirit-led decisions, in accordance with the word of God. 1 Tim. 5:22 Paul says "Lay hands suddenly on no man" which I would say fits here. They need time to prove themselves to the church. This is not a professionally trained "career". It is a God-called position. So, God has to be involved in it all, directing about it--Acts 13 the church laid hands on Paul and Barnabas after prayer and God's leading.
I agree about the cowardly premise of "we can't do anything about Scripture-twisting". Silence means approval. Something ought to be done/said, but in the right heart, the right way, and by the leading of God.
Thomas,
These are good questions and this is a good concern. Often the same people who believe in perfect preservation preach something different than what a passage says. I could ask, what difference does it make at least to the congregation if God has preserved every Word to them that they aren't hearing those actual Words? God works through the actual meaning of the Words, not through not-the-meaning of the Words (I didn't know how else to put that).
Some of the concern relates to a wrong view of sanctification gleaned from the same bad exegesis and preaching. A pastor thinks that the Holy Spirit and his authority makes his teaching untouchable. The New Testament reveals a synergism between pastoral and church authority that doesn't allow twisting of scripture. In addition, there is an objective nature to exegesis, a right way of handling scripture, that must be followed, and should show up in a sermon.
I'd like to answer the questions, and maybe will come back to do that soon, but something negative has proceeded from the disconnection to seminary level education in the church run Bible institutes. The benefits of separation from parachurch organizations, and there are those, produces under equipped preaching. The "call" becomes a bigger deal than actual hitting the mark with the preaching and then practice of the preaching. It supersedes the preaching, working through the preacher somehow separate from scripture and the meaning of scripture, "anointing" the preaching, circumventing the truth, covering for the shortcomings of not knowing scripture.
Dear Bro Foss,
Thank you for your comment. There was much that is helpful in there which was definitely appreciated.
Let me register the following areas where I don't think we are in agreement.
1.) You stated: "appealing to Greek knowledge is a dangerous thing" and compared this to Roman Catholic priests. Wasn't a key thing that undermined the dominance of Roman Catholicism historically at the time of the reformation a return to the study of Greek and Hebrew? More importantly, could you please point out the passage that says that appealing to the actual words spoken directly from heaven in Greek is dangerous? Surely you are not saying that in Revelation 2: "But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate" is talking about people appealing to the Hebrew language instead of using a Greek translation of the Old Testament or something like that, and this sin of using a Hebrew Bible was what was hated by Christ.
I also would like to suggest that knowing God's Word as deeply as possible contributes to Christ-like humility, not pride (John 17:17), so knowing Greek and Hebrew contributes to humility, not pride. Learning Hebrew and Greek at an institution that teaches theological liberalism, lies, and apostasy may turn out differently, but that is the fault of the lies and apostasy, not God's Word in Hebrew and Greek.
2.) You said: "Education was a barrier to Hort." If you mean by that the fact that he was taught baptismal regeneration and a false gospel, I certainly agree with you. If you mean by comparing Hort with Moody that it is better to be ignorant and unable to pronounce English correctly than being highly educated, let me suggest that you are greatly misdiagnosing the situation and, by such an attitude against education, are contributing to bad preaching (while many of the other helpful things you say are doing the opposite.)
Thank you very much. Again, much of what you said I agree with and is helpful, but I wanted to bring out the two points above.
Dear Pastor Brandenburg,
Thanks, I agree, and would be happy to hear your answers to the questions if you have the time.
Dear Bro. Ross,
I’m glad the other comments have been helpful. To speak in defense of my statements which you dispute, and to the clarification of them since you have taken them wrongly, I give you my reply (and I’ll use your numbers).
1) I very much so maintain my statement (and you should too) that “Appealing to Greek knowledge is a dangerous thing”. I do not imply in referring to Nicolaitanism that I am only for coming from Hebrew—you misunderstood me and the direction you have taken it is not at all what was intended. Nicolaitanism is the basic assertion of a group in church over the laity, saying you have to come to them; Catholic priests are egregiously guilty of that, treading on individual soul liberty and the sufficient guidance to the individual of the Holy Spirit using His word. Here’s my position—I am not for either Greek or Hebrew! I am for the King James Bible! For one, both the Hebrew and the Greek that were used in writing the Bible are long DEAD languages. I appreciate your investigative research and helpful comments about things, and the Lord has blessed you with a great store of knowledge, but you appear to be rather naïve on many things concerning this. The statement that God spoke directly from heaven in Greek is so off-the-wall I’m startled you would make such a statement. Have you not read Acts 26:14 in a while? The Apostle Paul indicates that in his journey to Damascus that the Lord Jesus spoke to him in Hebrew (from Heaven). I do not advocate Hebrew in referring to that statement, just appealing to it for an example to show that your comment was baseless.
Your comment that study of Greek and Hebrew is what undermined Roman Catholic dominance is appalling at the shallowness of it. You forget Baptist history that Baptistic groups already spread all over Europe set the stage for the Reformation by advocacy of the Bible as the sole authority in rejection of Catholicism (as well as their evangelism and church planting work having been influential). The reason why Luther had ripe fields to harvest from was because Baptists had already done a lot of work in Germany and the area. Did the Reformationists appeal to Sola Hebraica et Graeca?? I must have missed something if they did… Study of Greek and Hebrew helped in it, but what the main operative factor in it was a revolution back to the Bible. You should know that the 1500’s on into the 1600’s was an incredible Bible translation movement, translating the Bible into the vernacular so that the common person could have it (see the oft quoted comment of Tyndale to the Catholic priest for context). Greek and Hebrew didn’t come in to save the day. The average person didn’t know those—no, they needed Bibles in their vernacular.
If you want to appeal to the timeframe, why then did the KJB translators require men on the translation board that knew more than Hebrew and Greek? Lancelot Andrewes knew 15 languages, last I recall about him. Sure, they knew Hebrew and Greek so well that they spoke to each other in them. But they also knew a bunch of other languages. What was the purpose of that if in the way you are intimating that Hebrew and Greek are enough? If you recall, in the preface to the readers in the KJB they cite 15 different areas/languages as having had vernacular translations. Why would they even cite them if they were not appealing to them as authorities? I know at least one of those they on purpose had a man with them for named William Bedwell who was an expert in Arabic, having written a dictionary of the Arabic language. They had him because in their own preface they refer to a translation in Arabic in 717—last I knew, Arabic has nothing to do with Hebrew or Greek. Most all of those language they cited have no connection to Hebrew or Greek. Sounds like they themselves did not trust only in Hebrew and Greek, so why should WE??
In view of answering your question, I ask you a question. Where is it said that the New Testament is only originally given in Greek? You’ll find in studying it out (which you have already done a lot on it, so I’m baffled you haven’t realized this yet), that Matthew is cited as being originally written in Hebrew. Papias of Hieropolis (circa 60AD-130), said “Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could”. It has been stated that the unanimous testimony of antiquity is that Matthew wrote in Hebrew (see Strong’s Cyclopedia). Likewise, that the Epistle to the Hebrews was written first in Hebrew (Ibid.). I would say it is a difficult and foolish proposition to allege that the NT was written originally only in Greek in understanding these facts, along with the possibility that many of the other NT books could also have been written in other languages than Greek (it is illogical to insist that Paul, a Jew, wrote to Christians in Rome in the book of Romans, a Latin speaking place, in Greek), or simultaneously with Greek (read Herman Hoskier’s book Concerning the Genesis of the Versions of the New Testament for more on it).
Koine Greek has absolutely NO quality to it of being a holy language—it was a pagan language, a culture dominated by paganism, and has one of the most confused pseudo-Christian religions anywhere in the world. To tout it as something necessary in order to understand God’s word is to open a dangerous world of paganism and false religion that a faithful man of God has no business introducing to his people let alone advocating. The Bogomils (part of our Baptist heritage) distrusted anything that was Greek—they were being slaughtered by the Proto-Greek Orthodox “church” (200,000 plus from one wicked queen), but they are supposed to trust their bibles? It would do you well (and us all) like them to distrust anything Greek. God has 100% of His word in English and that is ALL that we need. If Greek is the standard, why in the majority of the traditional text copies (i.e. Byzantine, so the majority of the 5,500+ that testify to the TR type) are Acts 8:37, 9:6 and 1 John 5:7 deleted? Don’t point me to TR types in print from Erasmus on up to Scrivener—I’m talking about the actual Greek texts preserved by Greeks that textual evidence people cite. How about the fact that only 1 in 50 Byzantine copies actually contains the book of Revelation? Sometimes, as with 1 John 5:7, God has to preserve His word OUTSIDE of Greek. If you advocate Greek as being necessary to know God’s word will you be consistent and join Critical Text advocates and (stupidly) say that 1 John 5:7 (et al.) is spurious? There are more problems with it than all that, but you need to get detached from the illogical, indefensible, insidious, and irrelevant claim that the NT was originally given in Greek only.
Greek is NOT necessary—also, the scholarship about it is irreparably damaged by unbelieving “scholars” who have mixed knowledge about it with secular Greek sources to where, no matter who is teaching it (liberal or not, even Vine from Vine’s Expository Dictionary), it is tainted to some degree with false readings and understandings. You can’t trust it!! No one can anymore! Everything given from it is suspicious now; and, for that matter, still unnecessary when we realize God long before the corruption of Greek scholarship put His word in an accessible language of the last days, in the KJB. Whether a preacher realizes it or not, to appeal to Greek for someone to “understand” God’s word is in itself Scripture-twisting. Maybe it is not you actually doing it but the pagan-dominated scholarship in it that is twisting it through you. That’s the case with Strong’s Concordance—the man worked on the ASV, collaborating therefore with Westcott & Hort, which should make any of his statements suspicious enough. But, when he gives a definition in his lexicon, many of the times he is just giving the RV/ASV rendering instead of actually defining it.
Hebrew is likewise suspicious—for centuries they didn’t even have Ps. 22:16 in Hebrew due to their unbelief that God’s word was so precisely proving Jesus Christ as Messiah. The Dead Sea Scrolls at least testified to the legitimacy of that reading; and, it was preserved all along in vernacular translations. The knowledge of Hebrew and Greek has not led Jews or Greek people any closer to true Biblical beliefs because there is no special nature God instilled in those languages that we have to go to them to know His word properly. If that was the case, then Jews and Greeks should be some of the best theologians in the world—instead, they are some of the WORST. The Reformation had no impact on Greece or many other Eastern Orthodox countries; it should have had as big of an impact or more on them if Greek was all that special as you are intimating. To say that people must go to Hebrew and Greek to properly know God’s word is akin to the Muslim saying that you will only know the Koran by going to Arabic. That is just another manipulative lie to keep people bound. God never said we have to do that, so why does a preacher representing Him say one has to do that? Your statement that Hebrew and Greek study helps contributes to humility, not pride, is unsupported by the Bible—such is instead a source of corruption of knowledge in a person’s life as well as a big temptation to be a Nicolaitan and lord it over people.
2) I meant more than that Hort was taught baptismal regeneration and a false gospel, but that education on the whole was a barrier to him. The man was demonstrably unsaved; but it doesn’t mean he didn’t know anything. He probably had studied more and knew more than Moody did at that time, or ever would. But, all his education and study was worthless because there was no fear of God in it. “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge” (Prov. 1:7). I don’t care how much head knowledge and education Hort had; he was a moron spiritually because he was dead in trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1). He didn’t even have the spiritual depth to realize what God was doing through Moody, and like a carnal unbeliever he was not interested (but was yet more interested in his occultic club, and in his closet Catholicism, etc.). The education was a barrier because he pridefully thought little of Moody’s value, though God valued Moody’s dedication and heart for Him. I think I’ll side with God!
Education without the fear of God is worthless. Prov. 16:6, “…by the fear of the LORD men depart from evil.” It doesn’t say “by super education men depart from evil” or the Greek philosophers (“lovers of wisdom”) would have it made since they sought after wisdom (1 Cor. 1:22). Without the fear of God, education just makes a better devil out of people. Some of the most educated people are spiritual wastes—Stephen Hawking, no matter how brilliant he was, was an atheist moron. There is just something about education and knowledge that is a big tool of the Devil, and as a well-studied evangelist you have to be extremely careful about it. God didn’t call us to reason with people over into being saved—we are commissioned to preach the word (2 Tim. 4:2), not debate it or logic/reason people over; it is He who is going to do the reasoning with a person’s soul (Isa. 1:18). (Granted, Paul did reason with people in Acts 18:4, but within 2 verses their stubbornness drove him crazy). Evangelists should preach to get people’s heart to the Lord, not their head. As Martin Luther observed, the first recorded instance we see of the Devil is under the tree of knowledge—which points out that knowledge is a big tool/weapon of the Devil. Just having knowledge is NOT enough. Schaff made his massive Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia, his “Christian” Church History, etc., lots of education, but he led the ASV board in America and was so very much Catholic at heart. Strong from Strong’s Concordance, and from the massive Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, no matter how educated and studied he was, got sucked into the stupid Alexandrian cult movement of critical text “scholarship”. John Gill wrote his massive commentary, taking twenty years to do it, but still was a staunch Calvinist (another intellectual trap of the Devil).
So, it’s almost better that a man would not have so much education (which would be learning what fallible men have said) if that is not connected with the fear of the Lord and knowing Him personally. The super-educated priests and scribes were fussing at Jesus in Matt. 21 for all the commotion about Him as He entered Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, and He had an important statement to such that would do us all a lot of good to heed, “Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?” He was saying it’s a whole lot more acceptable to Him, and to them it was given to have perfected praise, but not to the super-educated. They completely missed it! Instead, Jesus had a lot of condemnation for them (Mt. 23). What good is a lot of study and intellectual prowess if a person is a spiritual moron, or even a profligate? It is better that a man know a few things really well, than a thousand things superficially. Especially if that is knowing the Lord personally. I would much rather have a country bumpkin for a pastor who knows the Lord and has great power with God in prayer, though he may say some things that aren’t all the way true, than a super educated man that has all his ducks in a row in preaching (but no power with God). The more important question should be, when should I separate from a man or church that I sense does not have the power of God on it but is just beating the air? Powerless preaching is the more serious problem—preaching with a lack of education can be lovingly admonished, but especially (and primarily) left in the hands of the Lord to help fix them.
I hope that is helpful and that it will help open your eyes to many problems that you unknowingly have accepted in your life.
Your fellowservant, Bro. Foss.
Dear Bro Foss,
Thanks for taking the time for your reply.
Again, much of what you said in your original comment was good, and the fact that we are focusing here on our disagreement is not something that I want to overshadow that.
1.) Matthew 5:18 says in the KJV:
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
The “jot” is the smallest Hebrew consonant, the yod, and the “tittle” is the smallest Hebrew vowel, a single dot called a chireq.
You stated:
“for centuries they didn’t even have Ps. 22:16 in Hebrew…”
Wasn't Psalm 22 written in Hebrew? Should we believe the Lord Jesus when he said that not even one Hebrew consonant or vowel of the inspired Old Testament would pass away till heaven and earth pass away, or should we believe you when you say that for centuries the jots and tittles of Psalm 22:16 passed away?
Are you sure you believe the King James Bible? Your position looks like it doesn't agree with what the King James Bible says in Matthew 5:18.
2.) You stated:
Where is it said that the New Testament is only originally given in Greek? . . . I would say it is a difficult and foolish proposition to allege that the NT was written originally only in Greek . . . many of the other NT books could also have been written in other languages than Greek.”
Christ said:
Matt. 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
The idea that many New Testament books were not written in Greek is egregiously bad history, and the fact that Matthew, in addition to writing his inspired gospel in Greek, also wrote an uninspired version in Hebrew does absolutely nothing to change that fact, but even more important that all the historical evidence against your position is the fact that Christ's promise that his canonical NT words would not pass away. When you say that many books in the New Testament were at least possibly not written in Greek, you are rejecting Christ's promise that his words would not pass away, because those alleged words in other languages besides Greek have passed away. That is the most important reason, for example, that we know that the inspired Gospel of Matthew was not originally written in Hebrew— no copy of such a work exists today, and Christ promised that his words would not pass away.
Are you sure that you really believe what the King James Bible says in Matthew 24:35?
3.) 2 Timothy was written in Greek Timothy would have understood exactly the point that I made my first paragraph about 2 Timothy 4:2, “preach the Word,” referring back to 2 Timothy 3:16, “All scripture.” Why shouldn't we tell the people of God what Timothy would have understood when you read the inspired epistle of Paul sent him? Why should somebody who tells people what Timothy would have understood when you read Paul's epistle be rebuked for this, because it is allegedly an evil appeal to Greek? By not telling people what Timothy would have understood when he read Paul's epistle, are we not contributing to bad preaching?
4.) Can you give me a single example of a classic Baptist or Anabaptist confession of faith that makes this kind of Ruckmanite affirmation that Greek and Hebrew are dangerous and should be avoided? What if you are repudiating your Baptist heritage when you make this kind of statement?
5.) What verse in the NT or OT warns about the sin or danger of appealing to the original language text of the Bible? Isn't the Bible sufficient to tell us what sin is, or do we need Ruckmanite writings to help us figure that out?
I may (or may not) have time to say more, but I do not have time right now. The discussion above is valuable, however, because actually illustrates how bad preaching gets into independent Baptist churches.
Thanks.
Please pardon a few typos above, I am using Dragon Dictate dictation software and it made a few mistakes. Thanks.
This will be my last reply since I see you can’t remain civil nor actually read through thoroughly what I already said before going and giving a half-cocked response (Prov. 18:13). I say you can’t remain civil because you have in essence uncharitably (as well as falsely and baselessly) slurred me as being a Ruckmanite, or at least lumped me in as though I’m getting everything from him. Such is a cowardly and carnal tactic that the world loves to do (ad hominem), especially to lump someone into a derisive category and label them with an epithet; an example of such is how they baselessly allege that Trump is a Nazi or white supremacist. That is a slurring tactic, and you won’t find God does that with people since He is not a respecter of persons: He judges each man based on his own account, not lumping them together as just a sycophant of this or that so He can broadbrush condemn them all. It is a poor debate tactic. It is also a demonstration someone feels they’re losing when they jump to uncharitably slur the opposition (distraction tactic) instead of keeping things professional. I give up on keeping this discussion going (I’m not here to debate; debate is a carnal thing, 2 Cor. 12:20), but will give you answers to your points in this last comment from you.
1) I already said God preserved His word, even of that in Ps. 22:16, in VERNACULAR translations, and in effect did that of Ps. 22:16 in Hebrew buried in caves, but it was out in the open in the vernacular translations. It’s you that has the problem with your narrow idea about Matt. 5:18 that it HAS to ONLY be about Hebrew. Because the unbelieving Jews didn’t keep Ps. 22:16 in their copies for generations are you going to be consistent and say that it is not a part of God’s word? Why is it unsaved, unbelieving Jews have to determine for you if it is Biblical as well as to preserve God’s word? How about Ps. 105:8 which exempts the Dead Sea Scrolls from the equation since the verse is in effect promising God’s word (and that there the OT) would be around to a thousand generations, meaning it would be available in every one of those generations? Up until the Dead Sea Scrolls were found Ps. 22:16 was only found preserved in VERNACULAR translations. So, which is it, vernacular translations preserving Ps. 22:16, or unbelieving Jews deleting it and never carrying it on? Your disagreement is not with me, it is in how God chose to preserve His word in spite of unbelieving Jews. You still have not acknowledged my statements of the three verses Greek Byzantine texts DELETE through the ages as well as most not even having the book of Revelation. It’s easy to not say anything about something that demolishes your false ideas but yet hoping someone won’t notice by distracting the attention elsewhere, unless they actually notice.
2) NO ONE is even absolutely sure what language Jesus even said Matt. 24:35 (could have been Hebrew, cf. Acts 26:14, which point you also ignore), but He sure didn’t say in His statement there, “…but my words IN GREEK shall not pass away.” Your argument is a non sequitur, and you are not thinking clearly. I believe and preach the Bible doctrine of God’s promise of preservation of His word, but there is NOWHERE that He said He would do it ONLY in Hebrew with the OT and ONLY in Greek with the NT. You are making an IDOL out of Hebrew and Greek texts. You didn’t read the Papias quote very well. There was no mention at all that Matthew wrote his Gospel account in Greek. I don’t care your unproven assertion that mine is egregiously bad history—read the book by Hoskier that I cited and it is documented evidence about this position (but you ignored that too). Instead, it is dismissive and unethical to give ZERO statements to support your bandwagon argumentum ad antiquitatem. The position of “the NT was only originally given in Greek” is an old wives’ fable passed on without evidence which people have passively accepted without actually thinking about it or researching it. You are just a casualty of not thinking discerningly on the topic, passively accepting whatever they’ve chewed up and spit in your mouth like a baby bird with a mother bird. By the way, your definition of inspiration does not fit the Bible. That’s another subject, but I don’t care to discuss anything more with you since you are dismissive and close-minded.
3) Here’s your distraction tactic, to shift away from what you don’t want to answer, to make an issue somewhere else (a straw-man argument). Please at least quote the Bible correctly and stop capitalizing “word” when it is not about the Lord Jesus Christ (John 1:1,14) but instead about the Bible (Heb. 4:12). You are mischaracterizing God’s word by putting it capitalized. What is your basis of declaring Paul wrote to Timothy in Greek? Proof, please! Maybe it was since Timothy was half-Jewish and Paul was Jewish that he actually wrote to him in Hebrew? Timothy would have known Hebrew since he grew up reading the Bible, being taught by his Jewish mother and grandmother. It doesn’t say anywhere in the Bible that Paul wrote to Timothy in Greek, so why make a big deal out of it? It is illogical. If you say we should go to Greek to have people understand what God exactly said, then you are saying the English in the KJB is not enough (prime example of treading on Baptist distinctives). Why are you putting restrictions on God that He can only have 100% of His word in Koine Greek (a dead language, and He never put those restrictions on Himself, even in the timeframe of the NT—see Acts 2) and therefore cannot do so in English? What are you going to do about the fact that in the 9th century the Eastern, Proto-Orthodox “church” of the Byzantine Empire had forbidden the common people from reading the Bible in Greek? So, you who thinks that we have to go to Greek, were people lost without recourse in the Byzantine Empire since they were banned from reading the Bible in Greek?
4) It’s rather a waste of time to speak any more on this since you demonstrate you haven’t carefully read what I said. I gave you already an example about Baptists from history with the Bogomils, and you ignored it. I’ll give you one more: Isaac Backus in 1754 said, “If we cannot know certainly that the Bible is true without understanding Hebrew, Greek, and Latin then alas we are in a woeful case indeed.” That is an illustration that a historical Baptist distrusted the prerogative which you assert that one cannot know the word of God without going to the “original languages.” By saying that one has to study Hebrew and Greek to know the “real” meaning abrogates the priesthood of the believer (Rev. 1:5-6), individual soul liberty (Acts 5:29, Rom. 14:12), the sufficiency of Scripture (1 Cor. 2:10-13), as well as the teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit (1 John 2:27). The King James Bible is 100% the word of God in English, and, as such, it is fully sufficient in and of itself with no need to “have to go” to “scholarship” about the DEAD languages of Hebrew and Greek. You cannot truthfully call yourself a Baptist if you advocate that people must know Hebrew and Greek to “really” know the word of God. By claiming people must go to these DEAD languages or they won’t really understand God’s word you are abolishing Baptist distinctives. You instead have the same reasoning as a Muslim about his Koran. Who’s the one that is leading people to bad preaching?
5) I don’t need to appeal to any OT or NT verse when a careful reading of my comments will show what I couched my statement in—you cannot trust Hebrew or Greek study ANYMORE because the scholarship about it is irreparably corrupted. Answer that first before making a straw-man question. I will however reword your question back to you—isn’t the King James Bible sufficient enough to tell us everything that God wants us to know that we don’t need doubtful, even heretical data on Hebrew and Greek to sufficiently understand it? Like the man said, you are speaking to people in the “unknown tongue” of Greek (and are therefore prohibited from doing so according to 1 Cor. 14:27-28), only known by people in Greece (which is not an altogether true statement since we are talking about Koine Greek vs. modern Greek).
I must plead with you to at least stop touting the login name of KJB1611 because you are teaching against it by alleging people must go to Hebrew and Greek. You should instead put something like SCRIVENER1881 or GREEKOPHILE since you are a half-hearted supporter of the KJB. That is deceptive to people, and God doesn’t take kindly to that of someone doing ministry in that way (Jer. 48:10a). By the way, Scrivener’s text DOES NOT exactly match the text of the KJB, nor does ANY TR in print, EVER. And no printing of the TR is exactly the same as some other one; they ALL slightly differ from each other. So, which of them is THE word of God in Greek? Which of the 50+ TR editions before the KJB, or of the over 600 before 1881? None of them EXACTLY match the KJB. Which arbitrarily picked TR edition are you going to tout as being THE word of God in Greek?
Valiant for the truth, Bro. Foss.
Dear Bro Foss,
You are actually wrong about the history of Psalm 22:16, and there is a lot that could be said here, but it seems like you agree that Mt 5:18 is talking about Hebrew words, although then you say it is not only Hebrew words. So where are those Hebrew words? If Psalm 22:16 really disappeared like you claim, but Mt 5:18 promised not a consonant or vowel of the Hebrew OT would go away, isn't Mat 5:18 wrong? Where are the Hebrew words Christ promised would never go away?
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that we couldn't know what language Mt 24:35 was about (totally false, but for the sake of argument). Christ wasn't speaking English, that's for sure. So where are the canonical words that Christ spoke about?
The actual words and letters Paul wrote to Timothy are perfectly preserved, according to God's promises. Where are they?
So is the answer to this question: "What verse in the NT or OT warns about the sin or danger of appealing to the original language text of the Bible?" "There is none"?
While Dr. Backus would turn over in his grave if he were to find out that he was now being used to advance Ruckmanism, please note that I asked about Baptist confessions. So can you give me a single example of a classic Baptist or Anabaptist confession of faith that makes this kind of Ruckmanite affirmation that Greek and Hebrew are dangerous and should be avoided? What if you are repudiating your Baptist heritage when you make this kind of statement?
Answering these questions would do a lot more good than calling me close-minded, employing distraction tactics, not thinking, etc.
Thanks.
By the way, your position that we don't know if the NT was in Greek, etc. will turn people away from the KJB611. It destroys the genuine case for the preserved Word of God. It rejects what God actually said He would do in preservation--He allegedly failed to preserve the actual Hebrew words of Ps 22:16 in use (Is 59:21; Mt 4:4) like He promised. So maybe I have a lot better right to calling myself KJB1611 than you do in telling me not to.
Thanks again.
Bro. Ross,
I only reply to address your false accusations (I already said I'm not going to debate and that it is carnal, yet you persist). I am not a Ruckmanite. I've already said that it is uncharitable to baselessly allege so (yet you persist), and in the way you are using it, it is character assassination. If you can't be more upright about speaking to someone on a topic than to resort to name calling then God help you. Ruckman was a wild man, putting out wild doctrines like the Gap Theory, et al. He was divorced and remarried more than once as I understand, which should have disqualified him from pastoring, but the people were too blinded apparently to it and just let him keep going. And, the guy was caustic, having a lot of derogatory stuff to say about people. But, you CAN BE a King James Bible believer AND NOT BE a Ruckmanite (which is my case).
The Backus quote was from James Sightler's book A Testimony Founded For Ever, p. 10. Last I know, he's no Ruckmanite either.
I won't answer any of your questions because you have turned this into a tense conversation, an uncharitable debate, because you are offended that someone actually has rebuked your position and you don't have anything to counter it except for fluff and empty accusations that I am egregious historically.
I didn't intend for this to be a debate; but apparently you won't take anything with any grace from anybody else that has independently thought through and studied their position. Understand the source of your contention (Prov. 13:10) and what God will do with those (James 4:6).
I bid you adieu. Please don't bother sending me any more email until you resolve and publicly profess to respond with more grace.
One more thing--since there are different editions of the TR, God didn't really preserve the Greek NT, right? That's why we need the 1611--is that your argument? God failed to preserve the Greek?
I wonder if Thomas Ross' last comment, the question, will be answered. I haven't read all the comments here, but let's just say that we remove the name of Peter Ruckman off of the history of planet earth. His view still has a name, even if he, who never existed, didn't originate. It's either double inspiration or English preservationism, two names I give it, and both are a rejection or severe corruption of biblical teaching. They deny God's promise of preservation and, therefore, deny God Himself.
On top of that, it does troll this post not to actually take the questions seriously and derail the entire point of the post. I hate that. I also don't like it that then someone plays the victim. At most, this blog was victimized by the trolling. Nothing else. It wasn't a post about the King James Version.
Related to the questions, a kind of separation has already occurred, it seems with me, as I have pointed out the problems in preaching. Some could say that something serious is going on and we need to do something about it. Others could say, we'll just not have him preach anymore, because we don't want to hear it. I've found there is little quality control often at conferences. Wrong teaching is done and nothing is said. If something is said, the one saying it is in trouble. This is a sad state of affairs. It all poses, I believe, under the heading of "autonomy of the church." We really need a revisiting of the meaning and point of autonomy. It's not to corrupt the truth. The truth presides over autonomy, not vice-versa.
It seems that separation itself is based on the truth. If much doctrinal error goes out and we sit silently, are we associating with it or accommodating it? Is that what the Bible tells us to do? No. Since our goal is restoration, we should at least take a constructive view of it, do something edifying, not just push the eject button and cut everyone off. Silence though should not be an option.
Dear Bro Foss,
I am glad that you are, I trust, not possessed of the same moral failures as Peter Ruckman, and I never said that you were, but your position is still Ruckmanism. I'm glad that the names you have called me are not as nasty as the ones Peter Ruckman probably would have called me. That's great.
I'm sorry you won't answer my simple questions--even if I am close-minded, not thinking, uncharitable, engaged in character assassination, have nothing but fluff and empty accusations, and all the rest of the names you called me while stating that you would not answer my questions because I am calling you names, perhaps other people reading the blog would deserve answers. Here they are again:
1.) Since there are different editions of the TR, God didn't really preserve the Greek NT, right? That's why we need the 1611--is that your argument? God failed to preserve the Greek?
2.) It seems like you agree that Mt 5:18 is talking about Hebrew words, although then you say it is not only Hebrew words. So where are those Hebrew words? If Psalm 22:16 really disappeared like you claim, but Mt 5:18 promised not a consonant or vowel of the Hebrew OT would go away, isn't Mat 5:18 wrong? Where are the Hebrew words Christ promised would never go away?
3.) Let's say, for the sake of argument, that we couldn't know what language Mt 24:35 was about (totally false, but for the sake of argument). Christ wasn't speaking English, that's for sure. So where are the canonical words that Christ spoke about?
4.) The actual words and letters Paul wrote to Timothy are perfectly preserved, according to God's promises. Where are they?
5.) So is the answer to this question: "What verse in the NT or OT warns about the sin or danger of appealing to the original language text of the Bible?" "There is none"?
6.) Can you give me a single example of a classic Baptist or Anabaptist confession of faith that makes this kind of Ruckmanite affirmation that Greek and Hebrew are dangerous and should be avoided? What if you are repudiating your Baptist heritage when you make this kind of statement?
7.) What verse in the NT or OT warns about the sin or danger of appealing to the original language text of the Bible? Isn't the Bible sufficient to tell us what sin is, or do we need Ruckmanite writings to help us figure that out?
Dear Pastor Brandenburg,
I agree, though Bro Foss actually does do a good job of illustrating why there is bad preaching among independent Baptists. When you rebuke someone for pointing out what 2 Timothy 3:16-4:2 says and argue that nobody knows if the New Testament was written in Greek or in some other language, you aren't going to have good preaching.
Statements like "There is just something about education and knowledge that is a big tool of the Devil..." also are a great illustration of the problems IFBs have on their lunatic fringe that is, unfortunately, too big of a fringe.
There are also good examples of ignorance of Biblical context (e. g., his comments on Saul, when the context of 1 Samuel makes it very clear that King Saul was given Israel in judgment), ignorance of manuscript evidence (e. g., his argument on Psalm 22, cf. my article on it: https://faithsaves.net/psalm-2216/), ignorance of linguistics ("last I knew, Arabic has nothing to do with Hebrew or Greek.." when Arabic and Hebrew are very close), and numbers of other painful examples of ignorance.
I can be thankful that, I trust, Bro Foss is one of the dear children of God purchased by the blood of Christ. Furthermore, only by the grace of God are any of us able to know about anything, so we have nothing to glory in of ourselves. But this sort of ignorance contributes to bad preaching, bad apologetics ("the original words of the NT are lost, and we don't even know what language the NT was in, so we need to trust a 17th century English translation"), bad missionary work (not translating the Bible from Greek and Hebrew), and in other ways hinders the work of God's kingdom. It is a good example of what needs to change among far too many IFBs.
By the way, in case anyone reading this is wondering if Isaac Backus supports Ruckmanism, here are two quotes from his own writings, found by a simple search of his own writings, that is, looking at primary source material instead of secondary source material, as Bro Foss does:
"[w]e have some other ordained pastors, who have considerable skill in both the Greek and Latin tongues..."
"he declares to the world, that all the Greek Lexicons which he ever saw make the primary sense of the word baptize, to be to dip..."
Isaac Backus, A Fish Caught in His Own Net: An Examination of Nine Sermons, from Matt. 16:18 (Boston: Edes and Gill, 1768), 43.
Isaac Backus, A Fish Caught in His Own Net: An Examination of Nine Sermons, from Matt. 16:18 (Boston: Edes and Gill, 1768), 110.
There are no warnings about Greek or Hebrew being bad anywhere, of course.
Bro. Brandenberg,
I don't know you, and you should not pretend to know me either, but to characterize me as a Ruckmanite is wrong despite my public profession I am not a Ruckmanite. I have read only one book from the man, The "Errors" in the King James Bible, don't remember anything from it, but if that makes me guilty, then on your own logic you are guilty of being a Jordan Petersonite since you read his book and attended a speech of his (and by your own profession "like" him). You've done more than I ever have about Ruckman--I never met the man, don't care for his lack of morals, nor his terrible attitude, weird theology, etc. But, because I have ideas and a basis of belief that might be similar to his (I don't know, I haven't read enough of him to even know what exactly he espoused) then by you and Thomas Ross I am a certifiable "Ruckmanite"!! Absurd! There are other people out there that have come to their own conclusions, from their own study, and to bash them and lump them all into your pre-fit arbitrary mold created to intellectually dismiss anything coming close to it in your opinion is as wrong as someone alleging because you are independent Baptist that you are a Steven Andersonite or just another Westboro Baptist of Kansas. Do you understand? I can uncharitably use your lack of reasoning and allege something as baseless about you as you do me. Does it make it right or professional? No. Assess things on the worth and verifiableness of the ideas themselves--that's a proper approach. No matter how intellectual you and Ross are, you're not thinking through things very well on this. Pity.
And, I'm not "troll(ing) this post". If anything, Ross' badgering and refusal to answer my questions but his insistence his questions posed after mine must be answered, who won't leave well enough alone and won't apologize, wouldn't that be "trolling"? I was willing to drop it and move on but you and your colleague refuse to do so.
Bro. Ross,
Saying "I'm sorry you won't answer my simple questions" is not an apology, and not what I asked for. You are mischaracterizing what I said, alleging those are name-calling, when it should be self-evident that those are an assessment of your behavior, not epithets hurled at you (I apologize that I offended you). There is still no public profession by you to respond with more grace and professionalism, especially since you, like Brandenburg now, baselessly persist in still alleging that I am Ruckmanite. I don't have time to waste on this frivolous exercise in unprofessionalism--I refuse to debate you, esp. when I showed you it's carnal. Open discussion of ideas is one matter, but acting insolently as you have is insufferable.
I have to say though, you illustrated the point about Ps. 22:16 by saying the Masoretic Text reads differently than how it should read (forgive my mistake of saying it was not there at all, the correct reading of the questioned phrase is what is the issue)--nevertheless for centuries in the Masoretic Text they did not have the right reading, which you begrudgingly admit in your 2014 post, so did God therefore fail to preserve His word exactly in Hebrew? So you say two Hebrew manuscripts had it, but that doesn't constitute a majority ("ample support" does not mean "abundant" nor "majority"), so, did God fail otherwise in Hebrew...? Or, according to your article, He preserved it in the Masorah and not in the text itself in most copies, so are you alleging we should take the Masorah for everything it says it should be in the text since that's where with this you are alleging God has preserved His word, not in the text itself? Do you habitually use that Louw and Nida Greek lexicon? You trust critical text scholarship what they say Greek says? Now there's some bad preaching. Too bad you're avoiding the fact about Acts 8:37, 9:6, 1 John 5:7 and most of the Greek Byzantine copies not including Revelation.
Dear Bro Foss,
I'm sorry you won't answer the questions. My conscience is clear about my behavior; if I thought I was indeed engaging in loose-minded, not thinking, uncharitable character assassination, and carnal insufferable insolence, having nothing but fluff and empty accusations, I would indeed apologize, but perhaps I'm not the one doing that.
Please note that my article on Psalm 22:16 referenced sources that mention "many" MSS with Psalm 22:16's "pierced." Regardless, since Christ promised He would do so in Mt 5:18, He did indeed preserve the Hebrew just like He faithfully promised to do it. We believe God's promises--your position that the actual words written by the Apostles are lost, and we don't even know what language they were in, is a rejection of the promises of God on preservation. It is either Ruckmanism or even worse than Ruckman's heresy, and it is an untenable position from which to defend the KJV.
Thanks.
Also, yes, the Louw-Nida lexicon works the same way that the Oxford English Dictionary does--it looks at how words are used in many sources and concludes what they mean. It is not quite as reliable as the OED, and certainly is not infallible, but it is actually not that hard to figure out that "Theos" means "God" when the word appears in thousands of instances in ancient Greek sources, and while one needs to be aware of their theological bias, it does not invalidate their lexicon any more than the probable atheism of the OED editors invalidates their English dictionary when they say that "conversation" meant "conduct" in 17th century English.
However, there is no point answering your questions if you won't answer my Scriptural ones. If you will not hear Moses and the prophets, giving answers to less important matters won't help you, unfortunately. Perhaps you should study what the KJB1611 teaches about the preservation of Scripture a bit more carefully. The book Thou Shalt Keep Them, or the passages here:
http://faithsaves.net/inspiration-preservation-scripture/
would be a good place to start.
Thanks again.
Brother Ross, Do you think you could re-post the original questions as a new post? I was quite interested in seeing if anyone had ideas in answer to them. Thanks.
Dear Pastor Voegtlin,
Thanks for the comment. I am not exactly sure what you are aiming at; could not someone answer the questions in the text of the post here below?
I would be interested in hearing your answers to the questions, if you have some.
Thanks.
Well, again, no apology. I already said I would not engage in a debate because debate is carnal (which you still haven't acknowledged), and you demonstrate that fact by clinging on to carnal name calling (persisting to allege it is Ruckmanism, or something "worse than Ruckman's heresy" now somehow). How can someone have a frank and open (mature) discussion when the other side is guilty of such partiality and slurs? Also, this of calling my salvation in question is another carnal thing, and actually very cultic. Cults assume that if people don't agree with them that they are not saved. Your statement at first (which no one was calling in question) that you are thankful (you trust) that I am one of the dear children of God was fine (and I am), but this last one of "If you will not hear Moses and the prophets..." is a direct insinuation that I'm not saved. Maybe you didn't intend it so (I hope not, but if that's so, your discernment is totally out of whack), but the only place that is said is Luke 16:29,31 of Abraham to the rich man in Hell about his lost brothers. If you by that really are alleging I'm not saved then you really are cultic! No need to keep up a charade of discussing things with you if you'll be that carnal.
By the way, quoting second hand sources is apparently fine for you with discussing Ps. 22:16 (quoting others saying there are only two Hebrew mss., or "many", no matter, that is not first hand information to you that you found but you are riding on the research of others) but it is a dirty, guilty thing for me to do. That is inconsistent. And, bashing my allusion to King Saul as being ignorant of Biblical context though I rightfully said he was God-chosen and God-anointed was strained and grasping. Apparently that was a good enough situation for David the future king to respect those facts and still consider him the rightful king then though he was already anointed himself--but according to your logic David should have killed him those times he had a chance?
So what if your conscience is clear, it can be seared to where you assume everything is fine. If carnal actions are nothing to you to apologize over then your conscience is seared. Does Jesus in Mt. 5:23-24 qualify His statement about the brother having ought against another, that, if the offending man senses in his conscience something's wrong, to only then go to the brother? I demonstrate that your accusations of Ruckmanism (or now something "worse"), and what I take as allegation I'm not saved, are unacceptable, and I have out of good reason challenged you to apologize for it. If you won't see that that is wrong and apologize then there's no use talking any further.
Danny,
It is tough to answer your comments. First, they're very long, and I'm on the road right now with little time to write. Second, I'm not sure that you would listen. I've seen Thomas start to answer you and it's not going well. Third, you weren't insulted. In your first few lines, you were offensive by comparing Thomas to a Roman Catholic, which you doubled down on, and then when your position is compared to Peter Ruckman, you're offended, even though it is the position popularized by Peter Ruckman to the extent that it is called Ruckmanism. Positions have titles. I told you that I would not call it Ruckmanism, but treat it like he never existed (so as not to be offensive) and instead call it double inspiration or English preservationism, and you were offended because I compared you to Ruckman. I said I don't want it to be about Ruckman and you said I was making it about Ruckman. This is what I mean.
Now you say you're not going to debate, even though you are debating. And you won't debate, which you really are, because it is carnal, which is saying we're carnal. Fine, but Stephen, full of the Holy Ghost, debated the religious leaders at the end of Acts 6: "Then there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen." Stephen didn't say, "Sorry, but I can't debate with you." He argued with them, which is the meaning of the term. This is also something Paul often did, argued. Romans is an argument. Paul is arguing with someone, obviously. This is spiritual warfare, using scripture to argue.
I'm predicting for the last one, that you won't accept that you're debating, and you'll probably say Stephen wasn't debating, but that it was the teachers "disputing," which isn't debating. Anyway, this is why someone might not want to enter into a discussion with you, and I'm using this as an example.
Bro. Brandenburg,
When I write, I want to be thorough and not give short quips as answers. I must ask you to give me some respect here instead of discourteously using my first name only--like I said, you don't know me, and so you are not free to just use my first name. It is common courtesy amongst independent Baptists to call other brethren Brother, but you are not affording that.
I did not say that Thomas Ross is a Catholic--I compared his actions to how Catholic priests operate. It is not name-calling but comparison. Was he offended since you say it was offensive? I'll apologize I offended him, but the comparison is valid to how he's operating, so I won't apologize for the comparison. However, what you did is not comparison when you baselessly assail me as teaching Ruckmanism, implying I am a Ruckmanite, or now as Thomas Ross says, something worse than Ruckman's heresy. By the way, he seems to have a better handle on what heresy means than you, though his application is questionable--your article earlier is incorrect in how you define heresy, and so your applications of it are incorrect; and really, you should know better than that, but maybe you like him are reading too much Greek to understand what God's word really says.
The predicament in Acts 6 with Stephen was uncalled for by Stephen, and, though "disputing with" implicates Stephen as disputing back, it was the ones from the synagogue that rose up against him. He eventually saw he was getting nowhere and just preached at them (Acts 7)--if you insist to use that as an example of debate (God never calls it that there), you help illustrate what I'm saying because they killed him. Debate is carnal (2 Cor. 12:20), and, as such, stirs up inappropriate emotions, pushing someone even to do something terrible if they yield to those emotions.
Paul's whole epistle to the Romans was not debate, and it's absurd you would allege that by using it as an example here. It was a long treatise, a sermon in a way, instruction, teaching, explaining doctrine. At its simplest, debates are one side talking then the other, a back and forth, a controversy which can usually cause heatedness. That's not what happened in the book of Romans.
Yes, your examples are vacuous and do not apply to it. And you feign offense, but like to the lawyers in Lk. 11:45 that fussed at Jesus alleging He was condemning them too by what He said, His response in the next verse was like He was saying "If the shoe fits..." How about assess the Scripture reference I gave (2 Cor. 12:20) and you will see it is a proper understanding to label it as carnality. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Although this comment section has gotten way off track, it has been a good object lesson of seeing the fruit of double inspiration/English preservationism.
I think of 1Ti 6:3-5.
Post a Comment