Where is the Bible? Part Two: Answering the Questions

Canonicity is a good test case for MVO or Critical Text people. In a very transparent way, it shows the double standard they have for the doctrine of preservation. We have a far more developed doctrine of preservation in Scripture than a doctrine of canonicity. Most defense of canonicity comes from the patristics and their councils. They are quite unwilling to add or take away one book from the 27 when there is compatible “evidence” and “history” to add or take away one or more books. No passage says there are 27, so they practice fideism regarding their very limited doctrine of canoncity, a “leap in the dark.” When the dust settles, they use the exact same argument for the preservation of books as we do for words, when there is actually nothing in Scripture to defend their preservation of books. Scripture only teaches preservation of words.

Is there any passage in Scripture that lists the twenty-seven books of the New Testament?

NO. There is no passage that says that the TR is what God would preserve. That’s a big argument on the MVO side. That get’s a big ouch here. Sheer fideism on their part. Or is it? Aren’t we to get Biblical presuppositions and then look for their fulfillment? That’s what we do in the matter of preservation. That’s what we both do in the matter of canonization. This should shut down this argument.

How can anyone be sure that the original New Testament did have twenty-seven books?

They can be sure by faith. They can be sure that it is exactly, perfectly, accurately 27 by faith. Is it just that God gets to do an easier miracle that we believe in 66 books of the Bible? But we can’t believe in a miracle that we have every Word for us in one edition of the Hebrew and Greek OT and NT? And this is even though the Bible actually says something about preserving Words and nothing about Books. Our faith is in the Holy Spirit through the pillar and ground of the truth. Jesus said He would be with His church.

Does the Bible even teach canonicity of books?

Not once. So why do we believe it? The clear teaching is canonicity of Words. God keeps preserving, that’s the nature of preservation. Inspiration is a one time event. Preservation is an ongoing process. God guides into all truth through His Spirit. Can we trust the Holy Spirit? Or is our latest trust “guidelines of textual criticism?” I think it is interesting that anyone would place strong trust in Irenaeus, who was obviously a baptismal regenerationist. They gladly do, bowing at the altar of scholarship. His reasoning behind four gospels would be considered a joke if it was brought up today by a KJV supporter.

Why did canonization take so long?

God’s ways are not my ways. We wait on Him, not He on us. We also are depending on “history” and “evidence” to say it took long. We don’t know that it may have been much shorter, like 50-100 years, or the number of years that it took for the Holy Spirit to guide the church into the exact Words of Scripture from those copies and editions.

Do you believe that God used these three discoveries of texts recounted above in order to restore the New Testament back to a condition closer to the original manuscripts?

No way. I think they are all three Satanic. They are a trap for those who do not “receive Scripture.” Tischendorf was determined to restore Scripture, not receive it. He thought too highly of himself. If we are going to accept an old minority manuscript that is missing the first verses of John 8, but has the Epistle of Barnabas, then why not accept the Nag Hammadi Gospel of Thomas. It’s old and minority. There are those that put it on par with John’s Gospel. When we start depending on extra-Scriptural methodology and not Divinely established principles from Scripture, we are open to anything and everything and are left with nothing perfect. And sadly, it doesn’t even matter.

How could we possibly have a perfect Bible when no two hand-written ancient copies are alike?

I will answer this in a later entry on one of my Wednesdays.

How does anyone know what the Word of God actually is?

By faith with Scriptural presuppositions.

Is canonization a natural process?

No. It is a miracle. Oops. Providence is a miracle? That’s what Henry Morris said in his book on miracles. He had a whole chapter on it. The foreword was written by John MacArthur, endorsing it. Of course, I believed that already, but now maybe others will because their man MacArthur liked it.

Is having errors in the Bible a suitable position for you?

No way. If there is anything that the Bible teaches about itself is that it is perfect.

Do you believe God preserved Words or the Content of Scripture?

The Bible teaches preserved letters and Words, not content. Those who believe “content” are espousing a neo-orthodox position.

I wasn’t really laying a trap, but just recognized the trap because of the double standard, two faced Bibliology. I would hate being in their position; it isn’t exegetical. It is evidentiary, historical-rationale apologetics. It isn’t pleasing to God; it isn’t faith. And then it leaves them adding and taking away from the Words of God.

Where Is the Bible?

In a New Testament manuscript dating from the fourth century, Codex Vaticanus (so named because it was found in the Vatican library), a scribe copied in Hebrews 1:3, “Christ manifests [Gk: phaneron] all things by the word of his power.” That is a different reading than the one found in most manuscripts available, which say, “Christ bears [Gk: pheron] all things by the word of his power.” Some centuries later, another scribe read Vaticanus and decided to change the unusual word “manifests” to the more common reading “bears”—erasing the one word and writing in the other. A few centuries later a third scribe read the same manuscript, noticed the alteration his predecessor had made, and he erased the word “bears” and rewrote “manifests.” This third scribe wrote this derisive comment in the margin concerning the second scribe: “Fool and knave! Leave the old reading, don’t change it!”

That one difference does alter the interpretation of the text. Saying that Christ reveals all things is different than saying that He bears or keeps all things.

Copyists of the text of the Old and New Testament through the years have changed the words found in the original, so that almost every copy is different. We also don’t have one scrap of the original parchment of one book of the Bible, so we are dependent on copies for our readings of the Scripture. Most Christians agree that there is one perfect copy in heaven (Ps. 119:89). That heavenly edition does not do us much good down here, so if based upon Scriptural promises we believe that God has both perfectly preserved and also made accessible every one of His Words for us on earth, how did that happen?

SOME STORIES

Story #1

In the late 1830s one young and particularly ardent scholar became convinced that it was his mission to restore the Bible as close as possible to its original condition. He wrote his fiancee, “I am confronted with the . . . struggle to regain the original form of the New Testament.” This young man was named Lobegott (German for “Praise God”) because before he was born, his mother had seen a blind man and surrendered to the superstition that this would cause her child to be born blind. When he was born healthy, she dedicated him to God by calling him Lobegott Friedrich Constantine von Tischendorf. He first made his reputation concerning a fifth-century Greek manuscript, Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, which was erased in the twelfth century so its vellum pages could be reused to record some Syriac sermons. The pages had not been thoroughly erased, so Tischendorf used newly discovered chemical reagents to help bring out the handwriting so producing the first successful transcription of this early text. The accomplishment induced people to provide financial support for journeys that led him to the foot of Mt. Sinai and the Convent of St. Catherine in May of 1844.

Visiting that monastery he saw in the middle of the great hall a large and wide basket full of old parchments. He was told by the librarian that two heaps of papers just like these had already been committed to the flames. Amid the remaining pile were many sheets of a copy of the Old Testament in Greek, and the monastery allowed him to take only a third or forty three pages, since his excitement aroused their suspicions as to the value of the parchment. He could take no more.

Nine years later he returned and could find no trace of it. In 1859 under the patronage of Czar Alexander II of Russia, he set out again but with repeated failure until the very last day. Then he was invited to the room of the convent’s steward and discussed with him the Greek Old Testament. The steward told him, “I too have read a Septuagint,” and he pulled from the corner of his room a copy wrapped in red cloth. Tischendorf recounts:

I unrolled the cover, and discovered, to my great surprise, not only those very fragments which, fifteen years before, I had taken out of the basket, but also other parts of the Old Testament, the New Testament complete, and in addition, the Epistle of Barnabas and a part of the Pastor of Hermas.

Today Codex Sinaiticus rests in the British Library as a part of its permanent collection, prominently displayed in its manuscript room.

Story #2

In December, 1945, Egyptian fellahin rode their camels out to the Jabal al-Tarif, a huge cliff near the Nile River honeycombed with caves. They came in search of sabakh, a natural fertilizer they used to nourish their crops. Hobbling their camels at the foot of the cliff, the men began to dig in the soft soil around a massive boulder resting against the cliff face. Striking something hard, they swiftly uncovered a red earthenware jar nearly a meter high. Fearing that the jar might contain an angry jinn, or spirit, the men hesitated. Quickly the legends of treasure buried in the caves of the Jabal al-Tarif overcame their fear. Muhammad Ali al-Samman raised his mattock and smashed the jar with a single blow. Golden dust, he swore afterwards, flew out of the jar and vanished into the air. However, among the shards of pottery the men found no gold, only some old books bound in cracked leather. Disappointed, Muhammad Ali carried the books and loose papers home and dumped them on the floor near the oven. For several nights, his mother fed the fire with sheets of the papyrus.

The remaining texts, after a torturous journey through the black market, were eventually identified by scholars as Christian gospels missing for nearly two thousand years. Bound in tooled gazelle leather, the 52 manuscripts were turned over to the Coptic Museum in Cairo, and teams of scholars from Canada, Germany, Scandinavia and the United States have worked together to decipher the poems, prayers and sayings that were translated from the original Greek into Coptic, an African language that transposes hieroglyphics into an alphabetical mode.

Story #3

When Napoleon seized the Vatican in 1809 he exiled the Pope to Avignon, transported the Vatican library to France in 50 wagons, and carried off a prize to Paris—a fourth century Greek manuscript of the Bible. There it remained until 1815 when it was finally returned to Rome along with its owner. The manuscript was known by scholars to exist in 1475 when it was listed in a catalogue of manuscripts in the Vatican Library. Vatican authorities kept it under lock and key desperately hoping this recently rediscovered treasure would be soon forgotten. The Catholic Church considers the manuscript dangerous because it shows so clearly how corrupt their Vulgate is. But in 1845, a young English scholar, Samuel Tregelles—self taught—applied for permission to investigate this find in the Vatican library. Unable to avoid granting permission, the Vatican put every obstacle in his path. He was not allowed to take pen or paper with him, he was searched going in and coming out, and two clerics stood by him to turn the pages so he could not look too long at any one passage. Before he left, he was only allowed six hours to examine the text.

In 1866 Lobegott Tischendorf was granted permission to once more examine this manuscript. He was also given many restrictions; only 14 days and three hours each day. However, with his photographic memory he was able to publish the most perfect edition of the manuscript which had yet appeared in 1867. This forced the Vatican to finally publish a copy, Codex Vaticanus, in 1881.

SOME HISTORY

The New Testament was completed when John finished Revelation in A.D. 90. We know they were making copies and circulating them. Colossians 4:16 reads, “And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the from Laodicea.” Early Christianity spread like wildfire across the Roman Empire, so rapidly that by the end of the second century Christian groups were proliferating everywhere there despite efforts to stop them. Tertullian, living in the port city of Carthage in North Africa 100 years after John’s Revelation was written, boasted to outsiders that “the more we are mown down by you, the more we multiply; the blood of Christians is seed!” Assemblies of them were popping up everywhere; some were taking off, but going the wrong direction, orthodox doctrine eroding. This widespread movement was becoming enormously diverse, so that the leadership faced the problem of how to unify Christianity so that it could survive its enemies. From the breadth of the materials preserved from that period, we know that many other books were written besides the twenty-seven in the New Testament. Several of those books were mentioned and refuted by Irenaeus in his five book treatise, Against Heresies. Irenaeus also made these statements in those writings:

In like manner he also . . . . retains unchangeable in his heart the rule of the truth which he received by means of baptism. . . . [T]his class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith. . . . For the baptism instituted by the visible Jesus was for the remission of sins.

Those statements manifest no true conversion for Irenaeus. He, however, was the man who most scholars see as responsible for the canonization of the New Testament text, also despite the fact that he himself never listed the twenty-seven New Testament books. He is most often given credit for nailing down the four Gospels by writing in Against Heresies:

It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout the world, and the pillar and ground of the Church is the Gospel . . . it is fitting that she should have four pillars.

Does that sound like good evidence for the four Gospels to you? The final decisions among all of these varied groups about which books should finally be considered canonical were not automatic or problem free. We are able to pinpoint the first time that any professing Christian of record listed the twenty-seven books of our New Testament as the books of the New Testament. The first surviving instance of anyone affirming our set of books as the New Testament was Athanasius, the powerful bishop of Alexandria, in A.D. 367. Even that did not settle the issue historically—debates continued for decades, even centuries.

SOME QUESTIONS

Is there any passage in Scripture that lists the twenty-seven books of the New Testament? How can anyone be sure that the original New Testament did have twenty-seven books? Does the Bible even teach canonicity of books? Why did canonization take so long? Do you believe that God used these three discoveries of texts recounted above in order to restore the New Testament back to a condition closer to the original manuscripts? How could we possibly have a perfect Bible when no two hand-written ancient copies are alike? How does anyone know what the Word of God actually is? Is canonization a natural process? Is having errors in the Bible a suitable position for you? Do you believe God preserved Words or the Content of Scripture?

Religious or Biblical Blogs That I Read Even Though We Don't Agree

I felt like I needed to do it this way, that is, talk about the blogs that I read and use, but don't agree with by giving a mini-review of these places in blogdom. I thought some might enjoy knowing and that this would make this site more helpful. This will be a permanent link on my sidebar. Talk to me if you have questions on my sidebar. I will consider what you have to say. For instance, there are other churches that I love and with whom I would fellowship, but the ones listed are churches very close to like us, including in size and in most other ways. I am ready to add some others.

Well, let me move on to my point---the religious or Biblical blogs that I read or use, and in alphabetical order.

Bible Bulletin Board---This is mainly a huge pile of John MacArthur material, easily attained, along with people much like him. I have to tell you what I think is wrong with him. He isn't a Biblical separatist either personally or ecclesiasticlly. He's a Calvinist. He's universal church. He often will not make the correct, strong application of Scripture, especially on cultural issues. However, he consistently has worked hard on coming to a correct interpretation of Scripture. I think he essentially gets a bad rap on the blood, even though I don't think he represents a Scriptural position with his "metonym for death." He is getting stronger in personal and ecclesiastical separation as he gets older---I think we should rejoice in that.

Blog and Mablog---Doug Wilson writes here. He is Mr. Classical Education. Mr. Idaho of Cultural Issues (Courting, Fidelity, Education, Husband/Wife). Mr. Satire. He even supports the KJV with some great arguments. He's an interesting writer. His organization there, Canon Press, puts out a lot of good material; I have taught through their Logic. Use the good, discard the bad. Something like that. The bad would be the ecclesiology, the eschatology, some of the soteriology, among a few other doctrines and issues.
Christian Classics Ethereal Library---I have downloaded from here to read several classics without leaving my leather swivel office chair. I have nodded and drooled as well. A huge library at your finger tips. What can I say?
Clement of Rome---Did you know that this first century contemporary of the Apostle John was local only in his ecclesiology? Check it out yourself.
Corporal Punishment of Children---This is the one click resource for obedience to Proverbs 23:13, 14.

Current Christian---This is the new blog from former chief moderator at Sharper Iron, Greg Linscott. He is not one normally to assume the worst. Pastor Linscott supports the KJV, uses God-honoring music, preaches expositionally, and represents a true Gospel He doesn't stand the same on the church and on many separation issues. However, this new blog is a useful resource on keeping up with what is going on, well, currently in the world regarding those who call themselves Christians, hence, Current Christian.
Dissidens on Remonstrans---Here is a guy that is more disliked by Jason Janz and Sharper Iron than I am. He has many good things to say on the subject of worship, worship music, and culture in general, written in a very interesting way. He is very well read, which means that you will probably learn something. I'm quite sure that we would see several theological differences, but I would guess that we are very similar on the nature of God and what salvation is.
Don Johnson---Don is a pastor of a Baptist church on Vancouver Island in British Columbia. He is not the same as me on the nature of the church, on preservation of Scripture, and on certain cultural standards. However, we have a very similar militancy and view of the world that makes it enjoyable for me to read him. He also preaches expositionally, which you will see when you read his blog. Don treats separatists with civility.
FBC Radio---The music here is of an unusually high standard for listening and downloading.
Fidelis---This site will keep you updated on first amendment, freedom of religion news and issues.

Fire and Ice---OK, I like reading the Puritans even though they'd kill me if they were alive. No, I don't like the Massachusetts Bay Colony. I'm more of a Providence, Rhode Island fan. I like the Virginia Baptists even better. Why the Puritans? They are so thorough and so reverent. They write great stuff on salvation and sanctification, minus the Calvinism. So there.
Free Religious Books Online---I thought the word "free" might get your attention.
Jason Janz Is Da Man---This is a site called Sharper Iron, but it is actually the self-proclaimed privately owned business of Jason Janz, who speaks for a theological subculture called the "young fundamentalist." Sharper Iron truly will have some good articles and is a good place to get the scoop on some important issues, religious news in general, and especially news applying to the fundamentalist Christian movement in America. If you interact here, you will meet some nice people, but be prepared for some obnoxious arrogance and Christianized feminism.
Precept Austin---Evangelicals of a different mind-set than me operate this site, but you get a great deal of good material to get ready for a study or sermon here.
Pyromaniacs---Let's be honest, this is the Phil Johnson site. And Phil Johnson gets his chops from being the editor of most of John MacArthur's books. You won't need to ask him. Just nod appreciatively. I guess I can't help checking out what this branch of "evangelicalism" is saying. They sure are an inconsistent group, for a whole lot of reasons. They are a worldly group that goes after worldliness. They say they love Spurgeon, but Spurgeon would absolutely cuff them around if he were alive. I guess that makes them Spurgeon wannabees. They will go on and on with dialogue with leftists and Charismatics, but if you are to the right of them, don't plan on a conversation; just get prepared for ridicule.
The Reformed Reader---I'm not a Calvinist, but minus that, here is a site with some very good historical material, writings, confessions, creeds, and more. I have to admit that I like to read John Owen, Stephen Charnock, Richard Baxter, among others. You'll notice here online Baptist history material and even local church ecclesiology from some.
Religious Affections---Because of our view of God, Scott Aniol and I see things closely on the matter of worship. I guess that means I'm much like Mike Harding on this too. They both may want to change their position now that I have made this statement. If they could only give a hearing to the Scriptural and historical view of the preservation of Scripture.
World Magazine Blog---They're even too politically correct for me, but they are worth checking out now and then to get what news is of interest to people called Christians.

A Sniff Test for the History of Preservation of Scripture

I open up the refrigerator looking for something to eat and an item looks great, but I don't know if it is still good. What do I do? I sniff it. It's one of those basic tests. I guess we have a pretty good idea if something smells right or not. I don't think I remember putting anything in my mouth that didn't at least pass the sniff test.

A lot of things don't smell right in the attack on the doctrine of perfect preservation of Scripture. That's OK, just go ahead and eat it. No? I don't blame you. One thing for sure I can't swallow is this idea that the historic understanding of the church about preservation is that the Bible has errors in it. It doesn't pass the sniff test. How about you taking a sniff and telling me what you think? They would say, "The church has always thought this. They knew that not one copy was the same, so that we couldn't be sure what the exact words of the Bible were. I mean, the church has believed that the originals were perfect, but the church never held to some idea that we ever had one perfect copy to lay our hands on." Alright, take a big sniff of that, and tell me what you think?

I read my Bible. I see the respect that the Bible has for itself. It claims perfection. I don't see a qualification of the originals alone being perfect. Even our big passage on inspiration, 2 Timothy 3:16, 17, should give one pause to take a big bite of the above fake history. What Scripture did Timothy have that was profitable for doctrine, etc., that he said was inspired? They weren't the originals of the Old Testament. They were copies. "Scripture" can't be referring to the ideas or "content" either. It is a word too specific to be that. So I sniff and I wrinkle my nose on this idea that Christians have taken the position that we aren't sure what the exact Words of Scripture are.

If we are going to start eroding and working down the Words, then why not start working on the Books too? Why 66 of them? The Multiple Version advocates want us to think that theirs is a historic position on preservation. They say "Multiplicity of the Manuscripts." It sounds scholarly, like it has dust on it, well-aged. They can't produce any kind of viable history for themselves before the late 1800s. Part of how they do this is through false accusations. They not only have their own fake history, but they have made up an all new fake history for those who believe God has perfectly preserved the Bible. They figure that if they say it enough times with a look of sincerity, that people will believe them.

Take a deep breath of this new position on the history of preservation. I can't eat it. It's not just the indigestion. It doesn't match up with my God. It doesn't fit with my view of the Bible. To get around all this, most people reading the modern versions have no clue they are reading from a different text. In their minds, they are just reading updated English. Most of the "scholars" are happy to continue having them believe that error, at least until they have their new historical record all in place. They have revised history. Believers have always believed that God has miraculously preserved His Words. Don't let let them fool you. At least take that sniff test.

Something smells. And it stinks.

This month of February, 2007, over at Jackhammer we will be pounding away on the issue of the preservation of Scripture.

Explaining Why

Sometimes there's no explanation, only revelation. And revelation is enough. Jesus said so. He said that we live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4). I like certainty. I think you do too. Not everything comes with absolute certainty. Everything about God Himself does; however, not everything on earth. That uncertainty is part of the curse of sin. I'm thankful that once we get past this side of eternity and no longer are looking through a dark glass, we'll know even as we are known.

One of our neighbors for several years comes from the African country of Eritrea. We have enjoyed them as neighbors. They have had three children. Early on, as we got to get to know them and they observed our children, they mentioned their appreciation for their behavior many occasions. My younger daughters enjoyed playing with them in our court at different times. When their oldest, a boy, became of school age, he attended our school, Bethel Christian Academy. They have loved and supported our school. We have gotten together with them for one of our five week Bible studies. They have visited our church. Their background is Coptic Orthodox. The oldest, a boy, my wife teaches piano, and I had driven him to school along with my children until this year. This year, however, I drove their middle child, a boy, to school. Two years ago they were blessed with a baby girl.

About six months ago, their daughter couldn't walk straight and fell over, dizzy, and they knew something was wrong. They found that she had a very rare kind of brain tumor, until they finally discovered that it was the only thing like it that doctors had ever seen for someone her age. They operated to take out the tumor. They were successful and she went on chemotherapy. My daughters went over to play their violins for her when she was in the hospital in the city. Shortly thereafter, another tumor occurred in the same location. They operated to repair a shunt but they couldn't take the second tumor out, and she went into a coma. Along with my assistant pastor, on Thursday night I went to a hospice to pray for her and encourage them. The mother had a very vivid dream the night before that we prayed for her and she woke up from her coma. She may have woken up the next night, Friday, but not here. She woke up in glory with the Lord.

How do we explain little ones like this two year old dying of something like this brain tumor? I don't have an explanation. I don't know exactly what God's will is in this situation. I can go to the Bible, however, to find out some things that are absolutely true. First, God is a good God and everything from Him is good (James 1:17). Nothing is bad from Him.

Second, bad comes from us, from men, because of our sin. I don't think it was her sin per se that led to this death specifically, but all men are sinners and everyone is born with a sin nature, so we all die. It is appointed unto all of us (Hebrews 9:27). God did allow her death. That I know. We all die because God either causes it or allows. We don't even know which of the two it is. That's were there is the uncertainty. We also know that the sting of death is sin, but thanks be to God through Jesus Christ, that sin can be removed by His grace (1 Cor. 15:56, 57). Death without sin is like a graduation day. That's why the Bible says "Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints" (Psalm 116:15). So even in death, we can see God's goodness.

Third, even though we don't know why this little one died, we do know that God is eternally loving, wise, and powerful. He could have done something to stop it, but He didn't. That means that what happened is the best. I can only say that because I'm trusting God. He deserves to be trusted. The truth is that we all really deserve far worse than we get, and it is only as good as it is because of His love, mercy, and grace. We can give God glory at these times by trusting in Him. It might be easier to trust Him when times are good, but these are supreme times to let God know that we believe in Him.

I haven't been perfect in this my entire life, but right now I have a lot of peace from my trust in Him, and I thank Him for it. I can pass that peace along to others. I could bring comfort and witness to this family. That would make me a peacemaker, for which I can rejoice in God. I know He knows the way through the wilderness, all I have to do is follow. He's my strength for today and He's mine alway, so all I need is to follow. I know I can count on Him, so I will, even if I can't explain every reason why.

The Scoop on Spanking

This great state of Caleefornia is at it again. We are trailblazing in reverse, moving our psychobabble over the Donner pass and into the Great Plains. Sally Lieber, democratic representative from Mountain View, with no children and one cat, has announced she will soon present a bill to the legislature banning corporal punishment of children aged zero to three. She said her measure would make spanking a misdemeanor, subject to a maximum one-year jail term and $1,000 fine. Remember that Lieber doesn't mind killing them as long as they're still in the womb. The moment they're born though, look out!! She makes some very enlightening statements, such as: they're "absolutely defenseless." The thought has occurred that we could get some martial arts training for toddlers so that they can disobey, rebel, and then defend themselves when a parent attempts to swat them on the tush (that protruding padded area on their back sides).

Ms. Lieber, dedicated feline owner, says that children become "addicted to violence" by means of spanking. I can guarantee you that she is basing that on no credible study. She should look at the statistics on assaults on children in very enlightened Sweden, who banned spanking of children in a 1979 law. Before the law, Sweden saw 21% of the violence against children seen in the U. S. Since then, Sweden has seen a 672% increase in assaults by minors against minors and a 489% increase in one particular child abuse statistic. Hey, evidence shows that not getting spanked is what results in more violence from and against young people. Ouch!! And we're not talking spankings.

Catmeister Sally says, "They don't understand the connection between their conduct and the spanking." Wow. And she owns a cat. Perhaps she could get a puppy, because puppies not yet a year old can be trained the meaning of "No." Puppies are trained using non-abusive corporal punishment. I've got an announcement for you. You ready? People are smarter than dogs. There it is. Take some time to let that sink in. Children before the age of one can understand the connection between their conduct and the spanking.

Ms. Leiber talks like we can't discern the difference between abuse and proper discipline. They are extremely easy to delineate. That is just a lie. Our governator, commenting on the proposed bill, said that the parents of his native Austria smacked kids for everything. He wondered whether they were just bitter over losing the war. Other columnists opposing the Lieber bill still are sure to mention that they themselves don't agree with spanking. All of this creates an atmosphere of fear for parental discipline. That isn't going to help parents at all. Children are lacking in discipline, not getting too much of it.

Alright, all of the above pales in comparison to the fact that God tells us to use spanking as a means of child training. Several verses in Proverbs lay out the details. I guarantee you that it works and does not result in "more violence" or in "breaking a child's spirit" when done Scripturally correct. I've got five closing words for all of us: LET'S SAY NO TO SALLY!!

Should We Pray for the Sick?

I have noticed for years that many churches in prayer meetings emphasize prayer for the sick. How many Bible sermons have you heard on praying for the sick? None that I remember. I realize that we don't probably hear too much on prayer anyway in sermons, but does the New Testament tell us to pray for the sick? When it comes to prayer (or anything else), Scripture is sufficient. We have practices taught in Scripture, but we also have those acts that are emphasized in the Bible, ones that God wants us to do more than others. Shouldn't we be praying for what we see the people in the Bible praying for?

When you study the prayers of the Apostle Paul in the epistles, how much do we see him praying for the sick? He doesn't pray for Timothy that we know of. He tells him to use the best medicine of the day. He doesn't pray for Epaphroditus. He does pray for himself three times, but God says "No, my grace is sufficient." That means that healing Paul wasn't in God's will. So far we have praying for sickness isn't in God's will. Paul asks for two different churches in two different epistles to pray for his boldness in proclaiming the Gospel. He prays for others to be filled with the knowledge of the Lord's will and for their love to abound more and more. So, for as many prayers that go up for the sick, where do we get from the NT that this is in God's will?

I could defend praying for the sick with Scriptural implications at the most. I don't defend it using James 5:14, 15. If there is any place people go to teach this, they go to James 5:14, 15. Those verses read:

Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

I contend that this text gets ripped from its context to defend praying for the physically ill (i.e., those with cancer, the flu, etc.).

The Pre-Context of James 5:14, 15

The pre-context of James 5:14, 15 goes back to the first verse (hmmmmm). I think we do well to pick it up in v. 4 with laborers. A harvest is coming in which people will be slaughtered. On the other hand, Christian workers, will suffer in the here and now for their work, but they will be rewarded in the end at the coming of the Lord, so they must be patient (vv. 7-8). We know that the Lord is coming so we need the patience of Job to endure to the end as we are suffering affliction for our present labor (vv. 9-11). If we are afflicted for our testimony for the Lord, we should pray (v. 13a) and if we are not, then we should sing (v. 13b). Then we get our text in v. 14. The context does not say anything about diseases we call sickness. The context is about living for the Lord in a hostile culture, where persecution will occur and we will suffer for it.

The Internal Context

"Is any sick among you?" The term "affliction" in verse 13 parallels with "sick" in verse 14. "Sick" (asthenei) in v. 14 can mean "sick" as in "disease," but also "weak." Consider these usages of the same Greek term:

Romans 14:1, 2, 21, "Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. . . . It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak."

1 Corinthians 8:9, 11, 12, "But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. . . . And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.

2 Corinthians 11:21, 29, "I speak as concerning reproach, as though we had been weak. Howbeit whereinsoever any is bold, (I speak foolishly,) I am bold also. . . . Who is weak, and I am not weak? who is offended, and I burn not?"

OK, here's one that fits the context of James 5:14, 15 perfectly, that is, 2 Corinthians 12:10, "Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong." Godly people go through persecution for their labor for God on this earth, suffering affliction, and they should pray. However, if one of them cannot pray, because he is too weak from that affliction and persecution, he should call someone over to his house who can pray for him. Persecution could leave a person spiritually weak, discouraged, and ready to give up.

You ask, "What about the anointing with oil?" "Anointing" is not ceremonial. A whole separate Greek word is used for ceremonial anointing. This word is medicinal. It would be akin in contemporary English to "rub." The good Samaritan used "oil" (same Gk. word) to rub into the wounds of the injured man (Luke 10:34). Today this might be some kind of therapeutic massage. A rub or massage will bring blood to an injured area to promote healing. It feels very good and actually can encourage the one feeling sore and down.

Here is someone who has suffered for the faith and in this state of affliction is weak. The men who are on praying ground come over to pray over him while he struggles with prayer, strengthening him spiritually, and also giving treatment with oil to his beaten muscles and tissue. "Oil" is symbolic of the Holy Spirit in Scripture, and surely there is some spiritual implication to their rubbing this man spiritually, bringing him back in spiritual strength, so that he is no longer "sick," that is, "weak."

In v. 15, the term "sick" is still different (kamno), found only here and two other places in the NT. In Hebrews 12:3, it is completely fitting with this interpretation, reading: "For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied (kamno) and faint in your minds." Also Revelation 2:3, where it says: "And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted (kamno)." This is a person who has become weak, weary, and faint from suffering the affliction expected of a Christian in a hostile world system. A Christian needs to keep his focus on the coming of the Lord, waiting for his reward, but when he loses his vision, the strong spiritually can help him with prayer and encouragement.

I'm not saying "don't pray for the sick." However, do pray Scripturally. I think you should be able to agree that prayer for the sick is not an emphasis of the Bible. God will heal all of us permanently, giving us all a resurrected body some day. We should depend on Him now for our physical needs and at the same time pray the most for those things that matter the greatest to God.

Coaches and Referees

I'm looking for some Scripture feedback here. It relates to coaching, an office not found in the NT. Specifically I'm asking about the relations of a coach to an official during a game, that is, speaking to a referee so that he can hear you, which in that setting can be yelling and at least talking very loudly. I know that unclean, immoral speech is always wrong. A coach should not use foul language toward, mock or ridicule, or personally verbally attack the referee. What I am talking about is: "He took steps! He's over his back! That's three seconds in the lane! Please call those fouls both ways! My player was set!"

Let me tell you my policy. First, I believe the rule book is the authority for basketball. Second, I believe an official is the judge on the floor, making the application of that rule book. The authority of the referee cannot be questioned but his errors in properly applying the rule book are subject to question. Third, I believe that the referee will make errors, sometimes because of incompetence, other times based upon human frailty, and at times based upon total subjectivity. I personally want a strict construction of the rule book the least affected by emotions. I desire a cerebral referee that applies the rules according to original intent. According to basketball tradition, the coach comments to an official within reason with the purpose of helping him make the correct call as the rules apply to his team. Most games I ask the referees how much he will allow me to talk to him. Every official is different. Some have a zero tolerance policy. Others permit latitude. Some say that they will let me know if I go over the line and they will expect me to behave accordingly. My belief about this is that since the referee is officiating the game, then I will follow whatever guidelines he provides with the understanding that he will tell me if I am violating his authority and that he will tell me, even call a technical foul. I end every game making sure that I have a good relationship with the officials. I don't know of any of them that did not like me before they left the court.

This is exactly the policy expressed separately to me by the commissioner of our little Christian sports league, Mr. Dalton Abshire. He says that he wants the boys to play hard and develop toughness. He wants spirit and enthusiasm out of them. He understands that the coaches will display this too, but should keep their spirit under the restraint of the officials on the court. He thinks that coaches can yell at the referees in the context of the game as long and as loud as the referee permits. I agree with him.

Some coaches have their own way of pestering officials. They complain in a different way that is permissible to them. They do talk to the refs and even pressure them to alter their calls. However, they will rarely raise their voices during a game. These same coaches often do not yell at their players. They believe that players should be spoken to privately about violations, not publically. I am fine with that kind of dealing with a player, although I do not think that this kind of coaching will help players as much as some yelling and a strong, verbal push on them. One coach complained at half time to a referee privately that he was allowing me to get away with the way I was speaking to him. After half time, that official came to me to tell me (laughing) what that coach had told him about me. That official knew what I was doing and he was fine with it. Some people believe it is always wrong to publically disagree with an official. They think it should always be private.

I believe that a basketball game is like war to some degree. It is a battle. Emotion is involved. Often the games are loud. People are shouting. The court is relatively large so it can be difficult to hear. I think officials should be reminded when they are making the wrong call. I like to let them know immediately, right when I see it. I don't think this means I have to challenge every single call. However, I do think it is within my rights to do this and to do it with good conscience. I have good conscience most of the time about what I do. The few times I haven't, I apologized to the referee. I don't believe there is a verse in Scripture that says it is wrong to do this.

My own opinion is that the judgments made against this by others fit within a realm of some kind of political correctness and even feminizing of men in America. People want almost all men to become soft spoken. There are those that have introduced some kind of pseudo-sportsmanship that takes the intensity and enthusiasm out of the sport. I don't want to be emasculated by critics. I don't want to cow-tow to someone's preferences. Sometimes I really do believe that it is nothing more than sour grapes about losing. I would be a much better sport if we had a little more pansy or dainty quality and that transferred to the players. The losing coach is usually very popular with the winning one.

I believe that as long as the referee will permit it, that I am not abusing his authority. I don't believe that I am setting a wrong example to my players about respect of authority. I tell my players that is not in their right to question the officials. I train them to stay quiet and they are especially fine with that, knowing that I will question the calls against us that I do not think are correct. I have had a few games in which I have said very little during a game. Those were good officials. I respect them highly. My degree of respect relates to their competency and objectivity.

I personally believe that this is an application of Biblical principles in which two brethren should be able to differ. I think I should be able to question an officials calls without this being called unChristian. Nothing in the Bible makes an explicit statement with this regards. I don't even think it should be considered a bad testimony. That is something often thrown out to a Christian coach, that his challenge of a bad call was a bad testimony. I don't believe so. I think there is a place in the game for a coaches challenge of an official's call and that nearly every referee expects it. When a referee tells me I am getting too vociferous, I always respect him and ratchet back my commentary. Someone may not believe that this is the right thing for him, and I am fine if he doesn't want to do it. I, however, plan on continuing.

Let me know what you think! RIGHT NOW!!!