The Definition of Faith or Belief and Prayer, pt. 2

Part One (and a recent related post)

I should perhaps just call this series "prayer," because that what it's about.  A couple of points before I dive into this again.  One, people aren't interested in prayer.  People don't buy books on prayer.  My wife mentioned the book Prayer of Jabez, and, yes, that is a popular book on prayer, something that 'unleashes power to make you rich.'  Part one of this series received no comments and as few hits as I get (I know, it's because I'm a bad writer).  Two, people are touchy about prayer, even though, I believe it should be one of the most criticized areas of Christian life. Matthew 18:19 gives a prerequisite of agreement.  Agreement requires evaluation.  Agreement suggests possible disagreement.  Agreement isn't agreeing to disagree.  It is in fact agreeing.

One of the most life-changing events of my life came when I preached the first time through the Lord's model prayer.  Prayer is important in the Bible and to God.  Knowing how Jesus said we are to pray, then, is very important.  Jesus said, "Pray after this manner" (Matthew 6:9) and "When ye pray, say" (Luke 11:2), and the requests of that prayer contain zero mystery.  Jesus' model prayer contains nothing that we are not certain we will get.

Only one of the requests in Jesus' model is physical.  Daily bread.  Do Christians already know that they will get daily bread?  Do they already know God is going to take care of them and meet their physical needs?  I think so.  In the Old Testament, Psalm 37:25 says,  "I have been young, and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread."  In the New Testament, I remember Philippians 4:19: "But my God shall supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus."  1 Timothy 6:8 defines "need" nicely:  "And having food and raiment let us be therewith content."  God will supply food and raiment.  And yet Jesus taught believers to pray, "Give us day by day our daily bread" (Luke 11:3).  They are already going to get it, but they are still to pray for it.  You know you're getting bread and yet you pray for bread.  You are expressing your dependence on God about something you know you will get when you pray.  You know.

Faith and evidence go together (Hebrews 11:1) [talked about in part one].  This is where the "will of God" and prayer go together.  The will of God is something we know.  Praying for what we know fits with Jesus' model prayer.  Add to this 1 John 5:14:  "And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us."  A prerequisite to God hearing our prayers is that we ask according to God's will.  This can't be talking about something we don't know.  God doesn't ask us to do something about which we can't be certain.  We've got to know what God's will is in order to be sure to pray it.  So again, we pray for what we know, for what we are certain.

Scripture isn't going to contradict itself.  God doesn't deny Himself, so whatever request is in scripture, the person praying it must have been certain about it.  There are explanations for those passages.  We've talked about Paul wanting Philemon to pray for him to get out of prison in Philemon 1:22, "But withal prepare me also a lodging: for I trust that through your prayers I shall be given unto you."  That prayer won't contradict the teaching about praying in faith and according to God's will.

We can believe what we know God will do.  I don't know if God will save someone.  I don't know if God will heal someone.  The not knowing of either of those two explains why we don't see them as prayers in the New Testament.  It doesn't mean that we don't pray for unsaved people or that we don't pray for sick people.  We pray what we can believe that God will answer.  Again "faith" and "the will of God" coincide.

Praying for what God will do is not the same as praying for what God can do.  We know that God can do anything and we should rejoice in all that God does.  I rejoice He can do anything.  I praise Him for His wisdom, knowledge, and power.  He can heal people.  He can save people.  Do I know if He will save or heal a particular individual?  I don't.  So I don't pray that prayer.

For a moment, I want us to think about this in a practical way.  If God saved everyone we prayed to be saved, then we should pray for every person on earth to be saved with the confidence that God will save every person.  If God healed everyone we prayed to be healed, we should pray for every person on earth to be healed with the confidence that God will heal every person.  We have two born again blind men who are members of our church, both about 60 or so.  If God will heal in answer to prayer, then I should pray for them to see.  I've asked those who believe in praying for healing if they would pray for these two men to be healed.  They won't.

The practical ramifications of the teaching of praying for physical healing reminds me of the Charismatic movement.  I can't see how they are different and I'm open to any ideas.  People without limbs can't count on getting new limbs by a Charismatic healer.  Jesus can do that.  Jesus put Malchus's ear back on.  But the Charismatic healers aren't doing that kind of thing.  They expose their fraudulence.  Let's turn this over to prayer for healing.  How do men know what diseases and injuries to pray for?  Do we pray for someone to walk again who has had his limbs blown off by an improvised explosive device?  Why not?  What is the biblical basis for God not doing that today?  Today people will pray for a young lady to bear a child, but why not a 65 year old who would love to have one?

There is a way to pray for sick people.  There is a way to pray about evangelism and even pray for the lost.  We should do that.  God can and does heal people.  He saves people.  But as it relates to these, we are to pray for what we believe God will answer.  Again, not can answer, but will answer.

What about Old Testament prayers?   The prerequisites don't change.  However, God made promises to Israel that Israel could then pray for.  Read 2 Chronicles 6 and Solomon's dedicatory prayer for the temple. He prayed that God would hear their prayers of repentance in the temple.  God answered the prayer in 2 Chronicles 7 with a familiar passage.  Yes, if His people did humble themselves and pray there, God would hear and forgive and heal.  When someone prayed that kind of prayer, like Jehoshaphat does later in 2 Chronicles, God in fact hears on those very terms.

Some scriptural prayers for the Apostle Paul were prayers not in God's will for us.  He knew things that we don't know.  But the common ground is scriptural prayers.  We follow what scripture says about prayer.  I know that this is where the discussion should form.  Certainly we pray in everything.  Whatever situation we're in, whether sickness or in other difficulties, we should pray.  But what we pray should be scriptural.

Do we see New Testament prayers for healing and do we see New Testament prayers for God to save someone?  I believe the answer is "no."  We don't see a prayer for someone to be healed and for someone to be saved.  These are not scriptural prayers.  We have no basis for those prayers, so we shouldn't pray them.

In many cases, relating to this discussion, people ask about examples from history.  Any record of events from history holds no authority over what we should pray for.  The usual argument for a "prayer for revival" comes from the history of revival.  Someone evinces prayer for a "miraculous birth" with an illustration of a "miraculous birth."  It's fine to talk about history and prayer, but history is not an authority for prayer.  People ask about historical examples:  "If that's true, then how do you explain Jeremiah Lamphier and his prayer revival in New York City?"  Or, "how do you explain the prayers of George Mueller?"  I'm happy to explore an explanation to these types of questions, but we should start by understanding that the examples themselves are non-authoritative.

I really do not find much difference between the historical or experiential examples people use and those also used by the Charismatic movement.   Hundreds of times I have entertained these stories at someone's door, and I find myself arguing about a story instead of someone relying on scripture. This is how false doctrine grows and spreads.  People place these experiences over scripture.  If you argue against personal experience, the people very often get very upset or angry.

When I get sick, I start by thinking I'll get better.  I do the physical things that it takes to get over the illness:  drink more water, take vitamin C, get more rest -- those types of things.  If I still don't get better, I go to the doctor.  I did this recently with a bad case of poison oak.  I got a shot and it improved quickly and dramatically.   I think I'm going to get better.  Part of my thought is that I have a good God.  I trust in His hand, in His providence.  He is sovereign.  He knows I'm sick.  He knows what His purpose is.  If he wants me to get better, I will.  If He doesn't, I can be fine with that too.  I expect I will get better, as I meditate on His mercy.

I also consider how sickness and difficulty will help me grow or be purified.  I explore how God is allowing or causing to conform to the image of Christ.  I struggle to keep the right spirit and disposition that will be a good testimony for the Lord.  If any one of these got worse, and I was dying.  There was seemingly no cure.  I would then count myself to have been greatly blessed with the life I did have and still do have, joyous in my eternal salvation, knowing that I would be going to a place far better.  I see that as the attitude of the Apostle Paul.  He desired to depart.  Departure isn't the end for a believer.  I don't want to act like it is.

I had jury duty this last week.  After most of the day, and I didn't get on the jury, the rest of us, who didn't make it, were dismissed.  We had to turn in our badges, and I was walking behind a man with artificial knees.  He was walking very slowly.  If anything hurts on me, it's my hip.  My brother, three years younger, already has an artificial hip.  Maybe I'll have one some day.  But the man apologized for slowing me down, and I said, "That's OK.  I'll probably be there soon."

If I want to slow down the process toward getting an artificial hip (not saying I'll ever get one), I lose weight by changing my diet and exercising.  I don't feel hip pain and pray to be healed.  I don't.

I started into this incursion into prayer off a post about making Acts normative.  I still see the problem as coming out of revivalism.  The proof is first experience and then making the wrong application from a biblical prayer out of this dispensation.  You hear a wrong usage of the word "miracle."  I'm convinced now that we shouldn't be using miracle to apply to providential events today.  I'm not saying that providence is less powerful than a miracle.  It could be more powerful, but a miracle suits a particular purpose, as a sign.  Providence represents God's supernatural working in the age in which we live.

Further, since prayer is, as I said, a touchy subject, people go on with unbiblical prayers without criticism.  Even if they were biblical, the prayers should be analyzed, chiefly to see if they're the will of God, if they're scriptural.

A good starting place for everyone is to follow the model of Jesus.  If you follow that model, you won't go wrong.  If Jesus wanted us to go further, why didn't He add to that?  The other propositional teaching of the New Testament fits with the model.  Organize your prayer life around Jesus' model prayer.

Are Accurate Copies and Translations of Scripture-Such as the KJV-Inspired? A Study of 2 Timothy 3:16, part 3

In part 2 last Friday we concluded that "since the Authorized Version is an accurate translation of the perfectly preserved Hebrew and Greek Words dictated by the Holy Ghost, it is Scripture, and it is inspired." This conclusion must be somewhat qualified, however.

Two qualifications to the above must be made.

1.) Only Greek and Hebrew words are directly inspired. Translated words are derivatively inspired.[ix]  The directly inspired Greek and Hebrew cannot be changed, jot or tittle. Translated words can be changed and still have the breath of God. Dropping the “eth” from KJV verbs would not make the translation lose the breath of God. One could, in like manner, say that the KJV is derivatively preserved, sharp, quick, powerful, faith-producing, and so on.  This fact does not by any means make English, rather than the directly, verbally, plenarily inspired and perfectly preserved Greek and Hebrew (and Aramaic) words the Christian’s authority.  The original language text is verbally, plenarily inspired, while a translation that is entirely accurate has plenary inspiration, but not the verbal inspiration of the original language,[x] and is entirely dependent for its authority upon the original language text.  The substance of the meaning conveyed by God in Greek and Hebrew words is transferred into the language of a translation, but God did not dictate English, French, Spanish, or Latin words to the penmen of the Bible;  He revealed Himself in Scripture in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic words.[xi]

2.) When translations other than the KJV are accurate, in those parts they are also (derivatively) inspired. The NASV, for example, possesses the breath of God in the parts where it is not mistranslated nor is translated from a corrupt Greek or Hebrew text.  This fact explains why believers who use English translations other than the KJV can be built up spiritually, and why unbelievers can be converted through the instrumentality of modern Bible versions.

This use of Theopneustos for product, rather than process, is the clear use of the Greek word in related Christian/Koiné Greek texts. For instance:[xii]

Papias 10:1  Regarding, however, the divine inspiration [Theopneustos] of the book [i.e., the Revelation of John] we think it superfluous to speak at length, since the blessed Gregory (I mean the Theologian) and Cyril, and men of an older generation as well, namely Papias, Irenaeus, Methodius, and Hippolytus, bear witness to its genuineness.[xiii] [Papias, who lived around the turn of the first century, reproduced by Andrew of Caesarea (563-637), Preface to the Apocalypse]

Here the book itself, the Greek words, the product, is referred to as inspired.  Process is not in view, but product.

Sibylline Oracles 5:406-407 But God, the great Father of all within whom is the breath of God [Theopneustos], they were accustomed to reverence with holy sacrifices and hecatombs.[xiv]

Here the unknown writer of the Sibylline Oracles refers to the breath God puts within people as Theopneustos.  It is simply “breath from God.”

Consistency thus requires that believers either refrain from calling translated Scripture “the Word of God” or allow the use of the word Theopneustos for anything that has the breath of God in it, including translated Scripture.  An examination of the use of Theopneustos in its Koiné background leads to this conclusion.

The affirmation that translations possess the breath of God in a derived sense is by no means an affirmation of Ruckmanism.  Peter Ruckman’s doctrine is that the English of the King James Version is superior to the Greek and Hebrew words God promised to preserve (Matthew 5:18), and thus involves a denial of the perfect preservation of the words God gave in the once-and-for-all completed process of giving the Scripture (Psalm 12:6-7).  Ruckman affirms that a move of God like that mentioned in 2 Peter 1:16-21 took place in 1611, a repudiation of the completion of the canon and a rejection of the warning of Revelation 22:18-19.  Scripture, on the other hand, denies that 2 Peter 1:16-21 pertains to any other than the original writers of the Scripture when they penned the autographs, but maintains that the original copies do not lose the breath of God when they are copied or (in a derived sense) when they are accurately translated.  Indeed, recognizing the Scriptural fact that the breath of God remains upon copies and (in a derived sense) accurate translations destroys the foundational appeal of the Ruckmanite error.  Ruckmanism claims that only if one affirms that another supernatural act of giving the Scripture such as is described in 2 Peter 1:16-21 took place in 1611 with the Authorized Version can one have a Bible in his hands today that is living, powerful, sharper than any two edged sword, and truly the Word of God.  The fact that the breath of God remains in accurate copies and accurate translations allows the believer to affirm that he does indeed have the very Word of God in his hand when he holds a King James Bible, without adopting the heresy of a re-opening of the canon in 1611 or denying the promises of Scripture that every Hebrew and Greek word God gave in the autographs is still available and is still the ultimate authority for the Christian (Matthew 4:4; 5:18; Isaiah 59:21).

TDR

Footnotes (if the Greek is garbled, read the PDF file of this study here):

[ix]          While it is true that the specific phrase derivatively inspired is not found anywhere in the Bible, it is equally true that the word translation is absent.  The implications of this paragraph, and the doctrine of derivitive inspiration, are simply the good and necessary consequences of the fact that accurately translated Scripture is still Scripture, and one can accurately translate Scripture in more than one way.  Inspiration isderived in translated Scripture because the words in the receptor language derive all their authority from the original language texts that are correctly translated.  The fact that translated words can be modified and still have the breath of God is the necessary consequence of the fact that “he doeth” and “he does” are both correct translations of the appropriate Greek or Hebrew phrases.  Thus, one has no right to object to the use of the word derivitive in connection with inspiration, based on the absence of the word in the Bible, in connection with translations, unless he likewise objects to and abstains from the use of the word translation itself, never refers to Scripture as verbally or plenarily inspired, abstains from speaking of monotheism, or the Trinity, and so on.  The use of the term derivative inspiration is simply a way of expressing the necessary distinction between the perfect and absolutely unchangable original language texts given by God once for all in the autographs (2 Peter 1:16-21; Jude 3) and accurately translated copies.  Not the word Theopneustos alone, but all the terms that pertain to the original language texts of the Bible only pertain in a derived way to copies.  Since translated Scripture is only in a derived sense Scripture, the Word of God, quick/living, powerful, profitable, and so on, it is, in like manner, inspired in a derived sense.

[x]           Nonetheless, in a derivative way, texts like “the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and theyare life” (John 6:63) are applicable to the words of accurate translations, although translated words are unlike the unchangeable, ultimately authoritative Greek words Christ originally spoke which were recorded by the Apostle John through the dictation of the Holy Spirit.

[xi]          The affirmation of absolute verbal and plenary inspiration for the original language text, but of a secondary derivative inspiration for accurate translations, is the classic position assumed by Baptists and Protestants in the Reformation and post-Reformation era.  Richard Muller explains the historic Protestant position:

[Alongside] the insistence of the Reformed that the very words of the original are inspired, the theological force of their argument falls in the substance or res rather than on the individual words: translations can be authoritative quoad res because the authority is not so much in the words as in the entirety of the teaching as distributed throughout the canon. . . . [T]he issue of “things” (res) and “words” (verba) . . . is crucial to the Protestant doctrine of Scripture and is, as many of the other elements of the Protestant doctrine, an element taken over from the medieval tradition and rooted in Augustine’s hermeneutics. . . . [T]he words of the text are signs pointing to the doctrinal “things.” This distinction between signa and res significata, the sign and the thing signified, carries over into the language typical of scholastic Protestantism, of the words of the text and the substance of the text, of the authority of translations not strictly quoad verba but quoad res, according to the substance or meaning indicated by the original. . . . [O]nly the [original language] sources are inspired (theopneustoi) both according to their substance (quoad res) and according to their words (quoad verba)[.] This must be the case, since holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, 2 Pet. 1:21, who dictated to them not only the substance (res) but also the very words (verba). For the same reason, the Hebrew and the Greek are the norms and rules by which the various versions are examined and evaluated. . . . [There is] a distinction between authenticity and authorship quoad verba, which belongs only to the Hebrew and Greek originals, and authenticity and authority quoad res, which inheres in valid translations. . . . Thus translations can be used, but with the reservation that only the Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament are the authentic norms of doctrine and the rule by which doctrinal controversy is to be decided[.] Versions that are congruent with the sources are indeed authentic according to substance (quoad res); for the Word of God [may be] translated into other languages: the Word of God is not to be limited, since whether it is thought or spoken or written, it remains the Word of God. Nonetheless they are not authentic according to the idiom or word, inasmuch as the words have been explained in French or Dutch. In relation to all translations, therefore, the Hebrew and Greek texts stand as antiquissimus, originalis, and archetypos. Thus, translations are the Word of God insofar as they permit the Word of God to address the reader or hearer: for Scripture is most certainly the Word of God in the things it teaches and to the extent that in and by means of it power of God touches the conscience. Even so, in translations as well as in the original the testimony of the Holy Spirit demonstrates the graciousness of God toward us. All translations have divine authority insofar as they correctly render the original: the tongue and dialect is but an accident, and as it were an argument of divine truth, which remains one and the same in all idioms. (pgs. 269, 326-327, 403, 416, 427-428,  Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy; volume 2, Holy Scripture:  The cognitive foundation of theology (2nd ed.), Richard Muller. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003;  quotations and original sources not reproduced)

[xii]         Compare also the uses (which are loose but relevent for comparison) of Theopneustos as product in the Sibylline Oracles 5:308, “God-breathed streams” (na¿masin toi√ß qeopneu/stoiß) Pseudo-Phocylides 129, “God-breathed wisdom” (qeopneu/stou sofi÷hß) and Testament of Abraham (Recension A) 20:11, “God-breathed ointments and perfumes” (muri÷smasi qeopneu/stoiß kai« aÓrw¿masin).  In each of these instances a divine quality is ascribed to the noun modified by Theopneustos.  The God-breathed ointments and perfumes” of theTestament of Abraham is parallel to the “God-woven linen cloth” (sindo/ni qeou¨fantwˆ◊) mentioned immediately previously.  (Of course, a simply linguistic point is being made here, namely, that Theopneustos is a designation for a product—by no means must the verbal, plenary giving of each word of the Scriptures by God be reduced to the level of allegedly divine quality unknown Koiné writers ascribe to perfume or ointment.)  Note the detailed and careful discussion of these texts (and others, such as Nonnus’ “theopneustic sandal,” a Bostran inscription speaking of an arjciereu\ß qeopneu/stoß, etc.) by Warfield in Revelation and Inspirationchapter 7.

[xiii]         Peri« me÷ntoi touv qeopneu/stou thvß bi÷blou [thvß ∆Apokalu/yewß ∆Iwa¿nnou] peritto\n mhku/nein to\n lo/gon hJgou/meqa, tw◊n makari÷wn Grhgori÷ou fhmi« touv qeolo/gou kai« Kuri÷llou, prose÷ti de« kai« tw◊n aÓrcaiote÷rwn Papi÷ou, Ei˙rhnai÷ou, Meqodi÷ou kai« ÔIppolu/tou tau/thØ prosmarturou/ntwn to\ aÓxio/piston.

[xiv]         aÓlla» me÷gan genethvra qeo\n pa¿ntwn qeopneu/stwn e˙n qusi÷aiß aJgi÷aiß e˙ge÷rairon kai« e˚kato/mbaiß.

John Piper, Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, and Aesthetic, Cultural, Entertainment, and Attire Consistency

What great arguments John Piper gives for avoiding television shows like Game of Thrones!  For decades, we haven't had cable, so we couldn't flip to it or couldn't watch it without effort, but the fictional historical period would have piqued my interest before reading of the perversity of it.  Piper reads the slide toward Gomorrah and here throws obstacles to slow it.  Christians shouldn't be watching it.  But why?

I'm right with Piper on being against television shows like this.  I applaud him again.  He reads like a separatist in this article, making certain types of arguments you'd hear from a separatist or a fundamentalist. He's preaching personal separation.  The truth honors God.

Piper's article doesn't define nudity.  He assumes everyone knows what it is.  Does everyone?  I don't think so.  Scripture doesn't use the term "nudity," whether KJV, NASV, or ESV.  It uses "nakedness" (ervah) which is merely shameful exposure of the body.  Is that nudity?  It's not a subject evangelicals talk about much.  They admit it's out there, but they won't tell you what it is -- too afraid perhaps.  Is the true problem only someone having all his clothes off and showing his vital parts?  He doesn't say.  He assumes we know.  He doesn't make a solid argument even against nudity, whatever it is.  He tells us not to look at it, even that it is sin, but he doesn't tell us what "it" is.  Some might think that these -- defining nudity and what is wrong with it -- don't matter, but they really do.  When these are not defined and reasons given, then people take it into their own hands.

John Piper sounds like he's being tough on Game of Thrones and the like.  He doesn't like that stuff himself. He won't watch it himself.  Besides not liking it and not watching it and giving people reasons for not watching it, he and evangelicalism treat dress and entertainment like a liberty issue.   They don't draw lines on this. Even here, Piper won't say you "can't do it."  These things are non-essentials to evangelicals and increasingly more with fundamentalists.  If a fundamentalist talked about a television show like this, many men will say that he's not being gospel centered or that he's diminishing the gospel by emphasizing a non-essential.  When John Piper does it, people agree with him, and give him a pass, perhaps because he has a well of good will for what he accepts from other people.

I looked at the Bethlehem Baptist Church, Minneapolis, MN website to see programs at Piper's church, surfing to the youth and then camp section.  There was a video promoting Bethlehem's camp. On the video, there were visuals of many girls wearing shorts all the way up to their crotch area. There were photos of girls with swimsuits.  I didn't keep investigating, but this is where the evangelical standard becomes very subjective.  Is this a biblical standard or a preferential one?

Piper sees a problem.  Evangelicals do.  You can see it with their reaction to same-sex marriage.  They are rethinking their doctrinal statements, their covenants, and even their stands on separation.  But they don't have a biblical, defensible standard.  They don't offer a definition of modesty or nakedness.  Drawing the line at "nudity" isn't scriptural.  The Bible doesn't use the term.  If they were consistent, evangelicals should be angry or upset, because Piper is going beyond scripture with this standard, but we all knew evangelicals were being selective with this terminology.  It's not a biblical, but convenient.  Piper can erect a barrier to prevent further moral erosion without tuning in to God's position.

God is one, and He reveals one truth, one goodness, and one beauty.  The correct understanding of God is most important.  The gospel itself is all about God and not us.  We should, well, desire God.  And God isn't represented by the aesthetic, the culture, of Piper and evangelicals and fundamentalists like him or who identify with him.  They are actually a part of the problem, maybe the worst part of the problem.

Pornography is about lust, about defiling, about profanity.  It makes common what should be kept sacred.  Made in the image of God, we keep our clothing on.  In so doing, we keep our marriage covenant sacred.  Showing more body is that moral defilement that dishonors the imago Dei.  Evangelicals already do that with their music.  They already blaspheme God with the profanity of their worship.  They already cater to men's lust that way.  They take what is already more sacred, the worship of the church, and make it common.  They take holy words and defile them with sensual music.  This perverts a true understanding of God worse than the "nudity" does, and it happens in church, the holy congregation of the Lord.

Evangelicals opened up the movie house to Christians.  Evangelicals eroded stands against secular entertainment.  They already wouldn't make these applications of scripture.  It was part of their thinking about evangelism and how they could reach more people.  They reasoned, like liberals, that a certain sociology could help Christianity along. They already have relegated so much to the realm of the non-essential.  John Piper sits and accepts Mark Driscoll, a profane preacher with the Christian kegger parties. And now we're reaching these unacceptable depths to a generation like Piper, who was right there, a part of the cause, Piper has something to say to try to stop it.   That train has already left the station.

Many fundamentalists, especially young ones, won't admit what I'm writing here.  This is the truth, but they cannot declare the emperor's nakedness.   Evangelicals go after all the doctrinal issues, but that is not the downfall of Christianity.  They have a conduct and an aesthetic that is not becoming the gospel or sound doctrine.  It changes the meaning of the doctrinal and practical terms.  They won't do anything about it, because their enrollments are shrinking and they've got to meet the payroll.  They look for a "centrist" point of view, as I heard it from Steve Pettit in this summer's BJU town meeting.  Pettit can't say something is wrong with Northland because he won't do that about a parcel of land where he parked his trailer after a long trip and his children ran on to said property with sheer joy.  A place where they had such a good time can't receive criticism.  Pathetic.  This is where we are at in Christian discernment today, and it is Piper and those with him that brought us and helped bring us there.  Game of Thrones itself departs from "centrism," a center point, which happens to be continuing to move to the left.

There is so much wrong, but I'll leave you with this to think about.  If you can't see it or admit error, you are a contributor to the slide.  May God have mercy on you.

The Definition of Faith or Belief and Prayer

James 1:6-7 reads,

6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. 7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.

The Lord requires faith to receiving anything in answer to prayer.  Unless you believe you are going to get what you are asking for, you won't get it.

Jesus is very specific in Mark 11:24:

Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.

To "have them," you must "believe that ye receive them."  It isn't "believe that God could give them," or "believe that God has the ability to provide them."  No, it is believe that ye receive them. What is it that you can believe that you will receive?

Bauer and Danker's A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature reads the following first listed meaning of pisteuo, the verb "to believe," related directly to pistis, "faith":  "to consider something to be true and therefore worthy of one’s trust."  What are we believing to be true when we pray?  We are believing that it is true that we will receive that for which we are asking when we pray for it.  If we don't believe we will receive it, then we will not receive it.  We are not asking in faith, and we should not believe that we will receive that from the Lord.

Francis Turretin wrote in his Institutes of Elenctic Theology (Vol. 2, p. 566):

[Faith] is defined by knowledge: "This is life eternal, that they may know thee" (John 17:3). Nor is this referred only to the intuitive knowledge in heaven, but it ought to be extended to the saving knowledge required on the way which Christ proposes as the certain and infallible means of obtaining that life and by which it is begun in us (1 John 5:13). "but his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many" (i.e. by faith which alone justifies us, Is. 53:11). Hence, elsewhere its act is described by understanding: "through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God" (Heb. 11:3). "And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God" (John 6:69). Here knowledge is added to faith to explain it, to intimate that it is placed in knowledge. Elsewhere faith is expressed by "full assurance of understanding (Col. 2:2) and by knowledge of the truth (2 Tim. 3:7).

Faith and the word are related (Rom. 10:17; John 6:45). Therefore, where faith is, there knowledge ought to be because the word cannot be believed or received unless it be known; for as there is no desire of, so neither is there assent to what is unknown... Knowledge is everywhere required in faith. Hence the "word of faith" is called the wisdom and understanding of believers (Deut. 4:6).

This aspect of biblical faith has been termed notitia.  The first part of believing is knowing.  A little over a month ago, I began a series through John.  John states the purpose of his gospel in John 20:30-31:

And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

From the first chapter, John presents evidence, testimony, the words and works of Jesus Christ, the witnesses authenticating Jesus as God, Son of God, Messiah, and Christ.  He wants us to know these truths, and this truth is the basis of believing.  Faith isn't just knowing, but it does require knowing.  And to know requires the truth.  Faith is confidence in the truth, certainty of the truth.

To receive what we are praying for, we must believe we are going to receive what we are praying for.  To be convinced that we will receive it, we must know it is God's will.

More to come

Are Accurate Copies and Translations of Scripture-Such as the KJV-Inspired? A Study of 2 Timothy 3:16, part 2

This is part 2 of this study; note part 1, which was posted last Friday.

1.) Accurate copies of the Greek and Hebrew words are inspired, since inspiration, in 2 Timothy 3:16, refers to a product.  Paul instructs Timothy that the product of the written Scripture itself is both “inspired/God-breathed” and “profitable.”  Neither “God-breathed” nor “profitable,” in 2 Timothy 3:16, refer to the process of the giving of the autographs.  Both adjectives describe the noun “Scripture” and attribute a quality to it.[v]

2.) Anything that we can properly call “God’s Word” is inspired, because, by definition, if God breathes out some words, He has inspired those words. “All Scripture is inspired,” 2 Timothy 3:16.  The verse equates what is “Scripture” with what is “inspired.”  The two categories are identical—if something is “Scripture,” then it is “inspired.”[vi]  Had the verse referred to the process of revealing Scripture it would have stated, “All Scripture was given by inspiration of God.” Since 2 Timothy 3:16 refers to the product of that process, inspired words, it states, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.”  The breath of God is an inherent quality of all that is Scripture, all that is the Word of God.

3.) Scripture shows us that accurately translated words are still Scripture. 1 Timothy 5:18, for example, refers to both the untranslated gospel of Luke (10:7) and the translated book of Deuteronomy (25:4) as “Scripture.”  Indeed, 1 Timothy 5:18 is the only other reference to Scripture (graphe) in Paul’s epistles to Timothy, so it is natural for one to consider 2 Timothy 3:16 in light of this previous reference.  The same Paul who tells Timothy that everything that is Scripture is inspired calls both the untranslated and accurately translated Word of God Scripture.

4.) Therefore, accurate translations are Scripture.

5.) Since accurate translations are Scripture, they are inspired, since all Scripture is inspired.  All Scripture has the breath of God upon it.

Therefore, since the Authorized Version is an accurate translation of the perfectly preserved Hebrew and Greek Words dictated by the Holy Ghost, it is Scripture, and it is inspired.

To avoid this conclusion one would need to say that the King James Bible is the uninspired Word of God, and it cannot produce faith (Romans 10:17), it is not quick, powerful, sharp, and so on, and believers are not to live by it (Matthew 4:4).[vii]

Furthermore, Timothy was commanded in 2 Timothy 4:2 to preach the inspired Scripture of 2 Timothy 3:16.[viii]  Since the originals were not available to him, but the copies or translations he was to preach—and certainly he would have preached the Old Testament in Greek translation to the church at Ephesus—were still God-breathed, inspiration must refer to the product revealed by God, the canonical words of Scripture, and thus accurate copies and translations of the autographs are inspired.

TDR

Footnotes (if the Greek is garbled, read the PDF file of this study here):

[v]           Compare the connection between the adjectives qeo/pneustoß and wÓfe÷limoß made by Clement of Alexandria, ta«ß grafa«ß  o˚ ∆Apo/stoloß qeopneu/stouß kalei√, w˙feli/mouß ou¡saß.  Similarly, Origen, pavsa grafh\ qeo/pneustoß ou™sa w˙vfelimo/ß e˙sti. (citations from pg. 208, The Revision Revised, John Burgon. Elec. acc. Fundamental Baptist CD-ROM Library. London, Ontario: Bethel Baptist Church, 2009.).  Many other patristic texts evidence the use of qeo/pneustoß as a quality of Scripture.  For example, Eusebius refers to the Hebrew copies employed by the LXX translators as “inspired (qeo/pneustoß) Scriptures” (Church History V:8:10), employing Theopneustos as a quality of the written Word that remained upon apographs, rather than making a reference to the one-time process of the giving of the autographs—the copies actually in the hands of the translators, Eusebius affirmed, were qeo/pneustoß.

[vi]          Thus, the equative relation pasa graphe Theopneustos establishes that all that is graphe is alsoTheopneustos.  The reader who does not know Greek should note that the KJV is, although italicized, is clearly the correct verbal form in the Greek equative clause.  The word was simply cannot be properly supplied.  The related adjective-noun-adjective equative verb constructions in the pastoral epistles support this affirmation.  Note that a present tense form of to be must in each case be supplied:  1 Timothy 1:15, This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, pisto\ß oJ lo/goß kai« pa¿shß aÓpodochvß a‡xioß; 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, ei–ß ga»r Qeo/ß, ei–ß kai« mesi÷thß Qeouv kai« aÓnqrw¿pwn;1Timothy 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, o¢ti pa◊n kti÷sma Qeouv kalo/n, kai« oujde«n aÓpo/blhton; 1 Timothy 4:9 This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation, pisto\ß oJ lo/goß kai« pa¿shß aÓpodochvß a‡xioß; Titus 1:12 The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies, Krhvteß aÓei« yeuvstai, kaka» qhri÷a, gaste÷reß aÓrgai÷.

[vii]         Compare the following instances of graphe [Scripture] + modifying adjective in the NT:

Romans 1:2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,); (o§ proephggei÷lato dia» tw◊n profhtw◊n aujtouv e˙n grafai√ß aJgi÷aiß);

Both accurate copies and accurate translations can be called “holy scriptures,” or else believers had better scratch out “holy” from the phrase “Holy Bible” in the copies they carry with them.

Rom. 16:26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: (fanerwqe÷ntoß de« nuvn, dia» te grafw◊n profhtikw◊n, kat∆ e˙pitagh\n touv ai˙wni÷ou Qeouv, ei˙ß uJpakoh\n pi÷stewß ei˙ß pa¿nta ta» e¶qnh gnwrisqe÷ntoß)

Notice that the “Scriptures of the prophets/prophetic Scriptures” are used to give the gospel to all nations—so, since all nations certainly do not have the original copies, nor do they know Hebrew and Greek, accurately translated Scripture is still “prophetic Scripture.”

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. (wJß kai« e˙n pa¿saiß tai√ß e˙pistolai√ß, lalw◊n e˙n aujtai√ß peri« tou/twn: e˙n oi–ß e¶sti dusno/hta¿ tina, a± oi˚ aÓmaqei√ß kai« aÓsth/riktoi streblouvsin, wJß kai« ta»ß loipa»ß grafa¿ß, pro\ß th\n i˙di÷an aujtw◊n aÓpw¿leian.)

False teachers do not have the original manuscripts, but they twist both copies and the translated Word to their own destruction.

Consider the related language in Hebrews 4:12:

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (zw◊n ga»r oJ lo/goß touv Qeouv, kai« e˙nergh/ß, kai« tomw¿teroß uJpe«r pa◊san ma¿cairan di÷stomon, kai« diiœknou/menoß a‡cri merismouv yuchvß te kai« pneu/matoß, aJrmw◊n te kai« muelw◊n, kai« kritiko\ß e˙nqumh/sewn kai« e˙nnoiw◊n kardi÷aß.)

Both accurate copies and accurately translated Bible is “the Word of God.” Here, then, accurate copies and translations of Scripture have the adjectives “living,” “powerful,” “sharper,” “piercing” (adjectival participle), and “discerner” applied to them.

In another related text, James 1:21 speaks of the “engrafted word, which is able to save your souls” (to\n e¶mfuton lo/gon, to\n duna¿menon sw◊sai ta»ß yuca»ß uJmw◊n), where “engrafted” is an adjective and “which is able to save” is an adjectival participle.  Certainly people can be saved from hearing accurate copies and accurate translations of the original manuscripts, or nobody who is alive today would be truly regenerate—nor would Timothy himself have been saved (2 Timothy 3:15).  (While it is cannot be proven without any doubt, it is very likely that Timothy’s mother and grandmother taught him the Scriptures in what was almost surely his first language, Greek, so the “scriptures” he knew from his infancy were not even original language copies, but the Word translated;  cf. 2 Timothy 1:5;  Acts 16:1-3; 2 Timothy 3:15.)

Consider, then, 2 Timothy 3:16:

All scripture is . . . profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (pa◊sa grafh\ . . . wÓfe÷limoß pro\ß didaskali÷an, pro\ß e¶legcon, pro\ß e˙pano/rqwsin, pro\ß paidei÷an th\n e˙n dikaiosu/nhØ)

Certainly the description here pertains to accurate copies and translations of the Word.  Both are unquestionably profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction.  If copied and translated Scripture are not “profitable,” believers today are in real trouble!

So, copied and translated Scripture has the adjectives “holy,” “prophetic,” “able to save,” “living,” “powerful,” “profitable,” etc. properly applied to it.

Consider then 2 Timothy 3:16a:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God (pa◊sa grafh\ qeo/pneustoß)

Accurate copies and translations properly have the adjective Theopnesustos, “God-breathed,” applied to them as well as all the other adjectives listed—including the adjective “profitable” later on in 2 Timothy 3:16.

[viii]         Note the anaphoric article in ton logon in 4:2, referring back to the graphe of 3:16.

Tabletalk, R. C. Sproul, and the Evangelical Foray into Ecclesiastical Separation

When I visited the Evangelical Theological Society meeting in San Francisco a few years ago, I scoured their mammoth book room for anything on separation and found none.  I asked men on the panel on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism where they had anything on separation, and one of the panelists said it would be in books in their chapters on the church.  I took that as church discipline. Separation was the same as church discipline.  I noticed that evangelicals seem afraid of a conversation about separation, maybe because someone might think they're a fundamentalist, and they wouldn't want that.

The ecclesiastical separation column for evangelicals lists something positive as of this month.  The June 2014 edition of Tabletalk, the R. C. Sproul, Ligonier, publication proposes ecclesiastical separation, entitled, Guilt By Association.  It contains four separate articles on ecclesiastical separation:  "Degrees of Separation" by David Murray, "Reasons for Separation" by Carl Trueman, "Guidelines for Separation" by Sinclair Ferguson, and "Gospel Association" by Iain D. Campbell.  Ecclesiastical separation is the feature of the June edition of an evangelical magazine, and it is positive.  It is teaching ecclesiastical separation.

Before I break down some of what was said, I ask, "Aren't these men fundamentalists?"  Shouldn't these men be considered fundamentalists?  Their language is what has been explained to me as fundamentalism.  I'd be happy for some input on this question.  They are talking like at least historic fundamentalists with this writing.

The David Murray article is very interesting, although he makes no biblical argument for his position of degrees of separation.  He just asserts these degrees with no biblical proof.  However, consider this line towards the end:

Sadly, the doctrinal and practical disagreements between churches and Christians are sometimes so serious and substantial that there is really no option but to separate on both an institutional and personal level. We cannot unite, we cannot associate, we cannot endorse, and we cannot even remain friends.

Wow, huh?  And that's not all, Murray asserts "secondary separation."  He says:

 In 1963, Billy Graham asked D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones if he would chair the first Worldwide Congress on Evangelism. Lloyd-Jones said he would gladly do it if Graham stopped including liberals and Roman Catholics on his crusade platform and staff. They talked for three hours, but when Graham refused to agree to this, Lloyd-Jones said he could not o”ffer any support or endorse Graham’s campaigns. Lloyd-Jones had a high regard for Billy Graham but separated from him formally because of his associations with others. 

That’s secondary separation, and again, it should be limited to denial of primary biblical truths, or else we will end up in a church of one, isolated and completely alone.

That's his limit on a secondary separation explanation, but he is espousing it, nonetheless.

Carl Trueman is, as many of you know, a huge favorite of conservative evangelicals and their closest fundamentalists.   Since he is writing on separation, it's probably going to be fashionable now, even among what Joel Tetreau calls type B and C fundamentalists.  Separation will be permissible to talk about again (not that celebrity affects anything among those).  He writes in his introduction:

In the current church climate, the issue of separation is set to become more significant, not less. One hundred years ago, as the liberal-fundamentalist controversy was reaching its peak, the issues were relatively straightforward: there were those who affirmed supernatural Christianity and there were those who denied it. Now, the situation is far more complicated, as disagreements on ethical issues have moved to the fore of discussion even among those who might otherwise assert supernaturalism.

And, of course, he's talking about same-sex marriage, and acceptance of homosexuality in evangelical churches, especially.  Trueman says that separation is not the fault of the ones separating, but "those who are theologically or morally deviant are the true agents of separatism."  He refers to "Romans 16:7" (sic, actually Romans 16:17, but we understand the infrequent reference to these passages could result in a mix-up) to identify the truly divisive ones.

Trueman doubles down on Murray's article by emphasizing again "distinctions between different degrees of fellowship and separation proper."  Like Murray, he doesn't provide a biblical basis for this, just asserts it.

He references 2 Corinthians 6:14 and gives some elementary ecclesiastical instruction, saying that "there is to be no positive working relationship between the church and the world, between those who believe the gospel and those who do not."  His last line is tell-tale:

Separation is hard and it is profoundly countercultural.  But it is a biblical mandate that we must follow in certain circumstances.

I see this as potentially a new movement in modern evangelicalism, a new-fundamentalist movement in which ecclesiastical separation is being taken from the biblical and theological closet, dusted off, and being used again.

Sinclair Ferguson's "Guidelines for Separation" is the most exegetically robust of the four articles.  All of it is very basic for someone already a separatist.  His last paragraph expresses his commitment:

The principle of separation has been abused, but it remains a biblical principle. There is a biblical separation that applies at the personal, the fellowship, and the ecclesiastical level. Overstep here and we do damage to the unity of the church. But fail here and as individuals and fellowships we will become like jellyfish with no central nervous system. Instead of swimming against the tide, we will simply float with it and eventually be thrown onto the shore, there to remain until another tide sweeps us out to sea.

The article, "Gospel Association," by Iain Campbell, expresses the basis for associating with others for the sake of proclaiming the gospel.  It is true that one church will not fulfill the Great Commission, because one church cannot witness in both Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and the uttermost parts of the earth simultaneously.  The proclamation of the gospel to the ends of the earth requires cooperation with other churches.  His article lays out the basis of the association in doing that.  He's saying that a church cannot associate with everyone, but here are the grounds for doing that.  This is again separation talk, coming from an evangelical.

I'm not saying that these men are teaching what the Bible does about separation.  If you want to find that out, read A Pure Church (buy it, I'm not making any money on it).  Scripture is far more expansive and plain than what they even say.  That doesn't mean that I don't applaud steps that they do take.  I do rejoice in this positive step.  Perhaps it is because they are confessional Presbyterians for whom separation comes a little more naturally, especially than evangelical Baptists.

I had not heard a peep about this in what would be the usual sources for finding out.  Does anyone else think this is an amazing development?  Evangelicals supporting ecclesiastical separation?  They even support secondary separation from Billy Graham.  They sound like fundamentalists.  Is this the start of a new movement?  Are other evangelicals, even conservative ones, afraid of tweeting, linking, etc. because they might be accused of supporting separation or being a fundamentalist?

How Would You Like to Come and Teach at Bethel Christian Academy?

Our school, Bethel Christian Academy, needs an elementary school teacher.  If you are reading this and you are perhaps that person or you know that person, let us know.  We have a great church and a nice situation in the school.  You might have a different degree, but you think you can do it, and would like to consider it.  Let us know.  We could actually use two teachers, so if there are two of you that want to teach, again, let us know.  This is for the next school year --- 2014-15.  Email me at betbapt at flash dot net or call the school number Five-one-zero, two-two-three, nine-five-five-zero.  Pastor David Sutton is the principal.  Thanks!!