Reverence and Solemnity: Essential Aspects of Biblical Worship, part 5 of 8

V. Applications of the Fact that Reverence and Solemnity

Are Essential Aspects of Biblical Worship

            The fact that reverence and solemnity are essential aspects of Biblical worship has tremendous consequences for the practices of Christ’s earthly congregations.  First, it is evident that “worship” that is not solemn and reverent, but is superficial, foolish, thoughtless, vapid, flippant, trivial, and irreverent is in the highest degree offensive to God.  The Father seeks for true worshippers, and “they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth” (Jn 4:23-24).  Jehovah delights in His true children crying “Hosanna to the Son of David” in His temple (Mt 21:15), but those who do not worship Him in spirit and truth, but instead profane and defile His worship, He destroys (1 Cor 3:17).  False worship is idolatry, and idolaters will be tormented with fire and brimstone forever and ever (Rev 21:8).  The Lord Jesus hated false worship so much that at both the beginning and end of His earthly ministry He violently drove out from the temple those that profaned the pure worship of the Father (Jn 2:13-17; Mt 21:12-17; Mr 11:15-18), so that “his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up” (Jn 2:17).  The Lord Jesus was so zealous for pure worship that He made a whip and beat out of His Father’s house those that defiled it (Jn 2:15), In this jealously for holy worship Christ was in full agreement with His Father, who sent fire from heaven to burn up those that failed to worship properly (Lev 10:1-2) dealt in pitiless fury to slay utterly those that profaned His temple (Eze 8), and eternally torments in hell those who offer Him false worship (1 Cor 6:9-11; Rev 14:9-11; 21:8).

            The facts above are most relevant for those who are members of true churches—the kind the Lord Jesus started in the first century—historic Baptist churches.[1]  Only such churches have the special presence of the holy Trinity in their midst (cf. Mt 18:17, 20).  What fearful judgment such churches should expect from He whose eyes are as a flame of fire if they corrupt pure worship (cf. Rev 2:5, 16, 20-23; 3:1-4, 14-18)!  However, other religious organizations in Christendom, from the liturgical and hierarchical to the worldly megachurch, even if they do not possess the special presence of Christ found in His true congregations, nevertheless will face the judgment Christ will pour out on all idolaters.  Therefore let all the world take heed to the Biblical mandate for reverent and solemn worship, and flee with horror from everything that deviates in the least from such worship.

Second, note that it is absolutely essential to have grace if you are to worship or serve God acceptably.  Only through grace can you serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear—consequently, God commands you to have grace (Heb 12:28).[2]  Your prayers and praise must be with grace in your heart if they are to be acceptable (Col 3:16). The only way of true access to the Father is through the Son and by the Holy Spirit (Eph 2:18; Col 3:17; 1 Tim 2:5; Jn 14:6), so if you are unconverted, you are utterly unable to worship God and offer Him true service.  Only regenerate people will enter into the New Jerusalem to worship God forever and ever, and only regenerate people are those true worshippers that can worship the Father in spirit and truth now (Jn 4:23-24).  They only have fellowship with the Father and the Son through the Spirit (1 Jn 1:3; 2 Cor 13:14).  If you are unconverted, you cannot please God in any way, you have no Mediator to bring you into the Father’s presence, no Spirit to assist you in your coming, and consequently you face the awful and immeasurable wrath of God against you for your sin in Adam, your sin nature, and your innumerable personal transgressions (cf. Rom 8:8-9; Tit 1:15-16).  Ought you not immediately turn from your sin and flee to Christ, that you might receive mercy through His blood, the imputation of His own perfect and everlasting righteousness to your account so that you can stand perfect before the legal tribunal of God, and the freedom from the bondage of sin under which you so awfully lie (Mr 1:15; Jn 3:16; Rom 5:1)?

            Are you regenerate?  Then sensibly recognize, and all the more because your formerly blind eyes have been opened, and your formerly insensible heart of adamant has been softened, how necessary grace is for your to worship your Triune Redeemer acceptably!  Do you not know by experience the truth of Paul’s statement:  “I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me” (Rom 7:21)?  Do you not see your indwelling sin the more awfully active the more you seek to approach the Lord in true reverence and godly fear?  Is it not especially active when you engage in your especially holy duties?  How, then, can you worship the Lord in solemnity and reverence, when sin clings to even your most zealous and holy thoughts and deeds, so that you deserve nothing more than to be thrust into the depths of hell for the most holy act of worship you have ever done in your life?  “If thou, LORD, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?” (Ps 130:3). What, then, is the answer?  Grace—“But there is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared.” (Ps 130:4).  You have in the Lord Jesus a perfect High Priest who bears the iniquity of your holy things, that you may be accepted before Jehovah (Ex 28:38).[3]  Then let grace be of infinite sweetness to your soul, the rejoicing of your renewed heart, and your constant dependence in all your acts of personal and corporate worship before your Lord.

            What is more, you must not only be regenerate, but also have an upright heart, for if you regard iniquity in your heart, the Lord will not hear your prayers or accept your worship (Ps 66:18).  As a believer, you are individually the temple of God (1 Cor 6:19-20), even as the corporate assembly is His temple also (1 Cor 3:15-20; 1 Tim 3:15).  You must be a clean and holy temple if your individual worship is to be acceptable.  You must individually be a clean and holy temple the whole week if your part of corporate worship on the Lord’s Day is to be acceptable (Is 1:13-15).  If you cannot lift up holy hands (1 Tim 2:8) because your hands are stained with sin, or stained with the blood of the unconverted to whom you refused to give the gospel (Ac 20:26-27; Eze 33:8), do you think the Lord will be pleased with your worship?  Can you pray reverently to the King of heaven because you have a regenerate and upright heart?

TDR

This entire study can be accessed here.

---

[1]           See “Bible Study #7:  The Church of Jesus Christ” at faithsaves.net/Bible-studies/, and also the resources at faithsaves.net/ecclesiology/ for the identifying marks of true churches.

[2]           That is, “let us have grace” is a hortatory subjective, which “is used to urge someone to unite with the speaker in a course of action upon which he has already decided” (pg. 464, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Wallace), and which consequently bears an imperatival notion—for only through grace can men worship acceptably with reverence and godly fear:  e¶cwmen ca¿rin, di∆ h∞ß latreu/wmen eujare÷stwß twˆ◊ Qewˆ◊ meta» ai˙douvß kai« eujlabei÷aß.

[3]           Cf. “Christ our High Priest, Bearing the Iniquity of our Holy Things,” Horatius Bonar (http://faithsaves.net/soteriology).

The NFL: Moral Relativism and Violence Against Women

The National Organization for Women, I noticed, is calling for Roger Goodell, the commissioner of the National Football League, to resign his position.  They've got to have something to do, so this seems as good as anything to them.  The issue is getting a lot of attention because of the Ray Rice video now that is all over the media worldwide.  Ray Rice had knocked out his fiance on an elevator. He admitted it.  But now the world sees the punch in action.

Actually, I couldn't see the punch on the video, because Rice's hand moved so quickly.  I was certain he punched her because she turned into a rag doll.  But everyone already knew that.  Rice had admitted it.  They had already seen Rice drag her out of the elevator.  However, once they saw the punch in action, there was a reaction from the world.  They wanted greater punishment for Ray Rice than he received, now that they had seen the video.

Years ago, going door to door, I ran into a household where the wife was abusing the husband.  She was physically abusing him.  She was stronger.  He was emaciated, and she kept him docile and under control through physical abuse and various medications.  I talked to this man many times, because I cared about him, but there are women who beat up men.  I've read about it since then.

Before Rice cold-cocked his fiance (now wife), you could see her hit him twice.  It looked like she physically attacked Rice.  Rice warded off these punches, and then hit her once.  One time.  And it looked like it wasn't a big punch for him, just a quick, powerful jab, that put her down and out.

Let's say that this was a same-sex couple, someone like Michael Sam and his boyfriend.  Let's say his boyfriend punched him twice and he sloughed off both punches, and then with a quick, sharp jab, he knocked out his boyfriend on an elevator.  This would not be news.  There would be no uproar.  It would make no difference.  There wouldn't even be an arrest.  It was fisticuffs.  Sam's punch was provoked.  He couldn't be charged because he got punched twice, and the retaliation was self-defense. Self-defense.  We know this is how it works.

Supposedly, we live in an egalitarian society.  A woman can be President, Secretary of State, your Senator or Congressman.  Women are the equals of men.  This is supposed to be real.  This is supposed to be what women want.  They want to be treated equally.  For instance, if a woman punches a man, women want men to be able to punch back, because women deserve to be treated like men.  Equally.  True, right?

Wrong.  Women want it both ways.  They want to punch without being punched.  In other words, they want a selective egalitarian society.  Not exactly egalitarian, more slanted toward them.

Don't get me wrong.  I want women to be protected.  I just don't think women should have it both ways.  If they can punch, all things being equal, then they can get punched too.  Just because the man is more powerful and can knock her out with one punch shouldn't matter in an egalitarian society.

My problem is with egalitarianism.  This is what it turns into.  If you can't judge women to be lesser than men, weaker than men, of a different role than men -- in other words, complementarian -- then you have to be fine with men and women having fisticuffs and more women ending up hurt.  You've got to make up your mind here.

Violence against women is a product of moral relativism.  We want our women at West Point.  There is obviously a different standard for those women -- wink, wink.  But they're dressed up the same and subject to the same criteria -- wink, wink.  It really isn't happening, but this is what is talked about, when in the real world it isn't happening and it will never happen.  Why?  Because women are different than men. There is absolute truth and goodness.  It's bad when women are given the role of men.  When we make truth and goodness relative, then women are going to get hurt, which they are in many numbers of ways.

One more thing.  This is also a product of evangelical and fundamentalist churches where women dress like men. They have male hair cuts.  They wear blue jeans.  The churches have day care so that women can be bread winners.  The women are career oriented.  The churches allow all this because of pragmatism.  It is all over society and the churches are not stopping it, even the complementarian ones.   These churches are actually nihilistic in this way, because there is no truth, no way to determine truth.  So they let their women act and look like men, trangressing biblical teaching, meanwhile trying to keep this complementarian stance that is actually learned through actions and appearance.  So the moral relativism is accepted by the churches.  And those churches attack someone like myself for having that stand and talking about it.  However, the churches are being ruined and will be destroyed because of it.

Why isn't it "violence toward people" that is the issue?  Why does it make difference whether it is a man or a woman?  All of this blows the cover of egalitarianism.  This is God's world, which is why people still don't really believe it.  And they are showing that by singling out violence toward women. Of course, we abhor violence toward women, but moral relativism is a cause, if not the cause, of violence toward women.

Attacking the "Fundamentalists": Bravo to John MacArthur and David Cloud, Bombarded by C. J. Mahaney and Fred Butler

When an evangelical wants to take a shot at someone, he will call him a "fundamentalist."  That's supposed to be an ultimate insult.  I read it coming from two men aimed at two preachers in the last three or four days for the same reason.  In one, I read C. J. Mahaney affronting John MacArthur in a post by Brent Detwiler, and in the other Fred Butler assaulting David Cloud.  These two are very, very similar, and they both illustrate how "fundamentalist" is used as an invective by evangelicals, to discourage men from standing against certain corruption.  I read what Mahaney and Butler did, to be identical to each other.  They are dealing with similar situations and using "fundamentalist" as a means to discourage it.

The first example relates a situation with John MacArthur confronting Mark Driscoll and being opposed then by Mahaney.  This is reported by Brent Detwiler, who was there.  Here's how Detwiler tells it:

Fundamentalist tendencies cannot ultimately be restrained [This was a slander.  Mahaney was saying MacArthur would not back off or change his view of Driscoll because of “fundamentalist tendencies.”]

Driscoll has a large movement – trying to protect from Driscoll’s worldliness [MacArthur is trying to protect those following Driscoll from his “worldliness” which Mahaney discounts as a fundamentalist concern focused on externals.]

Stumbles over shirt he is wearing [MacArthur stumbles over the shirts Driscoll wears.] 

There is finally a small chance Mark Driscoll will be held accountable for his reign of terror.  He should have been disciplined and removed from ministry years ago for multiple traits and actions that violated the clear qualifications of Scripture in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9.  Instead he was held up as an example by “all the high-profile Calvinist leaders involved with The Gospel Coalition and Together for the Gospel” except for John MacArthur who was dismissed by Mahaney as a fundamentalist.

Here you can see that Mahaney calls MacArthur a fundamentalist because of what MacArthur says about Driscoll's worldliness, concern focused on externals, and his shirts.  Fred Butler writes about David Cloud:

Bro. Cloud is one of those screeching fundamentalists who likes to pound his pulpit against the encroachment of modernity in churches. Such modern things like contemporary music in worship or the use of the ESV by parishioners.  So, if he is not railing against the worldliness of CCM artists from 25 years ago, he’s blasting away at modern Bible versions.

I'm focusing on Butler's calling Cloud a "screeching fundamentalist" for opposing the contemporary music, which the men, including MacArthur, at the Strange Fire Conference, by the way, said is the primary entrance into the Charismatic movement.  Both MacArthur and Cloud are dealing with worldliness, that they see as a problem in Christianity.

Is there irony here?  Very much so.  Fred Butler works for John MacArthur.  For a Driscoll or a Mahaney, this kind of thing has to be confusing or loony.  If you're not going to be consistent and if you are not going to come at this from a foundational or philosophical basis, then it all comes across as entirely subjective.  If you are open to talk about Driscoll's shirts, then someone else should be able to talk about music.  The music is directly worship and the shirt is related, but not directly like music is.

The critics want their own way.  They want their music.  They want their dress.   They want their worldliness.  And they use name-calling as an argument.  Notice it.  It really is typical of these evangelicals.

Reverence and Solemnity: Essential Aspects of Biblical Worship, part 4 of 8

IV. Reverent and Solemn Worship Befits the Character of the Church as God’s Earthly Temple and Befits the Access Saints Have Into Heaven Itself

            Reverence and solemnity are also essential aspects of Biblical worship because the church, the assembly of baptized believers,[1] is the very temple of the living God.  As God dwelt in the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies in the Old Testament tabernacle and temple, so does He dwell in each of His congregations now.[2]  Each true church is “an holy temple in the Lord” and “the house of God,” each church member being a living stone in the special dwelling place of the Triune God (Eph 2:19; 1 Tim 3:15; 1 Pet 2:5; 1 Cor 3:11-15).[3]  “Tremble, thou earth, at the presence of the Lord, at the presence of the God of Jacob” (Ps 114:7);  “Fear ye not me? saith the LORD: will ye not tremble at my presence[?] (Jer 5:22).  The Lord is a great King—He must be worshipped with reverence in His holy temple, the church.  Those who fail to do so should fear, because God will destroy them:  “If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy” (1 Cor 3:17).  “Be wise now therefore . . . be instructed[.] . . . Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him” (Ps 2:10-12).

            Not only is the church the earthly dwelling place and sacred temple of the living God, but also both the individual Christian and the corporate Christian assembly have access into heaven itself.[4]  Heaven is a place of infinite holiness and reverence, and so the worship of the saints on earth must be solemn and reverent, a worship that befits their union with the worship of the saints in heaven.  New Testament believers in their worship have “boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,” that is, into “heaven itself” (Heb 10:19; 9:24).  They “draw near . . . the holiest” (Heb 10:19, 22; cf. 12:22-23) through Christ and “have access by one Spirit unto the Father” (Eph 2:18), entrance into the very heavenly presence of their holy and heavenly God and Father.  Consider carefully the description of worship in Revelation 4-5:

¹ After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter. ² And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne. ³ And he that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone: and there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald. ⁴ And round about the throne were four and twenty seats: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment; and they had on their heads crowns of gold. ⁵ And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices: and there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God. ⁶ And before the throne there was a sea of glass like unto crystal: and in the midst of the throne, and round about the throne, were four beasts full of eyes before and behind. ⁷ And the first beast was like a lion, and the second beast like a calf, and the third beast had a face as a man, and the fourth beast was like a flying eagle. ⁸ And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come. ⁹ And when those beasts give glory and honour and thanks to him that sat on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever, ¹⁰ The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying, ¹¹ Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. ¹ And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals. ² And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof? ³ And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon. ⁴ And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon. ⁵ And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. ⁶ And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. ⁷ And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne. ⁸ And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints. ⁹ And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; ¹⁰ And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth. ¹¹ And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands; ¹² Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing. ¹³ And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever. ¹⁴ And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever.

Is not this inspired description of heavenly worship ineffably and immeasurably solemn, reverent, and holy?  But the astonishing truth is that Revelation 4-5 depicts not the worship of heaven only, but that of earth also![5]  When the saints open their mouths in praise and prayer, they are uniting with this holy and heavenly chorus of worship before Jehovah’s throne!  How necessary, then, is the highest solemnity and reverence in the earthly worship of the people of God!

TDR

This entire study can be accessed here.

---

[1]           The texts that refer to the church as the Lord’s Temple do not refer to a universal, invisible “church” but to the visible congregation of the saints;  cf. “A Word Study Demonstrating the Meaning of the Word Church, Ekklesia, and Consequently the Nature of the New Testament Church” at http://faithsaves.net/ekklesia-church/.

[2]           That is, each assembly is not just the hieron, but the naos of God:

Naos, naou, ho (naioœ to dwell), the Septuagint for he®kaœl, used of the temple at Jerusalem, but only of the sacred edifice (or sanctuary) itself, consisting of the Holy place and the Holy of holies (in classical Greek used of the sanctuary or cell of a temple, where the image of the god was placed, called also domos, seœkos, which is to be distinguished from to hieron, the whole temple, the entire consecrated enclosure; this distinction is observed also in the Bible; see hieron, p. 299a) . . . used specifically of the Holy place, where the priests officiated: Luke 1:9,21f; of the Holy of holies . . . Matt. 27:51; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45; in the visions of the Revelation used of the temple of the “New Jerusalem”: Rev. 3:12; 7:15; 11:19; 14:15,17; 15:5f,8; 16:1,17;  . . . metaphorically, of a company of Christians, a Christian church, as dwelt in by the Spirit of God: 1 Cor. 3:16; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:21; for the same reason, of the bodies of Christians, 1 Cor. 6:19. [O]f the body of Christ . . . John 2:21, and according to the Evangelist’s interpretation in 19 also. . . . [T]o hieron and ho naos differ, in that the former designates the whole compass of the sacred enclosure, embracing the entire aggregate of buildings, balconies, porticos, courts (viz., that of the men or Israelites, that of the women, that of the priests), belonging to the temple; the latter designates the sacred edifice properly so called, consisting of two parts, the “sanctuary” or “Holy place” (which no one except the priests was allowed to enter), and the “Holy of holies” or “most holy place” . . . which was entered only on the great day of atonement by the high priest alone. (Thayer on nao/ß and i˚ero/n)

ÔIero/n  (=templum) is the whole compass of the sacred enclosure, the te÷menoß, including the outer courts, the porches, porticoes, and other buildings subordinated to the temple itself; ai˚oi˙kodomai« touv i˚erouv (Matt. xxiv. 1.) But nao/ß (=‘aedes’), from nai÷w, ‘habito,’ as the proper habitation of God (Acts vii. 48; xvii. 24; 1 Cor. vi. 19); the oi•koß touv qeouv (Matt. xii. 4; cf. Exod. xxiii. 19), the German “duom” or “domus,” is the temple itself, that by especial right so called, being the heart and centre of the whole; the Holy, and the Holy of Holies, called often aJgi÷asma (1 Macc. i. 37; 45). This distinction, one that existed and was acknowledged in profane Greek and with reference to heathen temples, quite as much as in sacred Greek and with relation to the temple of the true God (see Herodotus. i. 183; Thucydides, iv. 90 [ta¿fon me«n ku/klwˆ peri« to\ i˚ero\n kai« to\n new»n e¶skapton]; v.18; Acts xxix. 24, 27), is, I believe, always assumed in all passages relating to the temple at Jerusalem, alike by Josephus, by Philo, by the Septuagint translators, and in the N. T. (Trench on i˚ero/n, nao/ß)

[3]           The “house of God” is terminology for the special dwelling place of God in His place of corporate worship, and is overwhelmingly temple terminology (Gen 28:17; Jud 18:31; 20:18, 26, 31; 21:2; 1 Chr 6:48; 9:11, 13, 26–27; 22:2; 23:28; 24:5; 25:6; 26:20; 28:12, 21; 29:7; 2 Chr 3:3; 4:11, 19; 5:1, 14; 7:5; 15:18; 22:12; 23:3, 9; 24:7, 13, 27; 25:24; 28:24; 31:13, 21; 33:7; 34:9; 35:8; 36:18–19; Ezra 1:4; 2:68; 3:8–9; 4:24; 5:2, 13–17; 6:3, 5, 7–8, 12, 16–17, 22; 7:24; 8:36; 10:1, 6, 9; Neh 6:10; 8:16; 11:11, 16, 22; 12:40; 13:7, 9, 11; Ps 42:4; 52:8; 55:14; Eccl 5:1; Dan 1:2; 5:3; Zech 7:2; Matt 12:4; Mark 2:26; Luke 6:4; 1 Tim 3:15; Heb 10:21; 1 Pet 4:17).

[4]           Note the tremendous presentation of this Biblical truth by John Owen in “The Nature and Beauty of Gospel Worship,” elec. acc. http://faithsaves.net/ecclesiology.

[5]           Without getting into a detailed exposition of Revelation 4-5, the unity of Old and New Testament saints pictured in the 24 elders, the specific references in the chapters to the unity of this heavenly worship with that on the earth (5:13-14), and the agreement of the rest of Scripture that the saints on earth enter into heaven itself in their worship (Eph 2:18; Heb 9-10) make the unity of heavenly and earthly worship indubitable.

Commentary on the Steven Anderson--James White Interview, part two

Part one (which includes the link to the interview).  We left off at minute 46:40.

At 47, White is answering "codex Sinaiticus in a nutshell and codex B in a nutshell," and he starts by saying that "Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are the primary objects of vitriol of the King James Only movement."  That is aleph and b in a nutshell?  No, that is a propaganda-like answer.  Also in answer to that, White says, "I hope that you will have a fair and full discussion of Erasmus's development of his five editions."  That is in answer to the question of aleph and b in a "nutshell?"  A fair and full discussion should start with what does the Bible say about its own preservation, and then what did the churches and what did gospel-receiving Christians believe about the preservation of scripture?  This would be actually presuppositional, instead of just in name only, distorting the concept of presuppositionalism.  Erasmus is a red herring.  In many ways, White is more sure about what Erasmus said than he is about what the Bible says.  White is sure of what Christians for the first 1500 years never saw, but he isn't sure what is in the Bible itself.  Someone can't be sure of what Christians either did or did not see in the first 1500 years if he isn't sure of what is in the Bible today.

During White's "answer" about Sinaiticus "in a nutshell," he starts talking about church history and "the trail of blood," and I really have no idea what he is talking about.  He might know, but I have no clue of the point he was making during that foray.  Somehow, I think, he was trying to make a connection between ecclesiology and the text of scripture, but I don't know what it is.

Between 50:43 and 56, White talks about Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, not really explaining what they were or why they were important.  He took part of his time to say that Erasmus wanted to use Vaticanus but didn't because he was rushing to get his Greek New Testament out in print.  All of this is to make the TR look shoddy and then make it look like it was a work of textual criticism.

With scriptural presuppositions, the most glaring issue with Sinaiticus and Vaticanus is that they weren't available to Christians for hundreds of years in contradiction to biblical teaching on the preservation of scripture.  If this was the Bible, why hadn't Christians received it and used it?  White says Sinaiticus was in use for a long time, due to the fact that people had written on it, but that is no explanation for why Sinaiticus should be trusted when it is not only much different than what Christians possessed and used for centuries, but also is hugely different than Vaticanus.  White says that Vaticanus first appeared in the Vatican library in the late 15th century.  That is not what I want to hear about the Bible, that the most trusted manuscript was sequestered in the pope's library for no one to use.

Regarding textual criticism, White says that the work in textual criticism done before the papyri is largely irrelevant.   At 56, White says that the new discoveries of manuscripts, the papyri, in the 20th-21st centuries has undercut the work of men attempting to undercut the faith of students in colleges and universities, naming Bart Ehrman an example of this especially.  White is saying there are those involved in textual criticism who are bad for the faith.  Anderson says "undercutting the faith only of those students whose faith stands in the wisdom of men and and not in the power of God."  White says he completely disagrees with that application.  I wish that they had decided to discuss that point, because this is primarily where this issue lies.  In fairness to White, Anderson was just trying to get footage for his documentary, and this must not have fit his agenda.

Based on the questions of Anderson, at 57 White discusses the principles behind textual criticism.  Anderson segues this into talk about variations between the modern versions and the KJV.   The two topics dovetail.  In this section, we hear the naturalistic explanations for discerning what are the words of God, White speaking against a theological basis for what the words are.  He says the King James shouldn't be held as a standard for comparison.  He assumes an older text was the text of the church in the early days without proof.  We know the KJV was the text of the church for hundreds of years.  White places more weight on earlier manuscript evidence as the standard, even though it is still hundreds of years after the originals.

Anderson points out that the KJV is careful not ever to refer to Joseph as Jesus' father, but in Luke 2:33 the modern versions say, "his father and his mother," instead of the KJV, "Joseph and his mother." Luke 2:43 makes the same error.  White calls these scribal changes of piety.  Bart Ehrman calls them "orthodox corruptions," saying that changes were made to the text in order to take away possible misconstruing in accordance with heretical Christology.  He says the orthodox were fine with changing the text to fit their theology, what White, again, calls changes of piety.  When White says what matters is what Luke said, he's saying that we understand that, not from the theology, but from the science.

Around 1:10 or so, Anderson and White delve into a philosophical discussion and it exposes the weakness of depending on principles of textual criticism to identify the words of scripture.  We don't know number of copies of the New Testament, but whatever the total, we don't possess 100% of them from the first century and over 99% of them from the second and third centuries.  Even though we possess more manuscript evidence for the Bible than any other ancient text, we are missing most of the textual evidence.   Even if we do find one page of a second century manuscript, it is just one page that is not going to tell us without doubt what are the exact words of the copied text of the New Testament. This exercise turns the conversation about the Bible into one of degree of exactitude.   It is a faithless task and conversation.

There were more copies made of the King James Version than any other rendering.  In 2011, Leland Ryken in an article about the King James Version in the Wall Street Journal called it the best selling book of all time and the most quoted book in the English language.  As a comeback to the truth of how many KJV Bibles have been published, at 1:12 or so, White hypothesizes if President Obama were to publish a billion copies of the Obama Version, would that make it the Bible?  It is hard to discuss an issue with someone who uses that kind of argumentation.  The KJV has been published and quoted because saved, Holy Spirit indwelt people think it is the Bible.  That might just be a difference between the KJV and the hypothetical Obama Version.  Ya think?

White makes the argument at 1:13 (and I'm not kidding) that every translator of the KJV would agree with him on his point.   After he says it, maybe he sees how ridiculous it sounds, so he starts to try to "prove it."  He brings up the preface by the translators, which is often referenced by modern-version-only as disproving KJVO.  I've read that preface several times before, and it does not make a point about changing the translation in the future in accordance with new textual evidence.  None.  The translators say that the translation could be improved in the future, if it can, much like they believed themselves to be doing. They say nothing about textual criticism and the uncovering of new textual evidence as a basis of future improvement.  They don't say anything about going back to "ancient codices," what White said.

White also references the translators discussion about the Septuagint.  He said that they said that the Septuagint should be relied upon as a basis for a translation.  Yes, the translators said that the apostles at times were using the Septuagint.  This was an argument by them for the making of a translation.   Many of the translators believed in a state church and in infant baptism.  White says that he has found some weird views about the Greek Septuagint among KJVO folks.  What is very weird is when White and folks like him would argue for a corrupt text of scripture, since they say that Jesus and the Apostles quoted one with the Septuagint (which he does at 1:17).  I would rather take a high view of scripture and use the same argument as John Owen in his article, "Digression on the Septuagint Greek Version of Scripture," from his Biblical Theology on p. 540.  I would venture to say that Owen's argument predates the weird stuff that White thinks he himself refers to.

More Later

Commentary on the Steven Anderson--James White Interview, part one

At the time of this post, you can find the full interview here.  A good way to do this would be to pull up that youtube page on a different tab and go back and forth between the video and this post.  I'll put in the minutes for the particular comments I make.

***********************

More than believing an indefensible position on the preservation of scripture, Steven Anderson doesn't believe a true gospel.  He denies repentance is necessary for salvation, which is in fact the gospel Jesus preached (Matthew 3:2) and commanded us to preach in the Great Commission (Luke 24:47).  Yet, James White gives Anderson two and half hours to use for his future documentary video.  I'll say very little about Anderson, but he does open a window with the interview, because it is more than just a monologue by White.  Even in debates, you don't get direct conversation like this between two people who don't agree.

White doesn't believe a biblical or historical position on the preservation of scripture.  He instead takes a post-enlightenment, rationalistic, and evidentialist view, albeit claiming to be presuppositional.   According to him, because of the existence of textual variants, even true churches lost the words of God and today men must restore them according to modern rules of literary criticism.  Taking his approach, no one will ever know what the exact, specific words of scripture were in the originals until he gets to heaven.  While he believes that God is sovereign over the identity of the elect, a few humans are sovereign over the identity of the words of God, a relatively brand new and heterodox doctrine of the Bible.

I have committed myself to dealing just with White's content and not his style, so at 1:06 we find how White came to his position.  It wasn't presuppositional, that is, revealed from scripture. Instead, as a young man he noticed the apparatus of his 3rd edition UBS Greek New Testament in a Bible college Greek class and asked what the footnotes were.  He says he immediately knew those would be important for Mormons.  Isn't the gospel the power of God unto salvation?  We hear, however, that White did not get his position from studying the Bible, but from a Bible college professor.

At 9:17, in explaining why he wrote his book, White says a King James Only position won't stand up to the best opponents of the Christian faith.  Some might think that you have to take White's word on this, since he debates Islamic experts, but in my experience with evangelism of many Islamics, their attack on the Bible relates to the proposition that scripture has not been preserved, one they could gladly assert by listening to White himself, who himself faithlessly rejects that we have every word of God.

At 13 minutes, White asks Anderson why the New King James isn't inspired, since it comes from the same text as the KJV, who responds that the NKJV is not translated from the TR.  White says, "It is in the New Testament," as if it isn't in the Old Testament (which would make it not a New King James), but Anderson corrects him that it does differ.  White doesn't refute this.  Anderson is correct here.  You can see in several places that the NKJV translators did not come from the same Greek text as the King James.  This is a regular lie of multiple versionists, saying that the NKJV comes from the same Greek text as the KJV.  It does not.

Anderson returns to White's contention of "circular reasoning" at 16:21, which White begins defining at 16:30.  He finishes his intitial explanation by 17:39, but the essence of the circular reasoning for KJVO according to White is that KJVO defend the KJV by saying that it is the Word of God. Anderson wanted just a definition of circular reasoning, so at 17:53, White begins defining circular reasoning itself.  At 18:42, White starts to answer Anderson's question, "Why do we believe that the Bible itself is the Word of God?" Anderson is attempting to show that White himself uses circular reasoning, while criticizing KJVO for believing in it.  White spends a few minutes in essence admitting that he too uses circular reasoning, but that he depends on the revelation of God rather than a particular translation to make his point.   White concedes that both he and Anderson rely on circular reasoning.  Shouldn't that halt White from using the circular reasoning argument?  The Bible remains the highest authority, so it should be relied upon to believe that itself is the Word of God.

Circular reasoning is one of those logical fallacies that people like to throw around to diminish what someone else is saying.  I would not take a different position than White.  The Bible itself as God's revelation is the highest authority and so I rely upon it as my authority that the Bible itself is the Word of God.  Sure, no verse in the Bible asserts the King James as the Word of God, so the reasoning would fail if that was in fact the reasoning.  It isn't.  White's assertion is a strawman.  His strawman perhaps applies to Anderson, but not to the historic and biblical doctrine of the preservation of scripture, which is preservation of every word in the original languages and general accessibility to every generation of believers.

At about 20 minutes, White explains that "there is a proper place for a kind of transcendental circular argument."  White lays himself open to criticism here.  A transcendental argument would admit one God and so one truth.  You can't have two or three or four sets of words with a transcendental argument.  You've got one book and one set of words that God inspired and preserved.  You can then make that argument from the one book.  The argument is there.  White just doesn't believe it.  He goes outside of scripture, like utilizing science, etc., what he says he doesn't believe to prove the Bible is the Word of God, as proof of his multiple version position.

Anderson after 22 minutes really does make a very credible argument against White's position, using White's own argument, that is, if we stand in the Word of God for our position, the wisdom of God, then we can't stand on archaeology and history, etc. to come to our view.  Depending on other than the Word of God for faith is standing in the wisdom of men.  I could hear John Owen or Francis Turretin or the Westminster divines making the same argument.

At 23:50 or so, White starts to deal with Anderson's position on the Word of God.  He criticizes Anderson's one step circular reasoning.  He says that his own circular reasoning starts with God the Spirit replacing his heart of stone with one of flesh, giving him the faith to believe what God's Word says.  At 25:14 though, White says that he would get to the point with an unsaved atheist by saying exactly what Anderson said, that is, the Bible is the Word of God because the Bible says it is. White admits that Anderson and him agree at 25:30.  They do agree that both their positions arise from circular reasoning.

At 26, Anderson explains to White why he is KJVO.   His primary reason mirrors what White said was his reason for believing the Bible is the Word of God.  He says the Holy Spirit bore witness to him that the King James was the Bible, when the other versions were not.  Let me say right here, that is not how I argue for the King James, but I was hearing that Anderson was saying the same thing that White was, adding that other step in his circular reasoning, an internal witness of the Holy Spirit that White himself talked about just a few minutes earlier.

Anderson's pastor when he was a teenager took him aside to explain how the NASV was superior, and his explanation turned Anderson a different direction.  When Anderson heard that the new versions were reliant upon old manuscripts that had been lost, he says that he then knew that wasn't the Word of God.  Anderson and White had similar moments of discovering the existent of textual variants, but that took them in totally different directions.

At 30:30 or so, White begins reacting to Anderson's story.  From my perspective, White uses a strategy that I have seen him use in the past.  He puts words in Anderson's mouth.  He says, "What you just said is that you 'felt this.'" And then, "What you just said is that 'you believe this because the Holy Spirit has told me so.'"  When I heard White say that, I said, "Wow.  That's not what Anderson was saying."  Again, I don't take that same position as Anderson, but Anderson was reflecting the same argument as White, that is that the internal Holy Spirit, the one that God gave White, is the first step in his circular reasoning.  Anderson is saying the Holy Spirit bore witness, and White turns that into "the Holy Spirit told me."  He's trying to make Anderson's position look like some kind of double inspiration position.

At 31:30, White says that he doesn't think that John 10 is about English translations of the Bible. That is typical White type of tack.  Anderson isn't saying that "my sheep hear my voice" is about English translations.  He is saying that he hears the shepherd's voice in the King James.  He's not saying that the meaning of John 10:27 is that the shepherd's voice is an English translation, so, again, this is a White kind of debate technique.  Remember at 25:30, White himself says that he believes the Bible is the Word of God because of what could be construed as the same type of subjective, very personal reason.  I don't remember Anderson saying he "felt something," but that is what White turns the internal working of the Holy Spirit into -- feeling something.  Anderson does clear it up at 32:10 when he says there is absolute reality that the book of Mormon is false and the Bible is true, despite that a Mormon 'feels' it is the Word of God.

I think that Anderson's argument is weak.  I can't say it's false, because the Bible does say there is a personal experience we have with God through the Word of God.  It's weak because it does not differentiate Anderson's experience from the experience of an unbeliever.  However, it does reflect the same teaching that White made at 25:30.  Go back and watch.  White won't let it go.  He says at 33:45, "Steven, you've just made yourself the final arbiter of this issue."  I don't think so.

I believe that White is true in that you start with an atheist with presuppositions, the groundlessness of atheism because it clashes with the world in which we live, created by God.  You come to the Bible because it fits the only viable explanation for the world.  You utilize the general revelation the atheist suppresses.  It is true that someone doesn't believe the Bible because of his intellectual abilities, but because of the power of God.  But this is also what Anderson is explaining.  At this point, as I said, it is a weak argument.

Anderson goes off the rails at 35 by speculating that the the NIV user doesn't understand the King James Version because he isn't saved.  It's ironic that Anderson says this, hearing him later explain some of his unscriptural view of salvation.  And then he begins theorizing that the NIV is powerless because of the differences from the KJV.  It is too bad that it is Anderson doing this interview, because his position doesn't hold up.  He is a poor representative of the King James Version, similar to the demon possessed woman who testified to the authority of the apostles in Acts 16.  He's not the friend of the KJV that you want, even if he supports it.

Anderson's view, if taken to its end, does seem to send him the direction of denying the conversion of anyone not saved under the influence of the King James Version.  This was the same position that Jack Hyles took, who also didn't believe repentance was necessary for salvation.

At 38:45 or so, White says that he stands his ground against Catholics, Islamics, and Mormons as unsaved, because there is an objective standard, the Bible, and they're not believing.  He endeavors to differentiate his position from Anderson, whom he is portraying as subjective in his KJVO position, claiming that Anderson takes his view primarily on a feeling or the Holy Spirit talking to him, which White is obviously paralleling with the Catholics, Islamics, and Mormons.  And those three types of folks aren't saved because they contradict an objective standard, the Bible.  But White is wrong on the preservation of scripture, because he contradicts the objective standard, the Bible, for a very subjective position that comes out of so-called external evidences, that he himself says is not a basis for believing the Bible is the Word of God.  This is why I say that Anderson does us a service in having this interview.  You can see this as you watch.

Anderson tries to clear up this idea that NIV users are not saved at 39.  He says that they might be saved.  He shouldn't have gone there, because it seems he just keeps digging the hole deeper for himself.  I have to ask how someone like Anderson, who says he knows the shepherd's voice, could reject repentance, when the shepherd taught that.  This is a place where Anderson himself relies on his own logic to take a position, faulty logic that you hear more later in the conversation.

White is wrong to conclude at 41 that this is an aspect of KJVO.  He calls it a dangerous aspect of KJVO.  A lot of people who use other versions have wacky beliefs.  Mormons are King James Version themselves.  That is not a natural consequence of KJVO.  That is a faulty conclusion by White, but it is why with a King James supporter like Anderson, who needs enemies?

Anderson and White keep going down this path of new versions and salvation after 42.  Anderson says the NIV is the devil's book.  White asks why the devil would cause a book that still has all the doctrines in it necessary for people to be saved.  Anyone who is approaching new versions would be better served by saying that Satan does attack the Word of God by changing the words, as we see in Genesis 3.  People also misuse the absolutely correct Words, twisting them, as Peter mentions in 2 Peter 3.  The attack is more subtle than what Anderson portrays.  The attack is more like the following:  if we don't know what the Words of God are, then how can the Word of God be authoritative?  The confusion about the Word of God works at diminishing the authority of scripture and, therefore, the consequences, the conversions.  Satan creates doubt about the Word of God.  That is how Satan could use the multiple new versions.  White in this interview agrees with that.

The two men continue on the translation and salvation discussion, but in my observation they are both wrong on this point.  Anderson goes beyond a scriptural position by saying that it must be a particular translation.  White says it is just the "message" without actual words from God that are suitable.  People are saved by believing the gospel, but the power of the gospel comes from the Word of God.  I wouldn't want to depend on either position, because both are too risky.  White separates the Words of God from their message, as if the very Words aren't necessary for conversion---only the message.  One could say that this is a dangerous trajectory from a non-preservation position, disconnecting the message of scripture from the actual words.  Perverted views of inerrancy also attach to this natural conclusion of a non-preservation view.

At 46, Anderson starts questioning White on textual criticism and first about the major manuscripts behind the critical text.  I'm going stop here for now.