Things Are Much Worse Now: The Growth of the Nones

From what I've read and heard, almost every generation of older people think things are worse now than before.  It's almost a rite of passage into old age to complain about what young people are doing now, comparing it to the way things were done. This expectation of each succeeding generation of old people is so anticipated that it might be assumed that things aren't actually worse, it's just the familiar protestations of the next crop of spinsters.  The postulation becomes, "don't trust the notions of the aged."  Except.  Things really are much worse now.  Take that from someone who still hasn't started ordering off the senior menu, even though in spirit a card-carrying old-timer.

Mitch Albom, New York Times best-selling author and popular newspaper columnist (Detroit Free Press), albeit not credible at sixty years of age, reports on Sunday that things indeed have changed regarding religion.  He starts by writing:

A recent survey showed there are now as many Americans who claim “no religion” — 23 percent — as there are who identify as Catholic or evangelical, the two largest affiliations. 

This trend has been rising steadily, reportedly growing nearly 270 percent in the last 30 years. Which means next time they take the poll, America's most popular answer to "What is your religious tradition?" will be "None."”

Without any curmudgeon bias, this constitutes measurable figures suggesting things really are worse than they were.  "None" is different at least, and estimable bad news whether expressed by creaky oldsters or not.  Maybe they do know what they're talking about.

The Apostle Paul, who was probably younger than me when he wrote this, commended the Thessalonian church "because that your faith groweth exceedingly, and the charity of every one of you all toward each other aboundeth" (2 Thessalonians 1:3).  By key quantifiers, a church had gotten better than what it was, which someone might call a rarity.  It can happen, but it usually doesn't.  Overall today, churches have gotten worse all over, even though sometimes publicizing that they are doing better than ever.

If faith isn't growing and love abounding, then that would be a way of saying that things are worse than before and that something is wrong.  One should want increased faith and love as a computation of improvement.

Albom in his article says that it makes sense that "nones" are multiplying in light of (or maybe darkness) a provided sample list of what's gone wrong with religion.  One might ask Albom, however, is this a cause or an effect?  Did things happen because of this list or is this list many of the things happening?  I choose the latter.  I choose, these are some of the symptoms and not the disease, and this is something I've been writing about ever since I started writing here.

Albom argues for religion.  He ends his column with this question:  "Is it God that you are disillusioned with, or man?"  It's a good question, which should bring other ones.

If someone can judge religion or at least "organized religion" to be bad, then he himself must have some objective standard of judgment by which he assesses it.  At the very beginning of the church, which was founded by Jesus Christ, God put to death two members of the first and only church in Jerusalem because of hypocrisy.  Hypocrisy can only exist where something true and real exists.  What is true?  Or, what is truth?

I'll assume that you know the last question is the name of and always has been the identity of this blog.  What is truth?  An increase in faith is a stronger belief in the truth.  I see faith waning and weakening because of attacks on and then uncertainty in the truth.

As bad as it is out there, in my lifetime there has never been a better basis for believing.  We don't have any new scripture, but so much today validates what we already know from the Bible.  Nothing in science or archaeology or history contradicts what God's Word teaches.  Some of the best arguments from scripture have been formulated and are easily available.  Sound exposition of the Word of God is available to a wider audience.  And yet it is also true that things are much worse.

What is happening?  It seems that even solid, faithful families have lost some children to the world.  The "nones" are some of those pushing the eject button.  I propose two major reasons for things being much worse today.  They are both scriptural.  One that I'm not going to suggest as a reason is the prophecy from the Bible that things will get worse before they can get better.  We might be in the midst of that, but there are still reasons why things get worse, and I don't think they'll be much of a surprise.

First, the world is a harder place than ever to keep the faith.  The world is a more deceptive place.  It's hard to keep your children away from the world.  You can't do what Mark Twain apparently suggested and put them in a barrel and then at some point put a hole in it.  Churches are less separate than ever and yet the world is worse than ever -- that is a lethal combination.

Everyone today has the easiest access to the worst possible materials.  It makes truth easier to spread, but it's just as easy to disperse error of all kinds.  Most dangerous in my estimation, but matching what I see in scripture, is lust.  Television, internet, radio, mobile electronic devices, social media, and travel broadcast the most alluring, destructive information and pictures at light speed.  It seems impossible to stop.  I'm not saying that we can't, but it is very difficult.

Peter wrote that "fleshly lusts war against the soul" (1 Peter 2:11).  Sadly, churches use fleshly lust as a part of the church growth movement.   I think most churches today then propagate a counterfeit grace of God that validates the fleshly lust.  Young people feel entitled to belly up to the trough of this world with full forgiveness and acceptance.  Churches actually provide it and those are counted often as spiritual because of their use of mysticism.  This also redefines God in people's minds.

So, the world provides lust and churches provide lust.  It's everywhere.  The world itself is better and faster at it.  Young people are deceived all over.  Parents try to step in, and they just don't think the parents get it.  They've been introduced to and offered something that they just don't think the previous generation understands.  They don't want to give it up.  However, it isn't God.  It is a placebo that will send almost all of them careening into Hell forever.

Second, closely related to one, churches stopped being about the truth.  If the truth is why people are in the church, then it is also what will keep them in church.  They are leaving, because it has become about something else.  Even if people have offended the young people, who are now becoming "nones" and think justifiably so, it doesn't change the truth.  Is the offense, based on the truth or not?  There's got to be some basis for the offense, those kinds of things Albom has listed, if it is offensive, unless it is only about self.

Our church hasn't lost much through decades now, because it has been based upon the truth.  If a young person goes elsewhere, and it becomes apparent through other churches that lust and the truth can coexist, that has become a problem.  They've never been exposed to the false version of Christianity either adopted by extended family members or around new places of employment.  They didn't know you could be a Christian and worldly or a Christian and pagan.  They saw something where someone could be both because of a perverted view of forgiveness, love, grace, and sanctification.

When someone becomes a "none," he was never saved in the first place, but something still took him over to apostasy, where he deserted the truth, like a Judas or a prodigal.  Peter compares it (2 Peter 2) to a dog returning to its vomit.  A very influential false version of Christianity tangles people and then finally bounces them into the world  Those religious institutionas won't last. Before my life ends many, if not most, of them will be gone, completely turned away from the faith.  They are not based upon the truth.

Almost every church in America has degraded.  I can't usually find a place to attend when I'm on the road.  There is either something wrong in the preaching or the worship.  I've described the process in previous posts.  If they don't think God's Word is inspired, then it wasn't preserved, and then they aren't sure what it means.  Capitulation in any of these areas is a death knell.  At the same time, the churches become about something else about the church that is attractive to people to try to keep who they've got.  None of that is right.  Neither will it work.

Preparation for the Lord's Supper, part 6 of 6, from Wilhelmus a Brakel's The Christian's Reasonable Service

Reflection Upon the Lord’s Supper

After having been to the Lord’s Supper, you must not conduct yourself as if you have left behind a heavy burden about which you had been so concerned, and you are now quite satisfied because you hope that you have neither eaten nor drunk judgment to yourself—and thus return to your former state and way of life. See to it that you refrain from such behavior. Be very careful to conduct yourself well after the Lord’s Supper. If Satan has not been able to gain the advantage over you in the preparation for and celebration of the Lord’s Supper, he will yet endeavor to get the advantage over you after the Lord’s Supper. After the Lord Jesus had been baptized, He was tempted of the devil, and after the disciples had celebrated the Lord’s Supper with Christ, they were in that same night offended and dispersed, and Peter was sifted as wheat. After Paul had been drawn into the third heaven, there came an angel of Satan who buffeted him. This is generally also true for believers—after having been comforted they must arm themselves against the assaults of the enemy, so that he may not get a hold upon them. As one must be on guard against the enemy, he must likewise take special care to conduct himself appropriately toward God, his Benefactor. We may indeed apply to this spiritual meal what God demanded of Israel upon their arrival in Canaan with its abundance: “When thou hast eaten and art full, then thou shalt bless the LORD thy God for the good land which He hath given thee. Beware that thou forget not the LORD thy God” (Deu. 8:10–11).

Reflection consists first of all in a quiet reflection upon how we have fared at the Lord’s Supper, and furthermore, how we have behaved ourself and what God has done for us. “And thou shalt remember all the way which the LORD thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness” (Deu. 8:2).

Reflect upon what your condition has been.

(1) Have you been actively engaged during the time of preparation? Have you taken the time for it, or did you continually postpone it until time slipped away from you and a slight spiritual motion with a prayer or two had to do? Was there a reflection upon sin, and a wrestling to receive Christ? Was there a lively inclination and a stirring to repent, or were you in darkness, listless, and discouraged?

(2) What was your condition during the administration of the Lord’s Supper? Were you sorrowful or joyful? Were you tender, or hard and insensitive—all this being intermingled with sorrow? Were you in the dark or was it light; were you moved or composed; did you exercise faith or were you full of fear? Were you filled with longing or was it barren within?

Reflect also upon the manner in which the Lord has manifested Himself to you.

(1) Were you sorrowful both when you came and when you returned, not having sensed the Lord’s presence?

(2) Did you receive peace, quietness, hope, assurance, and joy? Did you sweetly cleave to the Lord, doing so while weeping, without much comfort? Or could you entrust it all to the Lord, and did you in love lean upon your Beloved? Did the Lord manifest Himself to you in a special manner with extraordinary revelations, or by granting clear and powerful assurance? Reflect upon these and similar matters. Do not deny what you have received; highly esteem the very least thing. If the soul can thus engage itself in quiet meditation, the Lord’s Supper will have a sweet aftertaste. One will perceive his failures and acknowledge the free grace of God, His goodness, and His benevolence. It will be a renewal of friendship, and be as a wedding dinner, treating Jesus to His own dainties, saying, “Let my Beloved come into His garden, and eat His pleasant fruits” (Song of Sol. 4:16). Yes, you may then receive that blessing during reflection which you missed while partaking of the Lord’s Supper.

Reflection to Be an Expression of Gratitude

Secondly, reflection consists of joyous gratitude: “Bless the LORD, O my soul, and forget not all His benefits” (Psa. 103:2); “Praise the LORD, call upon His Name, declare His doings among the people, make mention that His Name is exalted. Sing unto the LORD; for He hath done excellent things: this is known in all the earth. Cry out and shout, thou inhabitant of Zion: for great is the Holy One of Israel in the midst of thee” (Isa. 12:4–6).

Gratitude consists:

(1) In knowledge of, observance of, and appreciation for, the good which has been received. This pertains to the entire work of redemption by the Lord Jesus Christ and to all the benefits promised in the covenant of grace, as well as to those good spiritual frames and the Lord’s manifestation to you at the Lord’s Supper. “How precious also are Thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them! If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand” (Psa. 139:17–18). He who does not know the worth of what has been received cannot give thanks.

(2) In the acknowledgement that one is a partaker of these benefits: “… who loved me, and gave Himself for me” (Gal. 2:20). Such knowledge—of being a partaker—makes one joyful and renders the heart grateful.

(3) In the acknowledgement of the sovereign goodness of the Lord as the fountain from which alone these benefits have come forth. “Know ye that the LORD He is God: it is He that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are His people, and the sheep of His pasture” (Psa. 100:3). Goodness doubles the value of the gift.

(4) In a manifestation of joy before the countenance of the Lord about all that you have received, be it more or less. “For Thou, LORD, hast made me glad through Thy work: I will triumph in the works of Thy hands” (Psa. 92:4). A joyful giver demands a joyful recipient.

(5) In an inclination to requite. “What shall I render unto the Lord for all His benefits toward me? I will take the cup of salvation, and call upon the name of the LORD” (Psa. 116:12–13). Even though you are not able to requite, the inclination to do so is nevertheless required.

(6) In a blessing, boasting of, and praising of the Lord’s goodness, grace, and benevolence, which are manifested in the received benefits. “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of Him who hath called you out of darkness into His marvelous light” (1 Pet. 2:9).

(7) In not being reserved when in the company of godly members with whom you are familiar. Instead, we must tell each other how it was with us at the Lord’s Supper; this is generally of much benefit both for those who listen and for those who speak. The one recognizes his own heart, the other is comforted, and someone else is encouraged to seek. They may then concur to thank the Lord together with psalms and prayers. “Come and hear, all ye that fear God, and I will declare what He hath done for my soul” (Psa. 66:16).

Reflection Must Consist in the Anticipation and Enjoyment of Having Fellowship with God

Thirdly, reflection consists in a continual looking unto and having fellowship with the Lord. “… walk before Me, and be thou perfect” (Gen. 17:1); “And Enoch walked with God” (Gen. 5:24). To that end it is necessary that one views God in Christ as a reconciled Father. Even when spiritual light dissipates, if one falls into sin and if strife comes, he must nevertheless hold fast to the immovableness of the covenant. It is neither your feeling nor your standing or falling which determines the steadfastness or stability of the covenant; rather, it is based on the immutability of God. “For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but My kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of My peace be removed, saith the LORD that hath mercy on thee” (Isa. 54:10); “For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed” (Mal. 3:6). Therefore do not succumb so readily; hold fast what you have, be steadfast in faith, and conduct yourself manfully. If, according to your feeling, you cannot conclude the certainty of your state, then make the conclusion judgmentally. Observe this in the following passages: “Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 6:11); “Because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead” (2 Cor. 5:14). Therefore set the Lord continually before you and live in a continual dialogue with Him—at one time pray, then ask for counsel, then express your dependence upon Him, then wait upon Him, then reverently worship Him, then rest in Him, then thank Him, and then again, offer yourself to His service. Acquaint yourself thus with Him.

All salvation, comfort, delight, holiness, and felicity for the soul is to be found in having fellowship with God. Such a soul perceives the righteousness of God as being only light, glorious, and pure—she loves it and rejoices herself in it, doing so all the more, since this righteousness is not against her unto condemnation, but the Surety having merited this, it is to her advantage. The soul also perceives the goodness and all-sufficiency of God, and in enjoying their efficacy, she not only is unable to find any desirability in creatures apart from God, but apart from God there is nothing which she desires, since the soul finds everything in God. The soul also perceives the holiness of God. Since she is unable to endure its luster, she covers her countenance and perceives in this luster her own sinfulness; and for shame, she shrivels away, so to speak, and becomes as nothing.

The soul also perceives the love of God, and being irradiated by this love, she delights herself in a most wondrous way, reciprocal love being ignited within her. She perceives the will of God as being uppermost and sovereign over all things. Thus, she loses her own will in whatever suffering comes her way and in whatever duties are before her. She wishes it to be thus because it is the Lord’s will. The soul perceives the majesty and glory of God, in comparison with which all creatures lose their majesty and glory and she bows herself deeply before her majestic God, worships Him with deep reverence and gives honor and glory to Him. She perceives the omnipotence of God, both within Himself and as it is operative toward His creatures. Then the power of the creature, which manifests itself either for or against her will, disappears. She sees the wisdom of God as revealing itself in all His works—both in nature as well as in grace. Thus, the wisdom of all creatures melts away and she is quiet and well-satisfied with the only wise government of God. The soul also perceives the veracity and faithfulness of God. She is acquainted with the promises, believes them, and is so confident as far as the certainty of these promises is concerned, that it is as if they were already fulfilled.

All this engenders a thoughtful and steadfast spiritual frame, quiet submission in whatever circumstances the soul encounters, a fearless courage in the performance of her duty, and a delighting herself in the task she has done for the Lord, leaving the outcome with resignation to the Lord’s direction. Such a life is truly a joyful life, and pure holiness issues forth from this. She acknowledges any virtue which is not practiced by having God in Christ in view, as a vice. Such fellowship with God is heaven itself: “… and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words” (1 Th. 4:17–18). David says of this: “In Thy presence is fulness of joy; at Thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore” (Psa. 16:11); “As for me, I will behold Thy face in righteousness: I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with Thy likeness” (Psa. 17:15). “Heaven” is quickly said, but it far transcends all comprehension. The soul who acquaints herself with God by way of such fellowship, has much liberty to lay her need before the Lord her Father and to present all her desires to Him in prayer, seeking their fulfillment. God, in turn, is a hearing and answering God to her. “Call unto Me, and I will answer thee, and show thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not” (Jer. 33:3).

Behold, such is the eminent felicity of fellowship with God. Since you have entered into covenant with God, however, and this covenant has been sealed to you, you thus have the privilege to walk humbly with your God—this also being your duty. Therefore, acquaint yourself with the Lord, have peace, and let your holiness shine forth.

Reflection Must Result in a Despising and an Abandoning of the World

Fourthly, reflection consists in a despising and an abandoning of the world. “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world” (1 John 2:15–16). You are obliged to abandon the world, for:

(1) This is inherent in the covenant into which you have entered and which has been sealed to you. This means that God alone is your desire, resting place, joy, delight, and the One whom I fear. The world is therefore from now on, of no significance. It is merely to be used as a means through which you traverse as a stranger in order to come to the fatherland.

(2) The world is nothing but pollution itself and lies in wickedness; you, however, are washed by the blood and Spirit of Christ. How then can you again defile yourself? The Lord has called or drawn you out of this dreadful and wicked world, as He drew Abraham out of Ur and Israel out of Egypt—how then can you return there again?

(3) Those two, God and the world, stand in direct opposition to each other; whoever loves the one hates the other, for no one can serve two masters. “Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God” (James 4:4).

(4) The love of the world is an adulterous love, and your Bridegroom, Jesus, to whom you have been espoused, will be very jealous in response thereto. It also dishonors Him, for it is as if He could not sufficiently satisfy the soul—as if you needed something besides Him. It would then appear as if He were not sufficiently good and friendly to refresh and gladden His bride.

(5) He shall respond to such denial with more abundant comfort. The Lord shall not allow the abandonment of all that is of the world—motivated by love for Him—to go unrequited.

(6) It is nothing more than vanity. Moreover, what is the world with all its glory without Jesus?

(7) All this confusion, beloved, and all this grief, sorrow, and trouble originate nowhere else but in the world which, as your enemy, wounds you by either flattering or frightening you. Will you then seek out your own sorrow? Have you not tasted her bitterness long enough? Therefore come out of her, and let your walk henceforth be in heaven.

Reflection Consists in a Public Manifestation of One’s Christianity

Fifthly, reflection consists in a public manifestation that one is a Christian and a member of the covenant. Therefore, from now on wear the livery of Christ by walking as He has walked (1 John 2:6), so that all who observe you may know that you are loyal to Jesus and His cause (Acts 4:13).

This manifests itself primarily

(1) In love: “By this shall all men know that ye are My disciples, if ye have love one to another” (John 13:35). Love the Lord, and indulge yourself continually in the love of your beloved Jesus. Manifest your love also to all believers since Jesus loves them and they cherish Jesus. Let not their imperfections and shortcomings hinder you in your love, since this love has another foundation. Let your loving heart also manifest itself toward all men—just as light and fire illuminate and yield warmth to both the good and the evil.

(2) In humility and meekness: “… learn of Me; for I am meek and lowly in heart” (Mat. 11:29). Since having made Jesus your choice has yielded honor, love, and safe-keeping for you, can there be any concern for the honor and love of men? What interest can there then be for the goods of this world? If you therefore have cast out ambition and lust for money, humility and meekness will show forth their luster. And since you have nothing unless you have received it from your beloved Jesus, you ought to remain small in yourself and manifest this by your friendly conversation, in being honorably dressed (and thus void of external show), by your conduct in your family and wherever humility is appropriate. If you are wronged or an opportunity to become angry arises, be on guard against wrath and vengefulness. Show that you are of a meek spirit, that you can endure this, and that you can love your enemies and do good to them.

(3) In benevolence, thus bearing the image of Christ. How benevolent the Lord Jesus was! Who did ever depart from Him, being yet uncomforted? Thus it must be with you: Comfort those who grieve, visit the sick, and be generous to the poor. If there is nothing you can give, nevertheless be friendly and manifest your compassion toward them. Let your light thus shine among men and manifest your faith by your works.

Reflection Must Manifest Itself in a Public Confession of the Lord Jesus

Sixthly, reflection consists in confessing the Lord Jesus. The Lord’s Supper obligates you to show forth the death of the Lord until He comes. Be not ashamed of Christ, His doctrine, church, children, or cause. Express yourself freely, and let it be manifested by your speech, deeds, and friends that you are loyal to Jesus. Rejoice when you have the opportunity to manifest how glorious, full of salvation, and precious He is to you. Rejoice when men despise you for Christ’s sake, and do not shrink back from persecution when you must suffer for the name of Christ. And if it would please the Lord to bring you to glory by calling you to be a martyr and blood-witness, do not refuse this crown, but rather receive it with joy.

Blessed are they who in preparation for, in celebration of, and in reflection upon, the Lord’s Supper may conduct themselves in harmony with that which has been said. He whose conduct approximates this is also well off, for those who halt will, with Jacob, also arrive in Canaan. Sincerity of heart is pleasing to God and renders support in the exercise of faith.

Many are desirous for all these spiritual frames and complain that they do not have them. They indeed have great reason to complain; however, what is the cause of all this? They themselves are certainly to be blamed, for they are lax in seeking. It is too difficult a duty for them to be thus engaged in spite of darkness and spiritual dullness. He who does not work will not eat, he who does not pray will not receive, and he who does not seek will not find. In the realm of nature God grants temporal blessings only upon the use of the means; God deals likewise in the spiritual realm. Therefore if you desire these things, actively seek them. Frequently come before the Lord as you are: as sinful, lax, listless, and ignorant. Show Him that with your small measure of spiritual life, you are impotent to overcome the resistance of the old Adam—yes, you cannot even engage yourself to do so. Therefore, while holding before the Lord His promises, pray to Him for preceding grace, His Spirit, and for willingness and ability to seek—and the Lord will hear and give you grace. This desire to seek and this supplicating for the Spirit in order that you may be actively engaged are pleasing to the Lord. In your impotent seeking your soul will frequently come into a more lively frame, and you will thereby quiet your soul and receive more light and comfort. May the Lord, who is good, cause you to seek and to find!

The excerpt above is from Wilhelmus a Brakel's 4 volume systematic theology called The Christian's Reasonable Service, which has been made available in an indexed form online. 

-TDR

Faith, Epistemology, Worldview, Preservation of Scripture, and Apostasy: They Are Related Closely and How They Are Related

In the late nineteenth century, so-called bible or theological scholars began conforming their views of origins and Genesis to Darwin.  This was the influence of modernism, which changed the basis of epistemology from know by faith to know by human reasoning.  One could say that this was the time of the bifurcation of science and faith or science and theology, moving religion to the arts side of the campus.  Darwinism had not truly been tested.  It was embraced not because of science, but despite it, and professors with a desire to conform and please capitulated.  One can read it even in The Fundamentals with some of the authors promoting old earth creationism.  The two book approach validated the most foundational of the fundamental.

Now we know how the cell works.  We know about DNA.  We have looked into the fossil record.  We get irreducible complexity.  We see that philosophy or even rebellion was the basis of replacing God with naturalism or uniformitarianism.  Faith was still the way to know.  God still expected men to believe what He said.  What He said and wrote to us was and is still the truth.

Since scripture is true and a valid, unimpeachable knowledge, what Peter called the pure mother's milk or sincere milk and what James referred to as without variableness or shadow of turning, we can and should say there is one truth.  The one truth proceeds from one God.  God expects us to embrace his own truth, what Jude called "the faith" once delivered unto the saints.  The wrenches thrown into the gears or the speed bumps formed on the way from secularism, naturalism, or evidentialism are not to sway or corrupt the church or God's people.  They are to keep receiving God's Words.

At the time of the first printed editions of the Greek New Testament shortly after the invention of the printing press, godly men believed and promulgated a doctrine of verbal, plenary preservation of scripture.  They knew the existence of textual variants.  Their view, I believe, is well represented by this statement by Richard Capel:

[W]e have the Copies in both languages [Hebrew and Greek], which Copies vary not from Primitive writings in any matter which may stumble any. This concernes onely the learned, and they know that by consent of all parties, the most learned on all sides among Christians do shake hands in this, that God by his providence hath preserved them uncorrupt. . . . As God committed the Hebrew text of the Old Testament to the Jewes, and did and doth move their hearts to keep it untainted to this day: So I dare lay it on the same God, that he in his providence is so with the Church of the Gentiles, that they have and do preserve the Greek Text uncorrupt, and clear: As for some scrapes by Transcribers, that comes to no more, than to censure a book to be corrupt, because of some scrapes in the printing, and ‘tis certain, that what mistake is in one print, is corrected in another.

Many other statements were made by Christian men, church leaders, through those hundreds of years of printed history, that represent their bibliology and historic Christianity, showing that they believed they possessed in copies the very words of God in the language in which they were written.  They took this position from scripture, assuming that God would do and did what He said.  What changed?

Premoderns saw and believed truth was transcendent.  Truth is known by revelation, bypassing depravity, what I have called the trampling of the crime scene.  One can think he knows the truth by evidence, but he must not trust first his lying eyes and second the effects of a sin-cursed world on the evidence he thinks he sees.  Darwinism is a sample, a big one.  It changed the landscape of man's thinking, and it was based upon limited observation, where credit was given that was not really earned in an effort toward compatibility with scholarship.

Textual criticism is similar in that it defers to a modernist's approach, depending on rationalism.  Believing God is just not good enough and scripture is not to be depended upon. What is it that textual critics, of a modern so-called science, notice?  There are variations in the handwritten copies.  They point those out.  They do not belie God's preservation.  Divine work is involved, using men, not only in making the copies, but judging the copyist errors.

Scripture reports the expectations, every word.  God works in what He says He will do.  Textual criticism, the so-called science, is a different epistemology, knowing, albeit not really knowing, in a different way than what God wants men to know or has even ordained them to know.  The godly should presuppose what God said He would do and doubt their own observational abilities.  If someone doesn't believe in preservation, no settled text, based on different presuppositions and really a different view of the world, a modern one, he sees an ongoing, never-ending adjustment, tweaking, and never being certain.

A shift occurs from divine to human.  Men are still searching, still discovering, applying rationalistic criteria in the way of man-made rules and in the context of unbelieving methods.  This. is. what. is. happening.  It is not the same thing as what true Christians believed and did.  They settled.  They possessed God's Words in their hands, preservation equaled availability.

Erasmus in the 16th century did not invent a preserved text of scripture when he published the first printed edition of the Greek New Testament.  That text already existed and was already received by God's people.  Kurt Aland, who has no skin in the doctrine of preservation, says with unpretentious honesty ("The Text of the Church?" in Trinity Journal, Fall, 1987, p.131):

[I]t is undisputed that from the 16th to the 18th century orthodoxy's doctrine of verbal inspiration assumed this Textus Receptus. It was the only Greek text they knew, and they regarded it as the 'original text.'

This didn't start in the 16th century either.  Kurt Aland's wife, Barbara Aland, writes in her book The Text of the New Testament (pp. 6-7):

[T]he Textus Receptus remained the basic text and its authority was regarded as canonical. . . . Every theologian of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (and not just the exegetical scholars) worked from an edition of the Greek text of the New Testament which was regarded as the "revealed text." This idea of verbal inspiration (i. e., of the literal and inerrant inspiration of the text) which the orthodoxy of both Protestant traditions maintained so vigorously, was applied to the Textus Receptus.

Kurt Aland in his publication, The Text of the Church?, writes:  "[T]his Byzantine text was regarded as ‘the text of the church’ . . . from the 4th . . . century."  He also wrote in The Text of the New Testament (p. 11) writes:

We can appreciate better the struggle for freedom from the dominance of the Textus Receptus when we remember that in this period it was regarded even to the last detail the inspired and infallible word of God himself. 

I quote the Alands, because again they have nothing to hide.  They don't care what the church believed.

For the premoderns, the doctrine of preservation from scripture guided a presupposition of a perfect text.  This corresponded to the nature of God.  One God, one doctrine, one scripture.  An irony exists among professing evangelical textual critics for a comparison between the doctrines of canonicity and preservation.  The Holy Spirit was at work in the acceptance of a perfect number of books, sixty-six, but not for what scripture actually teaches, perfect words.

The deviation from biblical epistemology, knowledge by faith, creates uncertainty.  The doubt fuels suspicion of biblical teaching and practice.  It can't buoy against worldly attack and rejection.  It diminishes the authority of scripture, which causes faintheartedness and apostasy.  Biblical standards of holiness have fallen.  They clash with the world and the doubt saps strength to stand for Christian living.

One Christianity and Alternative Forms of Christianity: What Has Happened?

Two term Democrat mayor of South Bend, IN, and presidential hopeful, Pete Buttigieg, made the news this last week talking about "faith," calling his own same-sex marriage "conservative" and something that "moves me closer to God."  Furthermore, he called Mike Pence, "cheerleader of the porn star presidency," and continuing, said:

I'm reluctant to comment on another person's faith, but I would say it is hard to look at this president's actions and believe that they're the actions of somebody who believes in God. . . . I just don't understand how you can be as worshipful of your own self as he is and be prepared to humble yourself before God. I've never seen him humble himself before anyone.

Then today he went further toward Mike Pence:

If you got a problem with who I am, your problem is not with me -- your quarrel, sir, is with my creator.

What does Buttigieg hope to accomplish by talking about his own "Christianity" as a homosexual?  Both his and Donald Trump's are not actual Christianity.  Neither.  Buttigieg knows that at least millennial evangelicals could vote for him.  He's attempting to pick off professing evangelicals.  I'm saying this is the condition of evangelicalism today, and the leaders are afraid of a mass exodus of sympathetic to homosexuality.

Hailey Bieber in an interview this last week said her purpose is to 'represent Jesus' in the modeling industry.  In the linked article, she recognizes the contradiction, but this is a similar if not identical alternative form of Christianity as Buttigieg.

For all of Christian history these two above presentations would be in outright, diametric incongruity with the Bible and Christianity, and yet this is where a kind of professing Christianity is today.  Just like there is one truth, there is only one Christianity, the one Christ requires true churches to keep.  What has happened?  A lot.  So many things that it is difficult to put a finger on just one thing.

Today many represent the incongruity in a philosophical way as postmodernism.  It is a helpful category.  Premoderns thought truth came from God, so we know with certainty truth by faith through revelation.  Distinguished from them, moderns said we know by human reasoning or discovery, opting for rationalism.  Postmoderns conclude truth was a social construct, more of just a personal theory, our truth is our truth, so my truth is as good as any other truth.  Modernism was a machine that failed, trampling everyone into the dirt, not turning out well for whatever its basis might be.  With postmodernism, no definite terms, boundaries, or absolute truths exist.  Since everything is in error anyway, and it's not safe to trust conclusions, nothing is absolute, except what the postmodern wants.

The philosophical explanation brings categories and the story of demise.  It chronicles transitions, but it wasn't the cause for permissible multiple massive variations in Christianity.  Judgment begins in the house of God.  2 Peter and Jude provide a biblical explication.

Buttigieg says same sex marriage moved him closer to God and that a hypothetical rejection by Mike Pence, who hasn't said anything to or about Buttigieg that I have heard or read, is a quarrel with Buttigieg's "creator."   Buttigieg doesn't go to scripture at all to defend his claim.  The Bible repudiates homosexuality in no uncertain terms, let alone same sex marriage, based upon God's design as Creator.  God created male and female.  A man leaves father and mother and cleaves to his wife by God's design.  Buttigieg is not arguing from scripture, and apparently he thinks this won't matter to his audience, especially millennial evangelicals based upon his polling.  He gives the following evidence for God "creating" him "gay":

If me being gay was a choice, it was a choice that was made far, far above my pay grade. . . .  [I] would have done anything to not be gay, when I started to half way realize what it meant that I felt the way I did. . . . If you had offered me a pill to make me straight, I would have swallowed it before I could get a sip of water.

Buttigieg puts his own feelings on par with revelation from God.  He believes God created him homosexual because he has feelings he says that he really doesn't want to have, even though they in the end make him a better man.  Scripture says just the opposite.  James 1:14 in a classic passage on sin says that "every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed."  Buttigieg's sin originates in his desires.  This isn't God communicating to him, but his own flesh.

A lot of sin is based on feelings someone wishes that he didn't have.  He doesn't want to lie.  He does.  He doesn't want  to react in selfish, angry way.  He does.  He doesn't want to mouth off.  He does.  Postmoderns can say that God said something to them without any evidence, but their own feelings.  Their churches accept this.  Nothing in the Bible or the history of Christian theology matches this view.  It's an man-made and man-centered invention.

Buttigieg's talk isn't Christian.  There aren't several Christianities and you don't get to choose the one you want.  Again, 2 Peter and Jude both expose and foresee this perversion of Christianity.  Jude 1:3-4:

 3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. 4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Don't skip the verses.  Go back and read them.  Churches must contend for the faith.  Why?  Ungodly men infiltrate churches, "turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ."  The emphasis in Jude and 2 Peter 2 is the denial of the Lordship of Christ.  Men like Buttigieg want to do what he want to do, which is lasciviousness, and so he uses his feelings to allow for it.  This is turning the grace of God into lasciviousness and denying Jesus as Lord.  Buttigieg becomes lord, does what he wants, not what Jesus wants, and then justifies it.

The way the Lord Jesus Christ rules lives is through scripture through His churches.  Rather than submit to scripture, we see men elevate their feelings above.  This is worshiping the creature rather than the Creator (Rom 1:25).   Very often today churches are embarrassed about scripture.  They don't like what it says.  They don't want to expect or require what it says.  It's easier to accept what people want to do.  This acceptance is their new love.  It isn't love.  It's better to call it sentimentalism, if not just lust.  They say they love each other and they feel love for one another, but their professed love contradicts scripture.

Churches and godly leaders of churches must contend for the faith, which is the one Christianity.  There are no alternatives.  I read someone recently who called the alternatives "the great omission" in contrast to the Great Commission of Matthew 28:19-20.  The great commission says "teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you," but the alternative Christianity omits this, in so doing, "denying the Lord that bought them" (2 Peter 2:1).

Kent Brandenburg and Frank Turk Debate on the Preservation of Scripture -- Part Four

Introduction to the Debate    Part One   Part Two   Part Three

by Kent Brandenburg

Answer to Q3

We need to get this settled immediately, even though it's the actual affirmation of this debate, what I have written everywhere, and in the first question I asked—I believe that every Word of God is preserved in the languages in which they were written. Worded another way: I don't believe that preservation of Scripture comes through a translation. A translation at best can accurately represent Greek and Hebrew words; it isn't those words though. Since we do have translation occurring in the NT by Jesus and the Apostles, we know that translation is God's will and can sufficiently communicate God's Word, but it isn't what God preserved.

You are correct that Turretin is speaking about translations in your quotes—I agree with him. Translations are not equal to preservation because they are not the words that God gave. They are a human effort. God doesn't ever promise a perfect translation. Turretin, like me, believes that preservation occurs in the original languages because that is what Scripture teaches. This is where Mr. Turk would do well first to study what the Bible says about its own preservation and then enter into a debate with set Scriptural presuppositions. God inspired Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words. He didn't breathe out English words. He promised that "jots" and "tittles" would not pass from the law (Matthew 5:18). Those were Hebrew letters—the jot is the smallest consonant in the Hebrew alphabet and the tittle (keraia) is the vowel point according to Gill and Owen. God promises to preserve the letters and words that He actually gave. You cannot defend an English preservationist view using Scripture. You can defend that God preserved the actual Words He inerrantly revealed to mankind in His Holy Word. I can hold up a translation and confidently say, "This is the Word of God," but it does not Scripturally represent the doctrine of preservation.

Comments for A3

Mr. Turk writes: "Kent wants to imply that unless all the words are present, none of the words are validly considered God's word." In my answer to his question #2, I write: "Neither the KJ translators, nor many others, would say that a translation in the places where it is faulty is the Word of God." I already implied that any translation is the Word of God where it accurately translates the preserved original language text.

Mr. Turk's "11 Greek words" versus "24 English words" illustrate the above point exactly. With a translation, we get as close as possible to the meaning of the original words in a formal equivalence, so we regularly use more words in the receptor language.

The nature of the word "preservation" says something was originally there that was kept intact. God didn't start with Spanish or Latin or English. Something had to be there first before it could be kept. Mr. Turk says that God kept ideas and concepts and no sweat on exact wording. That doesn't jive with Scripture.

Mr. Turk is right that it is ludicrous to abandon a translation because it has more words in it than the original text. However, we should abandon a text that has different words than what God has preserved. In 2 Thessalonians 2:2, we know that impostor text was being offered up as genuine Scripture. Revelation 22:18-19 warns very seriously about adding or taking away from the Words of the book—not the ideas or the concepts, but the Words.

Mr. Turk writes—"even if the words of the Greek and Hebrew were not perfectly handled." Copyists made errors but that does not nullify Divine preservation. A good explanation of how a pure Word was maintained is written in 1658 by puritan Richard Capel:

[W]e have the Copies in both languages [Hebrew and Greek], which Copies vary not from Primitive writings in any matter which may stumble any. This concernes onely the learned, and they know that by consent of all parties, the most learned on all sides among Christians do shake hands in this, that God by his providence hath preserved them uncorrupt. . . . As God committed the Hebrew text of the Old Testament to the Jewes, and did and doth move their hearts to keep it untainted to this day: So I dare lay it on the same God, that he in his providence is so with the Church of the Gentiles, that they have and do preserve the Greek Text uncorrupt, and clear: As for some scrapes by Transcribers, that comes to no more, than to censure a book to be corrupt, because of some scrapes in the printing, and ‘tis certain, that what mistake is in one print, is corrected in another.

This represents the historic position of NT Christianity on the doctrine of preservation, simply fleshing out what Scripture says on this doctrine but sharp contrasting with Mr. Turk's neo-orthodox conceptual Word of God. Neither does it fit with this monologue (John MacArthur on Matthew 24:35):

That's a convenient view. The idea that there's some idea, concept, religious notion there that may or may not be connected to the words, but the Bible claims to be the very words of God. First Corinthians 2:13 . . . . John 17:8 . . . . The message was in the words, there is no message apart from the words, there is no inspiration apart from the words. More than 3800 times in the Old Testament we have expressions like "Thus says the Lord," "The Word of the Lord came," "God said," it's about the words. There are no such things as wordless concepts anyway. When Moses would excuse himself from serving the Lord . . . . God didn't say, "I'll give you a lot of great ideas, you'll figure out how to communicate them." God didn't say, "I'll be with your mind." God said to him this, "I will be with your mouth and I will teach you what you shall say." And that explains why 40 years later, according to Deuteronomy 4:2 . . . . God did not give ideas without words but in some cases He gave words without complete ideas.

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

by Frank Turk

I like it when you call me "neo-orthodox", Kent, because it makes your view about things very clear. However, I think you have to say something explicitly for this exchange to go forward.

You said this in your last answer: 

Translations are not equal to preservation because they are not the words that God gave. They are a human effort. God doesn't ever promise a perfect translation.

But you have also conceded that "it is ludicrous to abandon a translation because it has more words in it than the original text."

How can anyone who does not read Greek or Hebrew trust their KJV Bible to deliver to them something other than a corrupt message which has displaced God's words with fallible, human substitutes? Please define the word "accurate" (or its synonyms) if you use it in your answer.

                                                                                                     

Ah shoot -- I accidentally pasted my Q#4 over my A#4.

There are no verses of Scripture which affirm the number of books in the Bible.

Since the scope of our debate is the NT, I affirm that there has never been any question about the list of books which comprise the NT, except for the Marcionites who rejected the OT and any part of the NT which agreed or affirmed the OT. These books have been received by the churches since the earliest times -- the first generation of Christianity.

Bethel Baptist & Word of Truth Sermons on YouTube: Help Increase the Number of People Watching

As you likely know if you like solid Biblical preaching, Bethel Baptist has a goodly number of fantastic sermons available on the web.  Bethel also has a YouTube channel where one can watch as well as listen to a great deal of solid teaching and preaching of God's Word.  However, many of the messages on YouTube are not maximized to get high numbers of viewers.  To increase viewership on YouTube, messages should have keywords and a description.  For example, my class on YouTube about the evidence for Israel's Egyptian Captivity and the Exodus not only has a title, but also a description of the content:

Israel's exodus from Egypt and Egyptian captivity are examined in Archaeological and Historical Evidence for the Bible, class #2. Archaeology demonstrates 'Habiru or Hebrew Asiatics were in Egypt at the time specified in the Bible, making bricks for the city of Pi-Ramesses. The unanimous testimony to Israel's Egyptian captivity and exodus are strong historical evidence for their facticity. The suzerain-vassal treaty format found in the Pentateuch strongly supports its Mosaic authorship. Furthermore, Hebrew inscriptional evidence from Sinai 347, 357 support Pharaoh's decree to murder the Hebrew children; Sinai 361 refers to Moses by name and Israel's slavery; and Sinai 375a refers to Ahisamach (Exodus 31:6; 35:34; 38:23), whose son Aholiab was one of the two primary metalworkers and craftsmen who built Israel’s tabernacle. The evidence compels leading Egyptologists to recognize the historical reality of Israel's captivity and exodus. This video is from a Bible college class taught by Thomas Ross at the Mukwonago Baptist Bible Institute; see the FaithSaves website and/or your bookstore for Prof. Ross's book on this subject or for more information.

A number of keywords for the class that relate to its content are also attached to the video; words like "Israel," "Exodus," "Egypt," "captivity," and quite a few more are in the section where I uploaded the video. Having keywords that match video content, a description that matches video content, and a title that matches content very greatly helps videos to be found by other people on the web.

Many of the Bethel Baptist and Word of Truth Conference messages do not have descriptions or keywords.  If you believe the sermons are a blessing and help advance the kingdom of God, you could help others find and watch them, not only by commenting on and "liking" the videos on YouTube, but also by taking notes and writing out a description and some keywords.  For whatever message(s) you write out a description, keywords, and (if needed) an improved title, please send me the written description and keywords, or contact Bethel with that information, and a brother in the church will likely be able to add that content in.  I simply do not have time to get that information for all of the messages Bethel already has online, but if a number of people help out/chip in, we can get this great Biblical content available to a greatly expanded audience.  Thank you for your willingness to help!

-TDR

Adult Children pt. 2

Part One

Proverbs 22:6 says:

Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.

"When he is old" in this verse means, when he is an adult, which could be when he is outside the home.  The Hebrew word first appears to refer to Sarah when she was saying she was too old to have a child.  Among many other points, the verse expresses a concern of parents, that when their children do become adults, they don't depart from what they were trained as children.  There is a reason parents are training their children in these things -- not just because they want them to do them as children, but that they would also believe and do them as adults.  If children comply as children and go a different direction as an adult, a parent likely views this as a failing.  If the way in which they were trained was the truth when they were children, it continues to be the truth for them as an adult.

The instruction to the son in Proverbs 1:8 is similar, "forsake not the law of thy mother:"  A mother and father are not going to be okay with their son forsaking the law of his mother.  A father seems to be speaking to a young person about when he becomes an adult in Proverbs 3:1-2:

1 My son, forget not my law; but let thine heart keep my commandments: 2 For length of days, and long life, and peace, shall they add to thee.

When would the son perhaps be forgetting his parents' law?  It seems to be obvious that it's when he's an adult child.  The threat of that occurring is why the passage even says what it says.  When he forgets his parents' law (it's not even saying God's law), he's forfeiting in general length of days and peace.  Over many years and seeing adult children, I can attest to it by personal experience.  A lack of peace is in the future of an adult child, who forsakes his parents' law.

I move to Proverbs 4:1-4:

1 Hear, ye children, the instruction of a father, and attend to know understanding. 2 For I give you good doctrine, forsake ye not my law. 3 For I was my father's son, tender and only beloved in the sight of my mother. 4 He taught me also, and said unto me, Let thine heart retain my words: keep my commandments, and live.

The father says to his son, "Retain my words: keep my commandments, and live."  Parents have the right to expect their adult children to retain their words and keep their commandments.

Society today would say, "You've got to let those adult children go -- don't tell them to retain your words and keep your commandments when they are adults, because that is a deal breaker and will only turn them off."  Scripture says that nowhere and says just the opposite.  No one wants to lose a child and parents become desperate, willing often to give up aspects of historic, biblical doctrine and practice, and this harms everyone.  It is never right to do wrong.  It is still a normal expression of a psychobabble, even among Christians. I read it with no verses attached as a kind of seat-of-the-pants home-spun good counsel.  Later in chapter 4 (vv. 20-21):

Incline thine ear unto my sayings. Let them not depart from thine eyes; keep them in the midst of thine heart.

Negatively, the adult child is not to let his parents' teaching depart from his eyes and he is to keep it in the midst of his heart.  Most millennials consider this terrible advice, a total fail, that is, any parent in his right mind should just quietly accept decisions of adult children that depart from how they've been trained.  "Just agree to disagree, and if you don't, you're the problem, you are failing."

Evangelical churches today often craft their church growth strategies around capturing adult children away from their parents' teaching, catering to the law of sin in the members, as Paul put it in Romans 7, especially attacking the parents on cultural issues, calling them legalists without any proof even of the existence of their perversion of the term.  Within the context of the subject of relationship Paul wrote in Ephesians 4:17-20:

17 This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, 18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: 19 Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness. 20 But ye have not so learned Christ.

Anyone given over to the lasciviousness, as other Gentiles walk, have not so learned Christ.  Very often it is young men alluring young men, against parental counsel, akin to Proverbs 1 (vv. 10-11, 15-16):

My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not. If they say, Come with us . . . .  My son, walk not thou in the way with them; refrain thy foot from their path: For their feet run to evil.

Parents don't have to stand by and watch this occur to adult children.  They can say, incline your ear to my sayings, not theirs, and retain my words, not walking in their way with them, consent not to them.  That should be normal for parents of an adult child, who seems to be departing from the way trained as a child.  An adult child, who won't understand that, is blinding or hardening himself.  I would ask anyone from scripture to show me how what I'm writing here is wrong.  Scripture actually says a lot about it, it just clashes with secular culture.

As an example, let's say an adult child, who doesn't live at home, wants a tattoo.  I'm sure this occurs, but I don't know one personally.  The parents, say, "Don't do that."  Even, "Here's what I think scripture says about it, and this is historic Christian teaching, certainly not out of left field, so please listen."  The friends of adult children are encouraging otherwise and against parental counsel.  Adult children should and must listen to parents on this.  Parents could even say to them, "This is walking as other Gentiles walk in the vanity of their mind, alienated from the life of God, giving themselves over to lasciviousness."

Paul commanded even Timothy, a young man, a pastor himself, "Flee youthful lusts" (2 Timothy 2:22).  He commanded him like a father to an adult son.  Paul was successful to tell him that.  It was good.  Would someone suggest to Paul the Apostle, "Give him some space, because he needs to feel like he's his own man and might eject if you use commands at all"?  No.  Commands of biblical content work well with someone with "unfeigned faith," something Timothy possessed (2 Tim 1:5).  Biblical Christianity is not finessed into adult children like walking on eggshells.

There seem to be sins against conventional thinking that bode worse to people, especially millennials, than actual sins against God.  The goal should be to please God, not protect psyche and personal autonomy.  Success isn't making one's way through as the one who makes the decisions, but making the right one, the one that does the will of the Father.

What I'm talking about seems to be akin to a referee being corrected by video.  A call should be overturned if it's the wrong call, because getting it right is more important than someone having his way.   How could someone agree with that for a game, but is opposed in decisions in real life?  Parents come in to get calls right with adult children, and children fight for mere autonomy or a "happiness" of not being told what to do?  Scripture contradicts that.

I want to bring in 1 Samuel 3:13 and Eli here.  I hear different points of view on contemporary application of the example of Eli and his adult children.  His sons were both killed by God and the translation into English says that Eli "restrained them not."  God pinned responsibility on Eli for not restraining his sons.  I've heard people say that we can't use that same reasoning or argument today.  I don't hear evidence for why not, especially in light of all the other teaching in scripture.  John Gill writes:

This they did, they preferred their lusts, and the indulging of them, to the honour and glory of God: this Eli knew, and he restrained them not; from their evil practices; he did not make use of his authority, neither as a father, and especially not as high priest, and the judge of Israel, who ought not only to have sharply reproved them, which he did not, but to have censured or punished them, and turned them out of their office.

Keil and Delitzch, Hebrew scholars, don't disagree with this Gill explanation.  Albert Barnes writes:  "He restrained them not - In the sense of punishing. He did not remove them from their office, which he ought to have done."  Indicating the historical nature of what I'm writing, H. Crosby writes in the Biblical Illustrator:

God is a holy God, and He will have His people holy; and if they substitute a ceremonial for holiness, His holy wrath will certainly fall upon them; and in this blow not only those will fall who, like Eli’s sons, commit gross wrongs, but those also who, like Eli, through indulgence or apathy, fail to rebuke and resist the evil. The Church of God is today courting the world. Its members are trying to bring it down to the level of the ungodly. The ball, the theatre, nude and lewd art, social luxuries with all their loose moralities, are making inroads into the sacred enclosure of the Church. God will not bless a Church that drags down His heavenly things into the dust--that gilds vice, calls it Christian, and then indulges in it. But His holy vengeance will assuredly come and strip such a Church of its pride and make it eat the bread of affliction.

If this was an application and concern of Crosby at his day (1826-1891), it is prescient and even more appropriate for today.  The new, unbiblical position is that parents should stay silent, because the example of Eli and his sons don't apply.  I don't see it.  Eli was guilty of more than not speaking.  He was also expected by God to do something, what I call, using all the scriptural tools from the toolbox.  Parents need to consider strongly that God views them the same toward their adult children as God did Eli.

Most parents don't want to step in with an adult child, but just leave that situation alone.  Surely, some go out of their way to micromanage their adult children's lives, but intervening for expectations of scriptural behavior is not that.  Any biblical counselor would counsel an adult child to follow scripture as it relates to his parents.

More to Come

Adult Children, pt. 1

I lived with my parents.  After around a thirty-eight year break, my parents now live with me as of August 2018.  I had to make a decision for them to live with my wife and I and our two daughters, and they agreed.  They knew it was best. My mom could probably make it on her own, even though both she and my dad have type 2 diabetes, but he also has alzheimers.  During our entire lives, my parents and I have had a very good relationship.  Since they moved in with us, even though my dad has regressed and will continue to do so, their health has improved and my mom's drastically.  Almost every number is better, my dad no longer wasting, gaining weight, and my mom losing a lot with a healthy diet.

When I was twenty-seven years old, my parents were living and working in Arizona, and I asked my dad to come and be principal of our school.  It helped us to have him, but I also viewed that decision as my supporting my parents.  It was the best they had ever done financially and secure.  My mom also worked at our school doing things she would not have done otherwise.  They could come and I wanted it because my parents and I were walking together in agreement based upon the Word of God.  They have since been members of my church for over thirty years.  Every Sunday morning right now, I take my parents in their car to pick up a blind man for church services, and we're the first to arrive every week to open the church building.

My parents never said to me as I grew up, keep a good relationship with us, son.  I heard preaching on that, what the Bible required of me.  Love your parents.  Obey them.  Honor them.  Tell them you love them.  I knew the ten commandments.  I knew Ephesians 6:1-3.  It never occurred to me to be a rebellious son.  I felt guilty anytime I dishonored my parents.  This related to God.  I wasn't pleasing God if I didn't esteem my parents.  I would have thought and still think that you can't be a rebellious son and also be right with God.  My relationship with God ties into my relationship with my parents, and that is my responsibility, not my parents.  I've got to keep it right with my parents -- not leave that up to them.

My dad was a firm disciplinarian in our home.  That's very often how homes were in the Midwest in that era.  Your parents told you what to do.  You did it.  You did it right away.  You did it with a good attitude. If you didn't, you received physical discipline.  In addition to the corporeal punishment, many times my dad yelled at me, too many to count.  It was normal for him to yell at me -- not all the time, but not unusual.  A particular type of instance of his yelling at me was when I walked and he wanted me to run.

When falling asleep in church, next to my dad, and I got pinched hard on the leg.  I never viewed both physical punishment or yelling as abusive.  Both of those are justified by scripture.  I never ever felt abused.  I believed the Bible taught it and when I got it, I deserved it, and usually deserved worse than what I actually received.  I knew my parents loved me and in part, because of the discipline they gave me.

I was afraid of my dad, afraid of getting in trouble for doing something wrong.  That resulted in my doing less wrong than what I would have done.  It spared me from doing more wrong.  The fear of my dad then translated into a fear of God.  Fear of dad preceded fear of God.  That's the way it works with parents and it is what the Bible teaches.  I've never felt resentment for how they treated me, which I think is the result of biblical expectations.  Later, I want to address the resentment of adult children, because of childhood discipline, perceived as mistreatment.

Fearing my dad didn't mean that he didn't love me.  Those two don't contradict each other.  Fearing God doesn't mean we don't love God.  We can't love God and not fear Him.  It wouldn't have occurred to me that fearing my dad was not congruent with love and a relationship.  I worked on the car with my dad.  While under the car, he told me to hand him a tool.  If I didn't quickly enough, he might raise his voice, which motivated me to get the tool to him faster, which was better.  I can understand what he was doing.  I did much better work, because I had some fear, and this is what the Bible itself says that is a good quality of an employee, to function with fear.  It lead to future fear when I worked as an employee, to please my boss.

If you are an adult child, you still have responsibility to your parents.  There are examples of and teaching on this in scripture from Genesis to Revelation.  The Bible also warns about violating these examples and this teaching.  Paul in 2 Timothy 3:2 says that in the last days men shall be disobedient to their parents.  In Romans 1 Paul explains reprobates as "disobedient to parents."  God's Word is replete with teaching about responsibility of children to parents.  One of the ten commandments is "honor thy father and thy mother."  There isn't one about parents to children.  There is no, "honor thy children."  1 Timothy 5:1 says, "Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father," but nowhere says, "rebuke not a son, but intreat him."  Parents should be open to that verse if it existed.  It doesn't.  Parents should not be held hostage to children who want the roles reversed.

Parents should do everything they are supposed to and can do while their children are at home.  They should do the same regarding the transition to the next phase of life, which might be college time or the time between 12th grade and marriage.  Whether because of something occurring from childhood or college or early adult life, however, an adult child turns away from the belief and practice of his childhood.  He or she seems to depart from the way his parents trained him.  What does a parent do with an adult child, who is like that?  Does he just leave him alone, wait to see what happens?

More to Come