Conversion, says the "Reformed" or "Hybrid" ("Hyper") Calvinist, is the act of the regenerated sinner, but regeneration is the act of God. He thus makes both conversion and regeneration to be either an act of God or of a sinner, regenerate or unregenerate, and excludes the idea that they can be both.
The logic of these misguided Calvinists has led them to make distinctions where they ought not, and to make a thing an "either or" case when they ought not.
If we are to accept this twisted Hyperistic "logic" of some extreme Calvinists, then we cannot say that regeneration is, in any sense, an act of the sinner, nor that conversion is, in any sense, an act of God! Gross scriptural and logical absurdities!
Truly this twisted logic of the Hybrid Calvinists, who insist that regeneration precedes, and is separate and distinct from, conversion, and that regeneration precedes faith, has caused them many difficulties, scripturally and logically, such as their setting up such false dichotomies and imaginary dilemmas. It makes one think of the proverb that speaks of "the legs of the lame not being equal."
Was the coming to life of Lazarus an act of God or an act of Lazarus?
Apr 7, 2009
KJV-only Claims
Here are some powerful points to ponder from chapter 17 of Rick Norris's book, THE UNBOUND SCRIPTURES: A Review Of KJV-only Claims and Publications. The chapter title is "Prove All Things."
"Who says that all believers who speak English should use only the KJV? God does not say it. God's Word in the original languages does not say it. The Spirit-inspired writers of the originals plainly did not intend their readers to understand a KJV-only view. Furthermore, God's Word as translated in Tyndale's, Coverdale's, the Spanish Reina-Valera, Luther's German Bible, the Geneva Bible, and even the KJV does not say it. Thus, it cannot be a commandment of God, which creates a quandary or dilemma for KJV-only advocates. There is in fact no KJV-only command or promise from God to believe.
"In addition, the KJV translators did not say it. Baptists and other true believers of the 1600's, 1700's, and 1800's did not say it. In contrast, Ruckman, Wilkinson, Riplinger, and other KJV-only advocates may say or write it, but are the opinions of finite and fallible men or women bindng on other believers? Should believers choose to follow the commands of KJV-only advocates or the Word of God?"
Posted by Bruce Oyen
"Who says that all believers who speak English should use only the KJV? God does not say it. God's Word in the original languages does not say it. The Spirit-inspired writers of the originals plainly did not intend their readers to understand a KJV-only view. Furthermore, God's Word as translated in Tyndale's, Coverdale's, the Spanish Reina-Valera, Luther's German Bible, the Geneva Bible, and even the KJV does not say it. Thus, it cannot be a commandment of God, which creates a quandary or dilemma for KJV-only advocates. There is in fact no KJV-only command or promise from God to believe.
"In addition, the KJV translators did not say it. Baptists and other true believers of the 1600's, 1700's, and 1800's did not say it. In contrast, Ruckman, Wilkinson, Riplinger, and other KJV-only advocates may say or write it, but are the opinions of finite and fallible men or women bindng on other believers? Should believers choose to follow the commands of KJV-only advocates or the Word of God?"
Posted by Bruce Oyen
Profiting From Bible Reading
HOW TO PROFIT FROM BIBLE READING
By Pastor Bruce Oyen
700 South Prairie, Miles City, MT 59301
e-mail: bk_oyen@hotmail.com
There is a great deal of emphasis on Bible reading among Christians, but they need guidance in how to profit from Bible reading. That is what I hope to provide with this article. May the Lord bless it to that end.
1.) WHEN READING THE BIBLE, INTERPRET IT LITERALLY WHENEVER POSSIBLE.
When we read the Bible with this in mind, we will discover that it should be interpreted this way quite frequently, unless there is good reason to interpret it non-literally.
Therefore, when we read Genesis 1:1’s statement, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” there is no reason to think it means other than just what it says. It does not mean God evolved the heavens and the earth. It does not mean they evolved on their own. It means God created the heavens and the earth.
Moreover, when we read the Bible this way, we will take literally the events recorded in the book of Jonah. This is not to be understood as a fable, as C. S. Lewis, in his book, GOD IN THE DOCK, would have us believe. Rather, Jonah was a literal man who was swallowed by a literal great fish that literally vomited him out on dry land, and he literally lived to tell about his time of prayer and repentance in that fish’s belly.
Often, the context of what is being read will indicate if something is to be understood literally or figuratively. The contexts of the preceding examples indicate they are to be understood literally.
But the context of something in 2 Kings 14:8 - 12 indicates that figurative speech is used in verse 8, which says, “The thistle that was in Lebanon sent to the cedar that was in Lebanon, saying, Give thy daughter to my son to wife: and there passed by a wild beast that was in Lebanon, and trode down the thistle.” It is obvious that King Jehoash spoke of himself as the cedar to whom King Amaziah, represented by the thistle, sent a message. Merrill Unger’s commentary on these verses is noteworthy: “In his hearty rebuff Jehoash was both the cedar and the wild beast that trampled down the thistle.”
Remember to interpret the Bible literally as you read it, unless the context indicates it should be interpreted figuratively. You will profit more, if you do so.
2. TO PROFIT MORE FROM BIBLE READING, READ IT COMPLETELTLY.
Size-wise, the Bible is not a very large book, even in giant print. Many novels and biographies are longer than the Bible. Even so, many Christians have not read the Bible completely. Instead, favorite verses, chapters and books are read and re-read. These might include 1 Thessalonians 4:13 - 18, Romans 8, the book of Psalms, and the Gospel of John.
There is nothing wrong with re-reading favorite parts of the Bible, but we should not neglect the rest of it. If you have not read it from cover-to-cover, you have missed many of its treasures.
Amos R. Wells wrote a poem about this very subject. It is called, “ Read The Bible Through.” Part of it is given here:
READ THE BIBLE THROUGH
By Amos R. Wells
I supposed I knew the Bible, reading piece-meal, hit or miss;
Now a bit of John or Matthew, now a snatch of Genesis.
Certain chapters of Isaiah, certain Psalms--the twenty-third!
Twelfth of Romans, first of Proverbs. Yes, I thought I knew the Word!
But I found that thorough reading was a different thing to do,
And the way was unfamiliar when I read the Bible through.
You who like to play at Bible, dip and dabble, here and there,
Just before you kneel aweary, and yawn through a hurried prayer,
You who treat the Crown of Writings, as you treat no other book,--
Just a paragraph disjointed, just a crude, impatient look.
Try a worthier procedure, try a broad and steady view;
You will kneel in very rapture, when you read the Bible through.
As we think about reading the Bible completely, let me challenge you to try doing so once a year. This can be done by reading four chapters a day. If you read at a consistently moderate speed without taking time to ponder what is read, it won’t take long to read four chapters a day. Then, go back and think over something that got your attention while reading the chapters.
3. CONSIDER THE IMPORTANCE OF READING THE BIBLE REVERENTLY.
Reverent Bible reading is the direct result of believing the Bible to be God’s Word. The Divine authorship of the Scriptures sets them apart from all other books, making them “the holy Scriptures.” In 2 Timothy 3:15, Paul said Timothy had known “the holy Scriptures” since he was a child. Romans 1:2 refers to the gospel, which God “had promised afore by his prophets in the holy Scriptures.”
Nehemiah 8:5 & 6 illustrates reverence for the Bible by the fact that, when it was read to others they stood at attention. Isaiah 66:2 tells us God said, “But to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my Word.”
I am not suggesting that we must stand when the Bible is read in church services just because those persons did so. Nor am I suggesting that we must literally tremble in the presence of the Bible. These statements from Scripture simply underscore the importance of heart-felt reverence for the Word of God. John Burton, Sr. lived from 1773 - 1822. His reverence for the Bible as God’s Word has become known through his poem, “Holy Bible Book Divine.” The first nine words of the poem are, “Holy Bible, Book divine, precious treasure, thou art mine.”
May God help us to read His Word with such reverence as Burton had!
4. WE SHOULD ALSO READ THE BIBLE HUMBLY.
Reverence and humility go together, but are not the same. We should read the Bible humbly because it is God’s Word, not ours. The Thessalonians were commended for having received the Gospel in the manner they did. This is recorded in 1 Thessalonians 2:13, which says, “For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.”
We need to read the Bible humbly because, being God’s infallible Word, it contradicts much of our own reasoning. We need to adjust our opinions to it, rather than adjust it to our opinions. As we read Scripture, let us keep in mind Isaiah 55:8 & 9, in which God says, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.”
Humble readers of God’s Word do a number of things, including the following: They will accept its condemnation of premarital, extramarital and homosexual behavior. They will accept its teaching that the only way to God and salvation is through the Lord Jesus Christ. They will accept its moral absolutes, and reject moral relativism. They will acknowledge that God and His Word are their final authority in life, not human reason.
King Josiah had his faults like the rest of us. But he is an example of one who humbled himself to the Word of God when it was read to him. 2 Kings 22:11 says, “And it came to pass, when the king heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes.” Having learned how far his people had strayed from the will of God, the king reacted in an extreme way by tearing his clothes. We don’t need to tear our clothes, but we would do well to humble ourselves to the Word of God as he did.
5. THE BIBLE SHOULD ALSO BE READ EXPECTANTLY.
The word “expect” means to “to look forward to as certain or probable.” So, to read Scripture expectantly is to read it with the expectation that it will speak to us in some way.
If an envelope comes in the mail, we open it with the expectation that it will contain a message for us. When we open the Bible, we should do so with the same attitude. But what should we expect it to say to us? 2 Timothy 3;16 says, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine (teaching) for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” So, we should look for those things when we read the Word of God. But we can expect other things from the Scriptures, too. Romans 15:4 refers to “the comfort of the Scriptures.” It tells us God’s plan for the future in places such as Matthew 24 and 25, 2 Peter 3, and, of course, the Book of Revelation.
Many a Christian man on his deathbed has turned expectantly to Psalm 23 to find consolation from the verse that says, “Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no evil, for thou art with me.”
Many a Christian mother with a wayward child has turned expectantly for strength to Jeremiah 33:3, which says, “Call unto me, and I will answer thee and show thee great and mighty things which thou knowest not.”
The prophet Daniel is a good example of one who read the Bible with expectation, and in this case with the expectation that God’s promises would be fulfilled. He and his people had been deported from Israel to Babylon as a punishment for the nation Israel’s sins. This deportation was to last 70 years, according to Jeremiah 25:11. Daniel 9:2 tells us the prophet knew the 70 years were almost up, so he went to God in prayer about it all, expecting God to bring the Jews back to their homeland.
Isaiah 55:11 applies to our subject. It says, “So shall my Word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.” Therefore, read the Bible expectantly!
6. THE BIBLE SHOULD ALSO BE READ DEPENDENTLY.
By reading the Bible dependently, I mean we look to others for help in understanding it.
First and foremost, we are dependent on God to help us understand His own Book. The writer of Psalm 119 felt his dependence on God, as his prayers in the following verses reveal. Verse 18: “Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.” Verse 34: “Give me understanding and I shall keep thy law; yea, I shall observe it with my whole heart.” Verse 73: “Give me understanding that I may learn thy commandments.”
Though infallible understanding does not come to us in answer to prayer, we surely are helped by it.
Not only can we turn to the Lord for help in understanding His Word. We can seek help from others as well, even though they are not infallible guides. Those who refuse help from others in their study of the Scriptures often end up more confused than anyone else.
All honest persons can relate to what we read in Acts 8 about the conversation between Philip the evangelist and the Ethiopian eunuch. While the Ethiopian read a portion from the Old Testament Book of Isaiah, the evangelist asked him if he understood what he was reading. The Ethiopian answered, “How can I except some man should guide me?” So, the evangelist helped the man understand that the prophet had written about the Lord Jesus Christ, and it would seem he helped the man put his faith in Jesus to be saved.
Where might we turn for help in understanding the Bible, other than directly to God in prayer? To Bible dictionaries and commentaries by reputable Bible scholars. Unger’s Bible Dictionary is well-known. William MacDonald‘s Bible Believer‘s Commentary is a favorite of many readers. The Ryrie Study Bible is valuable.
Of course, pastors, friends, and other literature can be helpful.
All these resources combined will help keep us from going too far wrong as we work our way through the Bible.
7. WE SHOULD READ THE BIBLE CHRIST-CENTEREDLY.
What should we look for as we read the Bible? Let me say, don’t so much look for a “what” as for a “who,” and that “who” is the Lord Jesus Christ.
The Bible truly is a Christ-centered Book. Most Christians know the New Testament is centered on Him. But so is the Old Testament. Jesus Christ himself taught this, as the following quotes of the Lord’s own words prove. In each case, He was referring to the Old testament writings. In John 5:39 He said, “Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.” In John 5:46 He said, “For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me, for he wrote of me.” In Luke 18:31 He said to the twelve disciples, “All things that are written by prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished.” Luke 24:27 says, “And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he (Jesus) expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.” In Luke 24:44 we read, “And he (Jesus) said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms , concerning me.” This last verse refers to the whole Old Testament in the three main divisions by which it was known to the Jews in the Lord’s day: law, prophets, psalms.
So, what learn from these verses is the Lord considered himself to be central to the Old Testament. Let us, then, look for Him as we read the Bible.
Others saw Jesus in the Old Testament, too. In John 1:45 we are told, “Philip findeth Nathaniel and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of Joseph.”
We previously considered the conversation in Acts 8 between Philip the evangelist and the Ethiopian eunuch, in which Philip helped the Ethiopian understand what he was reading in the Old Testament. In Acts 8;35 we read the following significant statement: “And he (Philip) preached unto him (the Ethiopian) Jesus.” He did this from the Old Testament!
When in college, one of the teachers traveled a lot to preach in Bible conferences. He told us students that it seemed no matter where the conference was held, a certain man, whom some of us students knew, would be present.
That is the way it is with the Bible: Jesus Christ will be present, whether we are reading the Old Testament or the New Testament. So, when reading the Bible we should look for Jesus.
8. THE BIBLE SHOULD BE READ OBEDIENTLY.
The Bible has a message for both non-Christians and Christians. Its message for non-Christians is found in verse such as Acts 16:31, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” It is also found in John 3:36, “He that believeth on the Son (Jesus Christ) hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.”
Yes, the Bible has a message for non-Christians. But most of it is directed toward those who are Christians. It is primarily God’s Book for God’s people. It informs us about the future. It comforts us in sorrow. It tells us what we should believe, and it lays great emphasis on how Christians should behave.
Consequently, the Bible should be read with obedient hearts if we are to profit from it. In fact, it seems that the Bible is a closed Book to Christians with closed hearts. While we might open it covers to read it, its message falls flat if we are not intent on following it truths. A. W. Tozer wisely said, “For truth to be understood, it must be lived.” The writer of Psalm 119 understood this principle, for he said in verse 11, “Thy Word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.” He knew it was not good enough to simply store the Word in his memory. It had to be hid in the heart.
King Josiah set a good example of reading the Bible obediently. Note what is said about him in 2 Kings 23:2 & 3: “…he read in their ears all the words of the book of the covenant which was found in the house of the LORD. And the king stood by a pillar, and made a covenant before the LORD, to walk after the LORD, and to keep his commandments and his testimonies and his statutes with all their heart and all their soul, to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book. And all the people stood to the covenant.”
Let us emulate King Josiah by applying to daily living what we read in the Word of God. If we do so, it will be in great contrast to some the prophet Ezekiel preached to. Ezekiel 33:31 tells us God said of those persons, “And they come unto thee (Ezekiel) as the people cometh, and they sit before thee as my people, and they hear thy words, but they will not do them: for with their mouth they show much love, but their heart goeth after their covetousness.”
9. AS WE READ THE BIBLE, LET US READ IT LOGICALLY.
By reading the Bible logically, I mean reading its 66 individual books and letters as units, chapter-by-chapter. This is superior to reading a few verses here one day, and a few verses there another day. When we read the Bible’s books and letters as units, we get each one’s over-all subject matter fixed in our minds. In other words, we get the big picture. This especially true after repeated readings.
Each book or letter of the Scriptures has its own logical progression, which can only be seen by reading it in its entirety, preferably in a relatively short period of time so we see the big picture sooner.
While it is better to use the hop, skip and jump method of Bible reading than to not read it at all, we will profit much more if we read it in the logical way presented here.
This does not mean we must start with Genesis, the Bible’s first book, and read until we finish with Revelation, the Bible’s last book, like we would read a biography from cover-to cover. It means that we read entire Biblical books and letters, even if we alternate back and forth from the Old Testament to the New Testament. So, one might first read Genesis, and then read Matthew, working eventually all the way through the Bible, and then starting the process all over.
10. WE SHOULD READ THE BIBLE MEDITATIVELY.
There are some strikingly-significant statements in Psalm 119 about meditating on the Bible. Verse 15 says, “I will meditate in thy precepts.” Verse 23 says, “Thy servant did meditate in the statutes.” Verse 48 says, “I will meditate in thy statutes.” Verse 78 says, “I will meditate in thy precepts.” Verse 97 says, “O how I love thy law! It is my meditation all the day.” Verse 99 says, “thy testimonies are my meditation.” Verse 148 says, “Mine eyes prevent (anticipate) the night watches, that I might meditate in thy word.” All these verses emphasize the importance of meditating on the Word of God.
But what does it mean, to meditate on the Bible? Simply put, it is to seriously think over what we read, seeking to understand it and apply it to daily life.
Mary, the mother of the Lord Jesus Christ, illustrates what it is to meditate on the Word of God. In Luke chapter one we read that after she had given birth to the Lord, the angel of the Lord appeared to the shepherds and said important things to them. One of those statements is found in Luke 1:11, “For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord.” After the angel’s appearance and announcements, the shepherds found Mary and Joseph and the baby Jesus, who was lying in a manger. Having found them, the shepherds told Mary and Joseph the message of the angel of the Lord concerning the child Jesus.
What was Mary’s response to such a remarkable announcement about her newborn Son? Verse 19 says, “Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart.” That is what meditation on the Word of God is: pondering it in the heart.
IN CONCLUSION.
If we want to profit from Bible reading, we should do the things we have considered in this message:
1. Interpret it literally whenever possible.
2. Read it completely.
3. Read it reverently.
4. Read it humbly.
5. Read it expectantly.
6. Read it dependently.
7. Read it Christ-centeredly.
8. Read it obediently.
9. Read it logically.
10. Read it meditatively.
By Pastor Bruce Oyen
700 South Prairie, Miles City, MT 59301
e-mail: bk_oyen@hotmail.com
There is a great deal of emphasis on Bible reading among Christians, but they need guidance in how to profit from Bible reading. That is what I hope to provide with this article. May the Lord bless it to that end.
1.) WHEN READING THE BIBLE, INTERPRET IT LITERALLY WHENEVER POSSIBLE.
When we read the Bible with this in mind, we will discover that it should be interpreted this way quite frequently, unless there is good reason to interpret it non-literally.
Therefore, when we read Genesis 1:1’s statement, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” there is no reason to think it means other than just what it says. It does not mean God evolved the heavens and the earth. It does not mean they evolved on their own. It means God created the heavens and the earth.
Moreover, when we read the Bible this way, we will take literally the events recorded in the book of Jonah. This is not to be understood as a fable, as C. S. Lewis, in his book, GOD IN THE DOCK, would have us believe. Rather, Jonah was a literal man who was swallowed by a literal great fish that literally vomited him out on dry land, and he literally lived to tell about his time of prayer and repentance in that fish’s belly.
Often, the context of what is being read will indicate if something is to be understood literally or figuratively. The contexts of the preceding examples indicate they are to be understood literally.
But the context of something in 2 Kings 14:8 - 12 indicates that figurative speech is used in verse 8, which says, “The thistle that was in Lebanon sent to the cedar that was in Lebanon, saying, Give thy daughter to my son to wife: and there passed by a wild beast that was in Lebanon, and trode down the thistle.” It is obvious that King Jehoash spoke of himself as the cedar to whom King Amaziah, represented by the thistle, sent a message. Merrill Unger’s commentary on these verses is noteworthy: “In his hearty rebuff Jehoash was both the cedar and the wild beast that trampled down the thistle.”
Remember to interpret the Bible literally as you read it, unless the context indicates it should be interpreted figuratively. You will profit more, if you do so.
2. TO PROFIT MORE FROM BIBLE READING, READ IT COMPLETELTLY.
Size-wise, the Bible is not a very large book, even in giant print. Many novels and biographies are longer than the Bible. Even so, many Christians have not read the Bible completely. Instead, favorite verses, chapters and books are read and re-read. These might include 1 Thessalonians 4:13 - 18, Romans 8, the book of Psalms, and the Gospel of John.
There is nothing wrong with re-reading favorite parts of the Bible, but we should not neglect the rest of it. If you have not read it from cover-to-cover, you have missed many of its treasures.
Amos R. Wells wrote a poem about this very subject. It is called, “ Read The Bible Through.” Part of it is given here:
READ THE BIBLE THROUGH
By Amos R. Wells
I supposed I knew the Bible, reading piece-meal, hit or miss;
Now a bit of John or Matthew, now a snatch of Genesis.
Certain chapters of Isaiah, certain Psalms--the twenty-third!
Twelfth of Romans, first of Proverbs. Yes, I thought I knew the Word!
But I found that thorough reading was a different thing to do,
And the way was unfamiliar when I read the Bible through.
You who like to play at Bible, dip and dabble, here and there,
Just before you kneel aweary, and yawn through a hurried prayer,
You who treat the Crown of Writings, as you treat no other book,--
Just a paragraph disjointed, just a crude, impatient look.
Try a worthier procedure, try a broad and steady view;
You will kneel in very rapture, when you read the Bible through.
As we think about reading the Bible completely, let me challenge you to try doing so once a year. This can be done by reading four chapters a day. If you read at a consistently moderate speed without taking time to ponder what is read, it won’t take long to read four chapters a day. Then, go back and think over something that got your attention while reading the chapters.
3. CONSIDER THE IMPORTANCE OF READING THE BIBLE REVERENTLY.
Reverent Bible reading is the direct result of believing the Bible to be God’s Word. The Divine authorship of the Scriptures sets them apart from all other books, making them “the holy Scriptures.” In 2 Timothy 3:15, Paul said Timothy had known “the holy Scriptures” since he was a child. Romans 1:2 refers to the gospel, which God “had promised afore by his prophets in the holy Scriptures.”
Nehemiah 8:5 & 6 illustrates reverence for the Bible by the fact that, when it was read to others they stood at attention. Isaiah 66:2 tells us God said, “But to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my Word.”
I am not suggesting that we must stand when the Bible is read in church services just because those persons did so. Nor am I suggesting that we must literally tremble in the presence of the Bible. These statements from Scripture simply underscore the importance of heart-felt reverence for the Word of God. John Burton, Sr. lived from 1773 - 1822. His reverence for the Bible as God’s Word has become known through his poem, “Holy Bible Book Divine.” The first nine words of the poem are, “Holy Bible, Book divine, precious treasure, thou art mine.”
May God help us to read His Word with such reverence as Burton had!
4. WE SHOULD ALSO READ THE BIBLE HUMBLY.
Reverence and humility go together, but are not the same. We should read the Bible humbly because it is God’s Word, not ours. The Thessalonians were commended for having received the Gospel in the manner they did. This is recorded in 1 Thessalonians 2:13, which says, “For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.”
We need to read the Bible humbly because, being God’s infallible Word, it contradicts much of our own reasoning. We need to adjust our opinions to it, rather than adjust it to our opinions. As we read Scripture, let us keep in mind Isaiah 55:8 & 9, in which God says, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.”
Humble readers of God’s Word do a number of things, including the following: They will accept its condemnation of premarital, extramarital and homosexual behavior. They will accept its teaching that the only way to God and salvation is through the Lord Jesus Christ. They will accept its moral absolutes, and reject moral relativism. They will acknowledge that God and His Word are their final authority in life, not human reason.
King Josiah had his faults like the rest of us. But he is an example of one who humbled himself to the Word of God when it was read to him. 2 Kings 22:11 says, “And it came to pass, when the king heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes.” Having learned how far his people had strayed from the will of God, the king reacted in an extreme way by tearing his clothes. We don’t need to tear our clothes, but we would do well to humble ourselves to the Word of God as he did.
5. THE BIBLE SHOULD ALSO BE READ EXPECTANTLY.
The word “expect” means to “to look forward to as certain or probable.” So, to read Scripture expectantly is to read it with the expectation that it will speak to us in some way.
If an envelope comes in the mail, we open it with the expectation that it will contain a message for us. When we open the Bible, we should do so with the same attitude. But what should we expect it to say to us? 2 Timothy 3;16 says, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine (teaching) for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” So, we should look for those things when we read the Word of God. But we can expect other things from the Scriptures, too. Romans 15:4 refers to “the comfort of the Scriptures.” It tells us God’s plan for the future in places such as Matthew 24 and 25, 2 Peter 3, and, of course, the Book of Revelation.
Many a Christian man on his deathbed has turned expectantly to Psalm 23 to find consolation from the verse that says, “Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no evil, for thou art with me.”
Many a Christian mother with a wayward child has turned expectantly for strength to Jeremiah 33:3, which says, “Call unto me, and I will answer thee and show thee great and mighty things which thou knowest not.”
The prophet Daniel is a good example of one who read the Bible with expectation, and in this case with the expectation that God’s promises would be fulfilled. He and his people had been deported from Israel to Babylon as a punishment for the nation Israel’s sins. This deportation was to last 70 years, according to Jeremiah 25:11. Daniel 9:2 tells us the prophet knew the 70 years were almost up, so he went to God in prayer about it all, expecting God to bring the Jews back to their homeland.
Isaiah 55:11 applies to our subject. It says, “So shall my Word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.” Therefore, read the Bible expectantly!
6. THE BIBLE SHOULD ALSO BE READ DEPENDENTLY.
By reading the Bible dependently, I mean we look to others for help in understanding it.
First and foremost, we are dependent on God to help us understand His own Book. The writer of Psalm 119 felt his dependence on God, as his prayers in the following verses reveal. Verse 18: “Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.” Verse 34: “Give me understanding and I shall keep thy law; yea, I shall observe it with my whole heart.” Verse 73: “Give me understanding that I may learn thy commandments.”
Though infallible understanding does not come to us in answer to prayer, we surely are helped by it.
Not only can we turn to the Lord for help in understanding His Word. We can seek help from others as well, even though they are not infallible guides. Those who refuse help from others in their study of the Scriptures often end up more confused than anyone else.
All honest persons can relate to what we read in Acts 8 about the conversation between Philip the evangelist and the Ethiopian eunuch. While the Ethiopian read a portion from the Old Testament Book of Isaiah, the evangelist asked him if he understood what he was reading. The Ethiopian answered, “How can I except some man should guide me?” So, the evangelist helped the man understand that the prophet had written about the Lord Jesus Christ, and it would seem he helped the man put his faith in Jesus to be saved.
Where might we turn for help in understanding the Bible, other than directly to God in prayer? To Bible dictionaries and commentaries by reputable Bible scholars. Unger’s Bible Dictionary is well-known. William MacDonald‘s Bible Believer‘s Commentary is a favorite of many readers. The Ryrie Study Bible is valuable.
Of course, pastors, friends, and other literature can be helpful.
All these resources combined will help keep us from going too far wrong as we work our way through the Bible.
7. WE SHOULD READ THE BIBLE CHRIST-CENTEREDLY.
What should we look for as we read the Bible? Let me say, don’t so much look for a “what” as for a “who,” and that “who” is the Lord Jesus Christ.
The Bible truly is a Christ-centered Book. Most Christians know the New Testament is centered on Him. But so is the Old Testament. Jesus Christ himself taught this, as the following quotes of the Lord’s own words prove. In each case, He was referring to the Old testament writings. In John 5:39 He said, “Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.” In John 5:46 He said, “For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me, for he wrote of me.” In Luke 18:31 He said to the twelve disciples, “All things that are written by prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished.” Luke 24:27 says, “And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he (Jesus) expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.” In Luke 24:44 we read, “And he (Jesus) said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms , concerning me.” This last verse refers to the whole Old Testament in the three main divisions by which it was known to the Jews in the Lord’s day: law, prophets, psalms.
So, what learn from these verses is the Lord considered himself to be central to the Old Testament. Let us, then, look for Him as we read the Bible.
Others saw Jesus in the Old Testament, too. In John 1:45 we are told, “Philip findeth Nathaniel and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of Joseph.”
We previously considered the conversation in Acts 8 between Philip the evangelist and the Ethiopian eunuch, in which Philip helped the Ethiopian understand what he was reading in the Old Testament. In Acts 8;35 we read the following significant statement: “And he (Philip) preached unto him (the Ethiopian) Jesus.” He did this from the Old Testament!
When in college, one of the teachers traveled a lot to preach in Bible conferences. He told us students that it seemed no matter where the conference was held, a certain man, whom some of us students knew, would be present.
That is the way it is with the Bible: Jesus Christ will be present, whether we are reading the Old Testament or the New Testament. So, when reading the Bible we should look for Jesus.
8. THE BIBLE SHOULD BE READ OBEDIENTLY.
The Bible has a message for both non-Christians and Christians. Its message for non-Christians is found in verse such as Acts 16:31, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” It is also found in John 3:36, “He that believeth on the Son (Jesus Christ) hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.”
Yes, the Bible has a message for non-Christians. But most of it is directed toward those who are Christians. It is primarily God’s Book for God’s people. It informs us about the future. It comforts us in sorrow. It tells us what we should believe, and it lays great emphasis on how Christians should behave.
Consequently, the Bible should be read with obedient hearts if we are to profit from it. In fact, it seems that the Bible is a closed Book to Christians with closed hearts. While we might open it covers to read it, its message falls flat if we are not intent on following it truths. A. W. Tozer wisely said, “For truth to be understood, it must be lived.” The writer of Psalm 119 understood this principle, for he said in verse 11, “Thy Word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.” He knew it was not good enough to simply store the Word in his memory. It had to be hid in the heart.
King Josiah set a good example of reading the Bible obediently. Note what is said about him in 2 Kings 23:2 & 3: “…he read in their ears all the words of the book of the covenant which was found in the house of the LORD. And the king stood by a pillar, and made a covenant before the LORD, to walk after the LORD, and to keep his commandments and his testimonies and his statutes with all their heart and all their soul, to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book. And all the people stood to the covenant.”
Let us emulate King Josiah by applying to daily living what we read in the Word of God. If we do so, it will be in great contrast to some the prophet Ezekiel preached to. Ezekiel 33:31 tells us God said of those persons, “And they come unto thee (Ezekiel) as the people cometh, and they sit before thee as my people, and they hear thy words, but they will not do them: for with their mouth they show much love, but their heart goeth after their covetousness.”
9. AS WE READ THE BIBLE, LET US READ IT LOGICALLY.
By reading the Bible logically, I mean reading its 66 individual books and letters as units, chapter-by-chapter. This is superior to reading a few verses here one day, and a few verses there another day. When we read the Bible’s books and letters as units, we get each one’s over-all subject matter fixed in our minds. In other words, we get the big picture. This especially true after repeated readings.
Each book or letter of the Scriptures has its own logical progression, which can only be seen by reading it in its entirety, preferably in a relatively short period of time so we see the big picture sooner.
While it is better to use the hop, skip and jump method of Bible reading than to not read it at all, we will profit much more if we read it in the logical way presented here.
This does not mean we must start with Genesis, the Bible’s first book, and read until we finish with Revelation, the Bible’s last book, like we would read a biography from cover-to cover. It means that we read entire Biblical books and letters, even if we alternate back and forth from the Old Testament to the New Testament. So, one might first read Genesis, and then read Matthew, working eventually all the way through the Bible, and then starting the process all over.
10. WE SHOULD READ THE BIBLE MEDITATIVELY.
There are some strikingly-significant statements in Psalm 119 about meditating on the Bible. Verse 15 says, “I will meditate in thy precepts.” Verse 23 says, “Thy servant did meditate in the statutes.” Verse 48 says, “I will meditate in thy statutes.” Verse 78 says, “I will meditate in thy precepts.” Verse 97 says, “O how I love thy law! It is my meditation all the day.” Verse 99 says, “thy testimonies are my meditation.” Verse 148 says, “Mine eyes prevent (anticipate) the night watches, that I might meditate in thy word.” All these verses emphasize the importance of meditating on the Word of God.
But what does it mean, to meditate on the Bible? Simply put, it is to seriously think over what we read, seeking to understand it and apply it to daily life.
Mary, the mother of the Lord Jesus Christ, illustrates what it is to meditate on the Word of God. In Luke chapter one we read that after she had given birth to the Lord, the angel of the Lord appeared to the shepherds and said important things to them. One of those statements is found in Luke 1:11, “For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord.” After the angel’s appearance and announcements, the shepherds found Mary and Joseph and the baby Jesus, who was lying in a manger. Having found them, the shepherds told Mary and Joseph the message of the angel of the Lord concerning the child Jesus.
What was Mary’s response to such a remarkable announcement about her newborn Son? Verse 19 says, “Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart.” That is what meditation on the Word of God is: pondering it in the heart.
IN CONCLUSION.
If we want to profit from Bible reading, we should do the things we have considered in this message:
1. Interpret it literally whenever possible.
2. Read it completely.
3. Read it reverently.
4. Read it humbly.
5. Read it expectantly.
6. Read it dependently.
7. Read it Christ-centeredly.
8. Read it obediently.
9. Read it logically.
10. Read it meditatively.
Apr 6, 2009
Defining Hyper Calvinism
Will the real Hyper Calvinist stand up?
Very few Calvinists desire to be labeled as a "Hyper Calvinist." It is an emotive word, provoking intense emotions, mostly negative. In my first chapter of my ongoing book, "The Hardshell Baptist Cult," I defined some commonly used terms relative to discussions about Calvinism. I wrote:
"In my studies in theology and its history, including systems commonly and traditionally known as Calvinism and Arminianism, I accept these definitions regarding variants of Calvinism.
High Calvinism - the belief in absolute predestination of all things, the belief that everything that exists or comes to pass does so due to the will and decree of God. High Calvinists are often known as supralapsarians, and some supralapsarians are Hyper Calvinists, but not all. I am a supralapsarian Calvinist, like other great Baptists theologians, as John Gill and A.W. Pink, and I believe in the proclamation of the gospel to all men and that Christ invites, yea, commands all men to receive him and to acknowledge him and his salvation.
Low Calvinism - the belief in either conditional or limited predestination or the absolute predestination of some things only, certainly not of all things. Low Calvinists are always infralapsarians.
Hyper (or Hybrid) Calvinism - The belief that God works independently of human means in the saving of sinners, the belief that regeneration precedes faith in Christ, that faith in Christ or conversion to the Christian religion are not necessary for regeneration.
Hardshells, for instance, have a sect that are High Calvinists (Absoluters) and a sect that are Low Calvinists. But, they all are Hyper Calvinists."
I am aware that Phil Johnson's definition of "Hyper Calvinism" is one, on the internet at least, gets cited often. I believe that Phil gives a fairly good definition, albeit not perfect or complete. I intend, the Lord willing, to continue my research on this and hope to have something ready this year that will be a more perfect definition of "Hyper Calvinism." I will answer the question - What are the Elements of Hyper Calvinism?
Should we take the Arminians for authority on defining Hyper Calvinism? Should we take only Calvinists? Or, only confessed Hyper Calvinists? We know that there are some who confess to being "Hypers," such as the Hardshells, but are there people who are Hyper Calvinists but who will not admit it? Who is an "authority" on defining it? Is Phil Johnson? If so, why? What will be the criteria for deciding whether a doctrine is Hyper Calvinistic?
Certainly the elements of Hyper Calvinism concern, in one degree or another, all of the five points of Calvinism. When I gave a limited definition of Hyper Calvinism in the first chapter of my book on the Hardshells, I specified the Hyperism of the Hardshells as it respects the fourth point in the Calvinian system, that of "effectual calling," or of being "born again" or "regenerated."
But, more on this in the future!
Very few Calvinists desire to be labeled as a "Hyper Calvinist." It is an emotive word, provoking intense emotions, mostly negative. In my first chapter of my ongoing book, "The Hardshell Baptist Cult," I defined some commonly used terms relative to discussions about Calvinism. I wrote:
"In my studies in theology and its history, including systems commonly and traditionally known as Calvinism and Arminianism, I accept these definitions regarding variants of Calvinism.
High Calvinism - the belief in absolute predestination of all things, the belief that everything that exists or comes to pass does so due to the will and decree of God. High Calvinists are often known as supralapsarians, and some supralapsarians are Hyper Calvinists, but not all. I am a supralapsarian Calvinist, like other great Baptists theologians, as John Gill and A.W. Pink, and I believe in the proclamation of the gospel to all men and that Christ invites, yea, commands all men to receive him and to acknowledge him and his salvation.
Low Calvinism - the belief in either conditional or limited predestination or the absolute predestination of some things only, certainly not of all things. Low Calvinists are always infralapsarians.
Hyper (or Hybrid) Calvinism - The belief that God works independently of human means in the saving of sinners, the belief that regeneration precedes faith in Christ, that faith in Christ or conversion to the Christian religion are not necessary for regeneration.
Hardshells, for instance, have a sect that are High Calvinists (Absoluters) and a sect that are Low Calvinists. But, they all are Hyper Calvinists."
I am aware that Phil Johnson's definition of "Hyper Calvinism" is one, on the internet at least, gets cited often. I believe that Phil gives a fairly good definition, albeit not perfect or complete. I intend, the Lord willing, to continue my research on this and hope to have something ready this year that will be a more perfect definition of "Hyper Calvinism." I will answer the question - What are the Elements of Hyper Calvinism?
Should we take the Arminians for authority on defining Hyper Calvinism? Should we take only Calvinists? Or, only confessed Hyper Calvinists? We know that there are some who confess to being "Hypers," such as the Hardshells, but are there people who are Hyper Calvinists but who will not admit it? Who is an "authority" on defining it? Is Phil Johnson? If so, why? What will be the criteria for deciding whether a doctrine is Hyper Calvinistic?
Certainly the elements of Hyper Calvinism concern, in one degree or another, all of the five points of Calvinism. When I gave a limited definition of Hyper Calvinism in the first chapter of my book on the Hardshells, I specified the Hyperism of the Hardshells as it respects the fourth point in the Calvinian system, that of "effectual calling," or of being "born again" or "regenerated."
But, more on this in the future!
Farstad on NIV
Pastor Bruce Oyen sends us this for publication.
Here, taken from the internet, is a brief review by Dr. Arthur Farstad of a scholarly analysis of the NIV. This review seems to not be copyrighted.
Dr. Farstad had much to do with the New KJV, and might have been its Executive Editor. For a very fascinating book on the making of the New KJV, read Farstad's book, IN THE GREAT TRADITION. I have done so at least twice, with great pleasure and profit.
Dr. Farstad's phone number is given at the end of his article, but don't try and call him. He doesn't take calls in heaven!
The NIV Reconsidered: A Fresh Look at a Popular Translation. Earl Radmacher and Zane C. Hodges. Dallas: Redención Viva, 1990. 155 pp. Paper, $8.95.
This is an important book on a major topic for English-speaking Christians. It is also long overdue. First of all this is neither a "chain saw" review nor a nit-picking one. It is a detailed and scholarly (but easy-to-read) book. It is well-organized, clearly expressed, and well-supported with illustrative material.
Many of the readers of JOTGES probably have experienced similar reactions to the NIV as has this reviewer. Initial enthusiasm and hopes that finally we had an English version that would prove accurate, beautifully styled, and capable of being the new standard to replace the ever more archaic King James Bible we have loved so long perished with the using. From personal conversation with the writer of the foreword, Dr. Curbs Vaughan, Professor of Greek at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, I know that his initial favorable impression of the NIV (the NT, at least), faded as he continued to use it in the light of the original Greek.
This was also the experience of Hodges, and I believe Radmacher as well. In chapter 1, "Needed: A Standard Bible for Everybody," I see the clear hand of Dr. Radmacher, since I heard most of his content given orally at the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy at San Diego some years ago. The thrust of this chapter is that never have there been more Bible versions in English-and never as much biblical illiteracy and lack of memorizing of God’s Word. Allowing for personal preference in study and private devotions, churches need to present a united front with the same Bible in pulpit and pew, the authors maintain.
Is the NIV the answer to this need, as its gigantic advertising campaign would have it, or is it not?
Chapters 2 through 7 handle the general topics of making the NIV (chap. 2), how literal it is or isn’t (chap. 3); its general accuracy (chap. 4), crucial prophetic passages (chap. 5), significant NT texts (chap. 6), and the NIV’s style (chap. 7).
The authors give high marks to the NIV translation team for effort, expenditure of time and money, sincerity, and general smoothness of English. Two or three of the translators of the NIV have privately told this reviewer that their scripts turned in to the editors and stylists were much more accurate and careful with such details as the short connectives that start most sentences in the NT than what appeared in the final product.
A common criticism of the NIV by those with a precise knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew texts is that it is not close enough to the originals to be a standard Bible for all purposes. Regarding general accuracy our authors write: "Repeatedly, the NIV indulges in changes from the familiar translations of previous years without any appreciable gain to the reader at all. What is more, these changes often leave the reader worse off than he was before. Weighed in the scales of general accuracy and reliability, much too often the NIV is found wanting" (p. 47).
Chapter 5, "Crucial Prophetic Passages," proved somewhat alarming to this reviewer. Hearing that all of the NIV translators signed statements maintaining their belief in inerrancy (as the NASB and NKJV translators did), some disturbing trends are made to surface in the NIV text, and sometimes even more clearly, in the NIV Study Bible notes. Lately there has been a defection of some leading (chiefly British) evangelical leaders from the orthodox Christian doctrine of eternal punishment. Also, prominent on both sides of the Atlantic has been an erosion of faith in the accuracy of the NT’s usage of Messianic passages from the OT. This book reveals that both trends can be seen to some extent in the NIV, especially in the NIV Study Bible notes.
On the change from "hell" and "Sheol" to "grave" in the NIV, Ps 16:10 is chosen as an important example: "Thus the NIV handling of Psalm 16:10 sets up a needless tension between the Old Testament and the New. It plays directly into the hands of those who deny explicit Messianic prophecy and thus also deny the New Testament’s claims for that.
"Clearly, Psalm 16:10 in both the NIV text and note leads to an evangelical debacle" (p. 52).
What messianic verse could be more important than Isa 7:14, the very first OT text quoted in the NT (Matt 1:23)? Radmacher and Hodges write: "In the NIV, ‘the virgin’ apparently is intended to refer to a specific individual who, though not previously named, is very much a part of the larger context of this announcement. To put it briefly, ‘the virgin’ refers to ‘the woman’ Isaiah is about to marry. Only if the prediction is viewed typologically, so we are told, can one find any validity to Matthew’s use of this text in reference to the Virgin Mary.
"Despite the finely honed statements of the NIV study note, what the note really means is this: Isaiah 7:14 is not a direct prophecy about the virgin birth at all. Indeed, the woman to whom it did really apply gave birth in a perfectly normal way! But nobody could deduce such a conclusion from Matthew’s use of the text.
"At least the liberal critics have the candor to tell us that Matthew misread Isaiah. It remains for contemporary evangelicals to fudge the issue" (p. 54).
For those who do not get to read this book, let me point out that there is no suggestion here that the NIV team denies either eternal punishment, the virgin birth, or other basic Bible doctrine. Rather in an effort (one suspects) to be considered up-to-date in the scholarly world, some of the translation and some Study Bible notes are very carefully worded so as not to appear too "fundamentalist" to the mediating critics.
Since picking and choosing verses hither and yon can be carefully manipulated to prove all sorts of things, the authors were wise to give two analyses of two extended passages.
The OT passage chosen, 1 Sam 25:1–44, is long. It was picked because it had "no weighty matters of doctrine" at issue. The NIV’s performance here is not reassuring: "On the contrary, the NIV seems to be qualitatively erratic. One is continually surprised to find cropping up in the 1 Samuel narrative various alterations, large and small, that represent either a deficient treatment of the original text or an unsure grasp of English idiom and style."
The Romans 8 passage (1–17) is, of course, theologically "pivotal," to use the authors’ word. A detailed study of the accuracy and style of the NIV here surfaces some nice choices of wording (e.g., "co-heirs" rather than "joint-heirs"), but by and large a generally negative critique is the result of the authors’ detailed investigations: "It is unfortunate enough that options which the translators ought to have left open are closed to the reader. But it is even more serious that, due to the translators’ tendency toward loose, interpretive paraphrase, the Apostle Paul’s actual thoughts at various critical points are hidden from the reader.
"It follows that the user of the NIV New Testament, especially in sensitive sections like this one, would be well-advised to keep a Greek text handy and to refer to it repeatedly as he studies his NIV.
"If he cannot do this, he would be better off with another version" (p. 130).
The book ends with an Epilogue, an Appendix, helpful notes, and a Bibliography.
The Appendix, which clearly shows the hand of Hodges, is an irenic but pointed defense of the so-called Majority Text of the Greek NT, a text similar to that of the KJV (and NKJV) except in Revelation, where it is closer to the UBS-type text. It was decided not to base the main argument of the book on a controversial point of textual criticism (probably a wise choice). This reviewer agrees with the Appendix that "it is premature to say that the NIV is translated from the best available Greek New Testament text" (p. 144).
No church seriously considering adopting the NIV as its standard Bible should do so without its leadership reading The NIV Reconsidered. Since it is published by a small, fairly new company with (one suspects) a small advertising budget, I felt it would be helpful to list for interested JOTGES readers the address and phone number of Redención Viva:
P.O. Office Box 141167
Dallas, TX 75214
Phone: (214) 821–5357
Arthur L. Farstad
Editor
Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society
Dallas, TX
Here, taken from the internet, is a brief review by Dr. Arthur Farstad of a scholarly analysis of the NIV. This review seems to not be copyrighted.
Dr. Farstad had much to do with the New KJV, and might have been its Executive Editor. For a very fascinating book on the making of the New KJV, read Farstad's book, IN THE GREAT TRADITION. I have done so at least twice, with great pleasure and profit.
Dr. Farstad's phone number is given at the end of his article, but don't try and call him. He doesn't take calls in heaven!
The NIV Reconsidered: A Fresh Look at a Popular Translation. Earl Radmacher and Zane C. Hodges. Dallas: Redención Viva, 1990. 155 pp. Paper, $8.95.
This is an important book on a major topic for English-speaking Christians. It is also long overdue. First of all this is neither a "chain saw" review nor a nit-picking one. It is a detailed and scholarly (but easy-to-read) book. It is well-organized, clearly expressed, and well-supported with illustrative material.
Many of the readers of JOTGES probably have experienced similar reactions to the NIV as has this reviewer. Initial enthusiasm and hopes that finally we had an English version that would prove accurate, beautifully styled, and capable of being the new standard to replace the ever more archaic King James Bible we have loved so long perished with the using. From personal conversation with the writer of the foreword, Dr. Curbs Vaughan, Professor of Greek at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, I know that his initial favorable impression of the NIV (the NT, at least), faded as he continued to use it in the light of the original Greek.
This was also the experience of Hodges, and I believe Radmacher as well. In chapter 1, "Needed: A Standard Bible for Everybody," I see the clear hand of Dr. Radmacher, since I heard most of his content given orally at the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy at San Diego some years ago. The thrust of this chapter is that never have there been more Bible versions in English-and never as much biblical illiteracy and lack of memorizing of God’s Word. Allowing for personal preference in study and private devotions, churches need to present a united front with the same Bible in pulpit and pew, the authors maintain.
Is the NIV the answer to this need, as its gigantic advertising campaign would have it, or is it not?
Chapters 2 through 7 handle the general topics of making the NIV (chap. 2), how literal it is or isn’t (chap. 3); its general accuracy (chap. 4), crucial prophetic passages (chap. 5), significant NT texts (chap. 6), and the NIV’s style (chap. 7).
The authors give high marks to the NIV translation team for effort, expenditure of time and money, sincerity, and general smoothness of English. Two or three of the translators of the NIV have privately told this reviewer that their scripts turned in to the editors and stylists were much more accurate and careful with such details as the short connectives that start most sentences in the NT than what appeared in the final product.
A common criticism of the NIV by those with a precise knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew texts is that it is not close enough to the originals to be a standard Bible for all purposes. Regarding general accuracy our authors write: "Repeatedly, the NIV indulges in changes from the familiar translations of previous years without any appreciable gain to the reader at all. What is more, these changes often leave the reader worse off than he was before. Weighed in the scales of general accuracy and reliability, much too often the NIV is found wanting" (p. 47).
Chapter 5, "Crucial Prophetic Passages," proved somewhat alarming to this reviewer. Hearing that all of the NIV translators signed statements maintaining their belief in inerrancy (as the NASB and NKJV translators did), some disturbing trends are made to surface in the NIV text, and sometimes even more clearly, in the NIV Study Bible notes. Lately there has been a defection of some leading (chiefly British) evangelical leaders from the orthodox Christian doctrine of eternal punishment. Also, prominent on both sides of the Atlantic has been an erosion of faith in the accuracy of the NT’s usage of Messianic passages from the OT. This book reveals that both trends can be seen to some extent in the NIV, especially in the NIV Study Bible notes.
On the change from "hell" and "Sheol" to "grave" in the NIV, Ps 16:10 is chosen as an important example: "Thus the NIV handling of Psalm 16:10 sets up a needless tension between the Old Testament and the New. It plays directly into the hands of those who deny explicit Messianic prophecy and thus also deny the New Testament’s claims for that.
"Clearly, Psalm 16:10 in both the NIV text and note leads to an evangelical debacle" (p. 52).
What messianic verse could be more important than Isa 7:14, the very first OT text quoted in the NT (Matt 1:23)? Radmacher and Hodges write: "In the NIV, ‘the virgin’ apparently is intended to refer to a specific individual who, though not previously named, is very much a part of the larger context of this announcement. To put it briefly, ‘the virgin’ refers to ‘the woman’ Isaiah is about to marry. Only if the prediction is viewed typologically, so we are told, can one find any validity to Matthew’s use of this text in reference to the Virgin Mary.
"Despite the finely honed statements of the NIV study note, what the note really means is this: Isaiah 7:14 is not a direct prophecy about the virgin birth at all. Indeed, the woman to whom it did really apply gave birth in a perfectly normal way! But nobody could deduce such a conclusion from Matthew’s use of the text.
"At least the liberal critics have the candor to tell us that Matthew misread Isaiah. It remains for contemporary evangelicals to fudge the issue" (p. 54).
For those who do not get to read this book, let me point out that there is no suggestion here that the NIV team denies either eternal punishment, the virgin birth, or other basic Bible doctrine. Rather in an effort (one suspects) to be considered up-to-date in the scholarly world, some of the translation and some Study Bible notes are very carefully worded so as not to appear too "fundamentalist" to the mediating critics.
Since picking and choosing verses hither and yon can be carefully manipulated to prove all sorts of things, the authors were wise to give two analyses of two extended passages.
The OT passage chosen, 1 Sam 25:1–44, is long. It was picked because it had "no weighty matters of doctrine" at issue. The NIV’s performance here is not reassuring: "On the contrary, the NIV seems to be qualitatively erratic. One is continually surprised to find cropping up in the 1 Samuel narrative various alterations, large and small, that represent either a deficient treatment of the original text or an unsure grasp of English idiom and style."
The Romans 8 passage (1–17) is, of course, theologically "pivotal," to use the authors’ word. A detailed study of the accuracy and style of the NIV here surfaces some nice choices of wording (e.g., "co-heirs" rather than "joint-heirs"), but by and large a generally negative critique is the result of the authors’ detailed investigations: "It is unfortunate enough that options which the translators ought to have left open are closed to the reader. But it is even more serious that, due to the translators’ tendency toward loose, interpretive paraphrase, the Apostle Paul’s actual thoughts at various critical points are hidden from the reader.
"It follows that the user of the NIV New Testament, especially in sensitive sections like this one, would be well-advised to keep a Greek text handy and to refer to it repeatedly as he studies his NIV.
"If he cannot do this, he would be better off with another version" (p. 130).
The book ends with an Epilogue, an Appendix, helpful notes, and a Bibliography.
The Appendix, which clearly shows the hand of Hodges, is an irenic but pointed defense of the so-called Majority Text of the Greek NT, a text similar to that of the KJV (and NKJV) except in Revelation, where it is closer to the UBS-type text. It was decided not to base the main argument of the book on a controversial point of textual criticism (probably a wise choice). This reviewer agrees with the Appendix that "it is premature to say that the NIV is translated from the best available Greek New Testament text" (p. 144).
No church seriously considering adopting the NIV as its standard Bible should do so without its leadership reading The NIV Reconsidered. Since it is published by a small, fairly new company with (one suspects) a small advertising budget, I felt it would be helpful to list for interested JOTGES readers the address and phone number of Redención Viva:
P.O. Office Box 141167
Dallas, TX 75214
Phone: (214) 821–5357
Arthur L. Farstad
Editor
Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society
Dallas, TX
Akin on the Ordo Salutis
Dr. Danny Akin, according to Tom Ascol of the Founders organization, see here, will be guest speaker at the annual Founders breakfast this June in Louisville. I have a suggestion for Dr. Akin and Dr. Ascol. Why not have Dr. Akin talk about how conversion and regeneration are virtually the same, how they are concurrent, and how, if logical priority is to be given to one, it must be to conversion, not to regeneration?
Here is what was written by Prof. Kenneth Keathley in chapter 12 of the book edited by Dr. Akin, which no doubt is the view of Dr. Akin. (emphasis mine).
"However, the Holy Spirit uses means, and the instruments he employs to achieve regeneration are the gospel (James 1: 18, 21; I Pet. 1: 23) and the messengers who share it (I Cor. 4: 15). If the gospel is not available, the saving, regenerating work of the Holy Spirit is also absent. This disturbing truth gives urgency to the missionary mandate of the Great Commission."
And,
"Are those who believe in turn born again, or does a person believe because he has been regenerated? Which happens first? And if they occur simltaneously, which one is the logical cause of the other? Evangelicals agree that a saved person is both converted and regenerated, but there is wide disagreement as to which occurs first, either chronologically or logically. There are good arguments for either position, but the biblical texts seem to come down on the side of conversion resulting in regneration.
Regeneration is instantaneous; it is not a process drawn out over a period of time. An expectant mother may experience a protracted labor, but there will finally come a point when the child is delivered. Similarly, those who come to Christ often go through the great spiritual travail of the Holy Spirit's conviction (John 16: 8). The process of wrestling with God is not the new birth, but rather regeneration is the outcome of the effectual calling of God.
Certain Reformed and Presbyterian churches teach that regeneration precedes conversion chronologically and a number of covenant theologians connect regeneration with infant baptism. W. G. T. Shedd for example, is careful not to attribute regenerating power to the rite of baptism, but he does consider baptism to be a sign that the infant has been regenerated."
However, as we have seen, the Scriptures point to the Word of God, not baptism, as the means by which the Holy Spirit imparts the new birth. In addition, Shedd's association of baptism with circumcision is not supported by the New Testament. Rather, the teaching of Scripture is that regeneration is concurrent, or coincident, with conversion. This means that conversion and regeneration, as events, occur at the same time. For example, John states that those who "receive him" are also those have been "born of God" (John 1: 12-13).
Among those who agree that the two aspects of salvation are simultaneous, there is debate as to which is logically prior. Many Reformed and covenant theologians reject Shedd's argument for chronological priority but still contend for the logical priority of regeneration. Conversion is the willing response to the to the gospel call, but how does one who is totally depraved and dead in sins turn to God? The inability of a lost person to respond to the gospel seems to necessitate that something must happen to the person to make him receptive, and regeneration is seen to be that transforming event. Even those who do not hold to this position acknowledge its logical appeal. (741-42)
However, there are three strong biblical arguments for understanding conversion to precede the new birth. First, the many appeals in the Bible calling sinners to respond to the gospel imply that conversion results in regeneration. The Scriptures are presented as the seed the Spirit of God uses to bring about new life (I Peter 1: 23; James 1: 18, 21; I John 3: 9). That the Word of God is the Spirit's instrumental means indicates that faith leads to regeneration. Second, the Bible presents conversion as the condition to salvation, not the result of being saved (John 1: 12; 3: 16, 18, 24, 36, 40; Acts 2: 38; Rom. 3: 22, 26; 4:3,5; 5:1). The apostles repeatedly promise their hearers that, if they will repent and believe, then they will be saved (Acts 2: 38; 16: 30-31). the Apostle John put special emphasis on the necessity of the new birth, but he presented faith as the condition to becoming a child of God (John 1: 12-13) and to receiving eternal life ("by believing you may have life in his name," John 20: 31)."
"In order for a person to answer the gospel call, there indeed must be a special work of the Holy Spirit, but we conclude that this enablement is not regeneration but the inward call of the Spirit. The convicting work of the Holy Spirit and the effectual call that accompanies the preaching of the gospel enable a sinner to believe. The order that seems to be the testimony of Scripture is that those who are converted are born again." (pg. 743)
A Theology for the Church By Daniel L. Akin, David P. Nelson, Peter R. Schemm, Jr.
Published by B&H Publishing Group, 2007
See here
I hope Dr. Akin can help Dr. Ascol see the truth on this important issue!
Here is what was written by Prof. Kenneth Keathley in chapter 12 of the book edited by Dr. Akin, which no doubt is the view of Dr. Akin. (emphasis mine).
"However, the Holy Spirit uses means, and the instruments he employs to achieve regeneration are the gospel (James 1: 18, 21; I Pet. 1: 23) and the messengers who share it (I Cor. 4: 15). If the gospel is not available, the saving, regenerating work of the Holy Spirit is also absent. This disturbing truth gives urgency to the missionary mandate of the Great Commission."
And,
"Are those who believe in turn born again, or does a person believe because he has been regenerated? Which happens first? And if they occur simltaneously, which one is the logical cause of the other? Evangelicals agree that a saved person is both converted and regenerated, but there is wide disagreement as to which occurs first, either chronologically or logically. There are good arguments for either position, but the biblical texts seem to come down on the side of conversion resulting in regneration.
Regeneration is instantaneous; it is not a process drawn out over a period of time. An expectant mother may experience a protracted labor, but there will finally come a point when the child is delivered. Similarly, those who come to Christ often go through the great spiritual travail of the Holy Spirit's conviction (John 16: 8). The process of wrestling with God is not the new birth, but rather regeneration is the outcome of the effectual calling of God.
Certain Reformed and Presbyterian churches teach that regeneration precedes conversion chronologically and a number of covenant theologians connect regeneration with infant baptism. W. G. T. Shedd for example, is careful not to attribute regenerating power to the rite of baptism, but he does consider baptism to be a sign that the infant has been regenerated."
However, as we have seen, the Scriptures point to the Word of God, not baptism, as the means by which the Holy Spirit imparts the new birth. In addition, Shedd's association of baptism with circumcision is not supported by the New Testament. Rather, the teaching of Scripture is that regeneration is concurrent, or coincident, with conversion. This means that conversion and regeneration, as events, occur at the same time. For example, John states that those who "receive him" are also those have been "born of God" (John 1: 12-13).
Among those who agree that the two aspects of salvation are simultaneous, there is debate as to which is logically prior. Many Reformed and covenant theologians reject Shedd's argument for chronological priority but still contend for the logical priority of regeneration. Conversion is the willing response to the to the gospel call, but how does one who is totally depraved and dead in sins turn to God? The inability of a lost person to respond to the gospel seems to necessitate that something must happen to the person to make him receptive, and regeneration is seen to be that transforming event. Even those who do not hold to this position acknowledge its logical appeal. (741-42)
However, there are three strong biblical arguments for understanding conversion to precede the new birth. First, the many appeals in the Bible calling sinners to respond to the gospel imply that conversion results in regeneration. The Scriptures are presented as the seed the Spirit of God uses to bring about new life (I Peter 1: 23; James 1: 18, 21; I John 3: 9). That the Word of God is the Spirit's instrumental means indicates that faith leads to regeneration. Second, the Bible presents conversion as the condition to salvation, not the result of being saved (John 1: 12; 3: 16, 18, 24, 36, 40; Acts 2: 38; Rom. 3: 22, 26; 4:3,5; 5:1). The apostles repeatedly promise their hearers that, if they will repent and believe, then they will be saved (Acts 2: 38; 16: 30-31). the Apostle John put special emphasis on the necessity of the new birth, but he presented faith as the condition to becoming a child of God (John 1: 12-13) and to receiving eternal life ("by believing you may have life in his name," John 20: 31)."
"In order for a person to answer the gospel call, there indeed must be a special work of the Holy Spirit, but we conclude that this enablement is not regeneration but the inward call of the Spirit. The convicting work of the Holy Spirit and the effectual call that accompanies the preaching of the gospel enable a sinner to believe. The order that seems to be the testimony of Scripture is that those who are converted are born again." (pg. 743)
A Theology for the Church By Daniel L. Akin, David P. Nelson, Peter R. Schemm, Jr.
Published by B&H Publishing Group, 2007
See here
I hope Dr. Akin can help Dr. Ascol see the truth on this important issue!
Apr 5, 2009
Norris & KJV-only Claims
Pastor Bruce Oyen sends us this good article on the KJV.
There are many good things about Rick Norris's excellent book, THE UNBOUND SCRIPTURES: A Review Of KJV-only Claims and Publications. One of them is his point about what he calls "the mystical view of Bible translation," which is a section of chapter 12 of his book. Some of this section is reproduced here.
THE MYSTICAL VIEW OF BIBLE TRANSLATION
By Rick Norris
"While some statements by some KJV-only advocates implied a mechanical view of Bible translation, other statements suggest what could be described as a mystical view. A mystical view of translation would be one that claims that a translation is inspired when or if the reader or hearer feels or experiences something from reading or hearing it. A mystical view of translation would seem to reside in the individual reader or hearer's opinion of the the particular translation that he is reading or hearing. Such a view implies that a translation is not the true Word of God if the reader or hearer is not moved by it."
Norris also wrote, "While KJV-only advocates correctly reject the mystical view of inspiration, do they as strongly reject a mystical view of translation? A mystical view of translation makes man or his experience the authority. Do not some of the statements of some KJV-only advocates imply that they only acknowledge as from God the one translation that touches their own hearts? Since they believe that no modern English translation can deliver God's Word to their hearts, their self-fulfilling mystical prediction comes true."
Norris then gave examples of this mysticism from the well-known KJV-only authors Gail Riplinger, Mickey Carter, William Grady, Hugh Pyle, D. A. Waite, Ian Paisley, and Bruce Cummons.
The author concluded this section with several good points. Here are the last two sentences of the chapter: "Perhaps their zeal for their own KJV-only view has led them to make some statements whose logical implications they have not considered. Hopefully, most KJV-only advocates would reject a mystical view of translation just as they reject a mystical view of inspiration."
There are many good things about Rick Norris's excellent book, THE UNBOUND SCRIPTURES: A Review Of KJV-only Claims and Publications. One of them is his point about what he calls "the mystical view of Bible translation," which is a section of chapter 12 of his book. Some of this section is reproduced here.
THE MYSTICAL VIEW OF BIBLE TRANSLATION
By Rick Norris
"While some statements by some KJV-only advocates implied a mechanical view of Bible translation, other statements suggest what could be described as a mystical view. A mystical view of translation would be one that claims that a translation is inspired when or if the reader or hearer feels or experiences something from reading or hearing it. A mystical view of translation would seem to reside in the individual reader or hearer's opinion of the the particular translation that he is reading or hearing. Such a view implies that a translation is not the true Word of God if the reader or hearer is not moved by it."
Norris also wrote, "While KJV-only advocates correctly reject the mystical view of inspiration, do they as strongly reject a mystical view of translation? A mystical view of translation makes man or his experience the authority. Do not some of the statements of some KJV-only advocates imply that they only acknowledge as from God the one translation that touches their own hearts? Since they believe that no modern English translation can deliver God's Word to their hearts, their self-fulfilling mystical prediction comes true."
Norris then gave examples of this mysticism from the well-known KJV-only authors Gail Riplinger, Mickey Carter, William Grady, Hugh Pyle, D. A. Waite, Ian Paisley, and Bruce Cummons.
The author concluded this section with several good points. Here are the last two sentences of the chapter: "Perhaps their zeal for their own KJV-only view has led them to make some statements whose logical implications they have not considered. Hopefully, most KJV-only advocates would reject a mystical view of translation just as they reject a mystical view of inspiration."
Spurgeon's Conversion
From Spurgeon's own description of his conversion experience we learn that he was no Hyper Calvinist, how he did not separate his coming to faith with his coming to new life, how he did not separate his regeneration from his conversion and salvation, and how he did not take the means of the gospel out of his rebirth experience.
Spurgeon wrote:
"The thought struck me, How did you come to be a Christian? (did Spurgeon equate becoming a "Christian" with his being "born again" and "regenerated"? I say he did equate them and I challenge any Hyperist to show, from the words of Spurgeon, where he ever believed he was born again prior to the moment he became a Christian) I sought the Lord. (Spurgeon did not believe he was a Christian, or saved, or born again, at this time. Yet, he believed he was seeking the Lord. Only the Hyperist would argue that Spurgeon was already saved, born again, or regenerated, when he was seeking the Lord at this time) But how did you come to seek the Lord? The truth flashed across my mind in a moment-I should not have sought Him unless there had been some previous influence in my mind to make me seek Him. (Did Spurgeon believe that this previous "influence" was his "regeneration" or "new birth"? Again, only the Hyperist would argue that this "influence" meant regeneration influence. Spurgeon would view it as preparatory or common grace at work) I prayed, thought I, but then I asked myself, How came I to pray? I was induced to pray by reading the Scriptures. How came I to read the Scriptures? I did read them, but what led me to do so? Then, in a moment, I saw that God was at the bottom of it all, and that He was the Author of my faith, and so the whole doctrine of grace opened up to me, and from that doctrine I have not departed to this day, and I desire to make this my constant confession, "I ascribe my change wholly to God."
See here
Spurgeon describes his conversion as follows:
"Through the Lord's restraining grace, and the holy influence of my early home life, both at my father's and my grandfather's, I was kept from certain outward forms of sin in which others indulged; and, sometimes, when I began to take stock of myself (was he born again at this point, as the Hyperist might assert? No!), I really thought I was quite a respectable lad, and might have been half inclined to boast that I was not like other boys, untruthful, dishonest, disobedient, swearing. Sabbath breaking, and so on. But, all of a sudden, I met Moses, carrying in his hand the law of God; and as he looked at me, he seemed to search me through and through with his eyes of fire. He bade me read 'God's Ten Words',—the ten commandments—and as I read them, and remembered what I had been taught about their spiritual meaning as interpreted by the Lord Jesus Christ, they all seemed to join in accusing and condemning me in the sight of the thrice-holy Jehovah. Then, like Daniel, "my comeliness was turned in me into corruption, and I retained no strength;" and I understood what Paul meant when he wrote, "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God." (Did Spurgeon believe that he was born again when he was in this state of conviction of condemnation? No!)
See here
And again, of his conversion, he wrote:
"It is not everyone who can remember the very day and hour of his deliverance; but, as Richard Knill said, ‘At such a time of day, clang went every harp in Heaven, for Richard Knill was born again,’ it was e’en so with me. The clock of mercy struck in Heaven the hour and moment of my emancipation, for the time had come. Between half-past ten o’clock, when I entered that chapel, and half-past twelve o’clock, when I was back home again, what a change had taken place in me! I had passed from darkness into marvelous light, from death to life. Simply by looking to Jesus, I had been delivered from despair, and I was brought into such a joyous state of mind that, when they saw me at home, they said to me, ‘Something wonderful has happened to you;’ and I was eager to tell them all about it..."
See here
Again, only the Hyperist can read these confessions of Spurgeon about the time of his birth into the kingdom of God, and affirm that Spurgeon was born again even before he was converted in the Methodist Chapel at the time he looked to Calvary and trusted Christ.
He did not believe that his state, under conviction of sin, by the law, was an evidence of his regeneration or spiritual birth. Only the Hyperist sees such conviction of sin as evidence of spiritual life and regeneration. But, Spurgeon was no Hyper Calvinist. Spurgeon believed that he was born again, justified, converted, and saved, when he placed his trust in Christ alone for salvation.
Spurgeon wrote:
"The thought struck me, How did you come to be a Christian? (did Spurgeon equate becoming a "Christian" with his being "born again" and "regenerated"? I say he did equate them and I challenge any Hyperist to show, from the words of Spurgeon, where he ever believed he was born again prior to the moment he became a Christian) I sought the Lord. (Spurgeon did not believe he was a Christian, or saved, or born again, at this time. Yet, he believed he was seeking the Lord. Only the Hyperist would argue that Spurgeon was already saved, born again, or regenerated, when he was seeking the Lord at this time) But how did you come to seek the Lord? The truth flashed across my mind in a moment-I should not have sought Him unless there had been some previous influence in my mind to make me seek Him. (Did Spurgeon believe that this previous "influence" was his "regeneration" or "new birth"? Again, only the Hyperist would argue that this "influence" meant regeneration influence. Spurgeon would view it as preparatory or common grace at work) I prayed, thought I, but then I asked myself, How came I to pray? I was induced to pray by reading the Scriptures. How came I to read the Scriptures? I did read them, but what led me to do so? Then, in a moment, I saw that God was at the bottom of it all, and that He was the Author of my faith, and so the whole doctrine of grace opened up to me, and from that doctrine I have not departed to this day, and I desire to make this my constant confession, "I ascribe my change wholly to God."
See here
Spurgeon describes his conversion as follows:
"Through the Lord's restraining grace, and the holy influence of my early home life, both at my father's and my grandfather's, I was kept from certain outward forms of sin in which others indulged; and, sometimes, when I began to take stock of myself (was he born again at this point, as the Hyperist might assert? No!), I really thought I was quite a respectable lad, and might have been half inclined to boast that I was not like other boys, untruthful, dishonest, disobedient, swearing. Sabbath breaking, and so on. But, all of a sudden, I met Moses, carrying in his hand the law of God; and as he looked at me, he seemed to search me through and through with his eyes of fire. He bade me read 'God's Ten Words',—the ten commandments—and as I read them, and remembered what I had been taught about their spiritual meaning as interpreted by the Lord Jesus Christ, they all seemed to join in accusing and condemning me in the sight of the thrice-holy Jehovah. Then, like Daniel, "my comeliness was turned in me into corruption, and I retained no strength;" and I understood what Paul meant when he wrote, "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God." (Did Spurgeon believe that he was born again when he was in this state of conviction of condemnation? No!)
See here
And again, of his conversion, he wrote:
"It is not everyone who can remember the very day and hour of his deliverance; but, as Richard Knill said, ‘At such a time of day, clang went every harp in Heaven, for Richard Knill was born again,’ it was e’en so with me. The clock of mercy struck in Heaven the hour and moment of my emancipation, for the time had come. Between half-past ten o’clock, when I entered that chapel, and half-past twelve o’clock, when I was back home again, what a change had taken place in me! I had passed from darkness into marvelous light, from death to life. Simply by looking to Jesus, I had been delivered from despair, and I was brought into such a joyous state of mind that, when they saw me at home, they said to me, ‘Something wonderful has happened to you;’ and I was eager to tell them all about it..."
See here
Again, only the Hyperist can read these confessions of Spurgeon about the time of his birth into the kingdom of God, and affirm that Spurgeon was born again even before he was converted in the Methodist Chapel at the time he looked to Calvary and trusted Christ.
He did not believe that his state, under conviction of sin, by the law, was an evidence of his regeneration or spiritual birth. Only the Hyperist sees such conviction of sin as evidence of spiritual life and regeneration. But, Spurgeon was no Hyper Calvinist. Spurgeon believed that he was born again, justified, converted, and saved, when he placed his trust in Christ alone for salvation.
Apr 3, 2009
Effects of Hyper Calvinism
In an article titled "THE CHRISTIAN MAN AT AND AFTER DIVINE QUICKENING," written by Elder Stan Phillips (Hardshell Baptist), we read:
"Now, we do not tell anyone that they are going to hell, or anyone that they are going to heaven. We do not know such things."
See here
This is one of the effects of Hardshellism and Hyper Calvinism. It is also clear why the Hardshells have ever had problems with the false doctrines of "universalism" and "no-Hellism."
"Now, we do not tell anyone that they are going to hell, or anyone that they are going to heaven. We do not know such things."
See here
This is one of the effects of Hardshellism and Hyper Calvinism. It is also clear why the Hardshells have ever had problems with the false doctrines of "universalism" and "no-Hellism."
Apr 2, 2009
We Can Trust God
WE CAN TRUST IN GOD ABOVE
By Bruce Oyen, March 31, 2009
We do not know what this life will hold,
whether mostly joy or grief untold.
But we can trust in God above
to filter it all through His tender love.
He will give answers to our prayers.
He will help us with our cares.
He will enable us to do His will.
No matter what, He's with us still.
As our days, our strength shall be.
God knows what's needed for you, for me.
He holds our days in His hands.
We can trust His loving plans.
By Bruce Oyen, March 31, 2009
We do not know what this life will hold,
whether mostly joy or grief untold.
But we can trust in God above
to filter it all through His tender love.
He will give answers to our prayers.
He will help us with our cares.
He will enable us to do His will.
No matter what, He's with us still.
As our days, our strength shall be.
God knows what's needed for you, for me.
He holds our days in His hands.
We can trust His loving plans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)