James White's thoughts in the aftermath of an Obama victory

Here are James White's thoughts in the aftermath of an Obama victory.

[HT: Aomin.org]

Law and Gospel: Galatians - The allegory explained

Allegory of Law and Gospel

Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. For it is written,

“Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor! For the children of the desolate one will be more than those of the one who has a husband.”

Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.” So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman. (Gal. 4:21-31)

In this allegory, the Apostle Paul uses the Old Testament characters Hagar and Sarah to make a point about the relation between the Law and the Gospel, that perhaps through using this literary device he would be able to make the antithesis between Law and Gospel clearer. Having shown that the Law was unable to save, and Law and Gospel do not mix, Paul proceeded here to plead for the Galatian Christians to reject the Law as unto salvation, and instead follow the Gospel of Grace, so that they might truly be on the correct path of salvation.

Abraham is indeed the common father and originator of both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant as it were, for the former coming from the children of Abraham by natural descent, and the latter being the antitype of Abraham's true religion as required by God (cf Rom. 4:3). It is in such a setting that Paul starts his allegory, using Abraham's two sons as examples of the Old and New Covenant to make his point. Historically, Abraham had two main sons Ishmael and Isaac, the former conceived through natural means by a concubine Hagar while the latter was conceived through supernatural enablement (in old age) by his wife Sarah. Hagar furthermore was a slave woman, servant to Sarah.

This historical data was conveyed to the Galatian Christians in verses 22-23, stating only the major facts that Paul requires for his analogy. Two different sons were described, with the emphasis being on their circumstances of birth. The first one, Ishmael, came from a slave woman and was born naturally (according to the flesh), while the second one, Isaac, came from a free woman and was born according to the promise of God.

Having established the two sons as the basis for his allegory, Paul shows how each son relates to Christians and to the Law. Paul links Mount Sinai which symbolizes the Law with Hagar and the circumstance of her slavery in verse 24, and then follows through with his identification with the present day Jewish religion in verse 25, as if the reference to Sinai was not clear enough. It can thus be seen that Paul here equates following of the Law with being in a condition of slavery. Conversely, the New Covenant way is linked to the heavenly Jerusalem, where God lives and reigns (cf Rev. 21:1-4)

The relationships drawn up by Paul can be seen in the following table:

Old Covenant	New Covenant
Hagar	Sarah
- slavery	- free
- according to the flesh	- according to promise
Mount Sinai/ present Jerusalem	Heavenly Jerusalem
- Law	- faith

Quoting Is. 54:1 in Gal. 4:27, which begins the passage describing the New Covenant relationship, Paul uses this prophetic Old Testament text to prove to us that the true religion that God has planned is that of promise not via natural means, in an effort to refute the Judaizers. For how can the desolate one who has not physically bore any children have more children than those who are married, unless by supernatural means? And that is precisely the point that Paul makes in quoting this text from Is. 54, in order to show that the (Old Testament) prophet Isaiah have already prophesied this coming of a New Covenant which can be seen described in the rest of Is. 54, that is not according to the flesh but according to God who promises and fulfils it. So if the OT prophet has already prophesied that this would happen, why are the Galatian Christians therefore following the Judaizers, who most definitely cannot hold a candle to the prophet Isaiah?

Having made the clear identification of Christians as being those of the promise (Gal. 4:28), Paul used the historical narrative to push his allegory further. Just as Isaac was persecuted by Ishmael (mocked at cf Gen. 21:9), so also those who are according to the flesh (all adherents of works religions) would persecute those who follow the Spirit (Christians). In finishing the allegory, Paul states how the slave woman and her son was cast out after the heir of the free woman arrived on the scene (Gal. 4:30), and in so doing sets forth plainly the antithesis between works/Law and faith. When faith or the promise comes, there is no room for the Law or works, and these things are to be cast aside. There would thus be absolutely no mingling of the two unto salvation, as Paul had stated again and again various ways in this epistle of his in order to emphasize the seriousness of this issue to the Galatian Christians.

This allegory therefore teaches the exclusivity of Law and Gospel in salvation. Linking the Law and the earthly Jewish religion with Hagar was an insult to the unbelieving Jews, and yet such was indeed the case, for the Jews in rejecting their Messiah and trusting in themselves had became a stench to His nostrils, incurring God's wrath as seen in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70.

As we look at the form of this allegory, let us consider two more things, namely: the Jewishness of the allegory, and the allegorical method itself.

The Jewishness of the allegory may not seem to be an issue until we realize that the Galatian Christians were almost all Gentiles who would not have read the Old Testaments before they were converted. Yet, Paul did not think it mean to refer to biblical characters such as Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Ishmael and Hagar. Notwithstanding the fact that there may be some Galatian Christians who may have read through the Old Testaments by then, the fact of the matter is that these figures would not be very familiar to them compared to the Jews who were brought up memorizing the Torah. This show us that content is more important than delivery, and although they may struggle to remember the history behind these people, Paul expects them to read up the Old Testament Scriptures if they do not know or cannot remember the narrative behind his allegory.

So in our time and age, it is more important for us to focus on getting the message that we want to convey right first before working on our delivery. Also, dumbing down the message to appeal to the crowd/ congregation is the wrong way to go. Rather, we should expect the congregation to rise up to the standard of the Scriptures as they are expounded on.

The allegorical method is a problem in itself, for this is by far the only allegory used by Paul, and in fact in Scripture. This allegorizing of narrative accounts in the Bible to teach biblical lessons seem to be what Paul is doing, and it has been suggested that such a method would be a legitimate method of reading, interpreting and teaching the Scriptures. However, all of them forget one major thing, which is that Paul's allegorizing is itself inspired, and not merely another allegorizing and therefore not all allegorizing is de facto ok simply because Paul did it in this passage.

More devastating to the promoters of the allegory method is the fact of how Paul allegorized the narrative of Abraham and his two sons. Paul did not simply take any narrative in Scripture and allegorized it, but one in which the situation does speak to the issue at hand. Although not directly relevant to the issue, the contrast between works and promise in the example of Hagar and Sarah, Ishmael and Isaac, dovetails neatly with the contrast between works-righteousness and grace through faith in Paul's controversy with the Judaizers. Similarly, as I have shown, both appeal to the same father in Abraham. Paul therefore uses Abraham as an example to show that although it is indeed true that the Law does come from Abraham, it is nonetheless obsolete now as it is tied in with his son through Hagar, Ishmael.

With similarities in subject matters and circumstances, plus the apologetic value against the Judaizers who are Jews by birth, Paul decided to use this narrative as an allegory. It is therefore seen that this allegory is carefully chosen by Paul more to make a point against the false "'gospel" proclaimed by the Judaizers (ie its apologetic value) and to make it very plain to the Galatian Christians both the proper relation between Law and Gospel if they haven't gotten it yet, and the OT anticipation of the New Covenant thus proving that the Judaizers were lying about the teachings of the OT Scriptures.

With this, therefore, there is no basis for promoting the allegorical method of Scripture interpretation. Certainly, this is not to say that certain Scriptures cannot be interpreted allegorically, but there are strict criteria to do so like subject matter alignment. Plus, it is to be used mainly for apologetic value, which makes such allegorical interpretations even rarer. It must be noted also that Paul did not deny the normal narrative reading and in fact it must be present before it can be interpreted allegorically otherwise the alignment is non-existent. This indeed undercuts all systems that promotes allegorical interpretations of Scripture, especially the liberal ones which deny the historicity of the text of Scripture. Neo-Orthodoxy similarly has no basis for the allegorical method as it is mean to be used, for not all that is in Scripture is without error according to them.

With this, let us conclude the series with a look at the practical implications for the true teachings with regards to the Law and the Gospel.

[to be continued]

Law and Gospel: Galatians (4)

The problem in Galatia - in more detail, and its remedy

Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods. But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more? You observe days and months and seasons and years! I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain (Gal. 4:8-11)

For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.

Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.

You were running well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? This persuasion is not from him who calls you. A little leaven leavens the whole lump. I have confidence in the Lord that you will take no other view than mine, and the one who is troubling you will bear the penalty, whoever he is. But if I, brothers, still preach circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been removed. I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves! (Gal. 5:1-12)

As Paul finishes delineating the purposes of the Law with regards to the Gospel, he continues calling the Galatian Christians to stop following the Law but instead live the Christian life by faith. In the process, Paul gave us the final clue into the exact nature of the problem in the Galatian churches.

We have earlier seen in the exposition of Gal. 3:1-4 that the Judaizers were deceiving the Galatian Christians into adding works to their faith for salvation. Such works were called works of the law because they were based on the Mosaic Law, or the Law of the Old Covenant. Here, we are given more insight into the specific works called for by the Judaizers.

Seeing that the proto-Judaizers or Judaists at the Jerusalem Council had emphasized the ritual of circumcision, it should not be surprising that the Judaizers here emphasized circumcision too. In fact, they brought in quite a lot of the rituals of Judaism for the Galatian Christians to observe. In Gal. 4:9, Paul called such works of the Law "weak and worthless elementary principles". Such observing of the law was concretely set forth as observation of "days and months and seasons and years"; religious holy days (Gal. 4:10), causing Paul to worry that his labor might be in vain (Gal. 4:11).

It is indeed shocking to see Paul referring to the teachings of God's holy Law given by God Himself as being "weak and worthless principles". But yet when we realize what the role of the Law is, and what the Judaizers are making of the Law, then such a denigration of the Law is understandable in that context. For the Law was never meant to be used to save anyone, for the simple reason that no one can fulfil its perfect requirements, ever. The Law was meant to prepare the way for the Gospel, not to save. And since the Gospel and Law are antithetical to each other, smuggling in the Law in an attempt to contribute somehow for our salvation would be to deny the Gospel, for the two cannot coexist. It is on this understanding that the Law is considered "weak and worthless principle", for it are powerless to save (thus weak), and has no use unto salvation (thus worthless).

The Jews then have started to treat their walk with God as just another religion, as we can see from the Pharisees in which the keeping of rules and regulations are vital but a relationship with God is not (eg. Mt. 6; 23:1-36). Such religiosity is prevalent in almost every false religion in the world — a religion of do's and don'ts. The Gentiles Christians in Galatia were saved out of this legalistic works-righteousness, yet here they were going back to it again; exchanging one type of works-righteousness (paganism) with the Jewish form of works-righteousness (conditional Covenantal works righteousness). This therefore is the reason why Paul contrast their former pagan state of enslavement with the state of the Judaizers and their followers, which constitute another form of enslavement. Instead of being in bondage to such outward forms of religion, Paul calls them to stand firm in Christian liberty and not to submit to a (new) yoke of slavery (Gal. 5:1). In Paul's view therefore, any time any outward form of religiosity is made necessary for salvation, that doctrine and gospel based upon that teaching is false and must be opposed as being a form of works-righteousness false 'Gospel'.

From inveighing against making religious holy days mandatory, Paul in the passage in Gal. 5:2-3 makes the same objection to the keeping of the Old Covenant sacrament of circumcision. Following the exact same reasoning which denigrates the keeping of religious holy days unto salvation, Paul here rightly perceives that the insistence on the keeping of circumcision is done out of obedience to the Law. Being therefore a work of the Law, those who desire to be circumcised are obliged to keep all of the law, for Law and Gospel are opposites. Following the Law would therefore entail rejection of the Gospel and thus rejection of Christ, thus resulting in being severed from Christ the only means of salvation (Gal. 5:4). Due to the severity of the issue and his anger at these false teachers, Paul sarcastically called upon the Judaizers to emasculate or castrate themselves (Gal. 5:12), as if to say: 'Since you desire to cut the foreskin, you might as well just cut through the whole thing so that you can boast in the flesh'.

Now, it must be noted that Paul himself is not against circumcision or any observation of religious holy days etc per se, but only when believers are coerced to do them unto salvation. Gal. 5:6 shows us that the whole ritual of circumcision by itself is nothing, for Paul had in fact circumcised Timothy even (Acts 16:3). Rather it is faith which works through love that is important, not any type of works, in the domain of salvation. Similarly for us therefore, nothing that pertains to the practice of religion in rites and rituals should be made binding upon the Christian for salvation. Besides the obvious ritual of circumcision, no one holy day observance is binding upon the Christian, and that includes Easter and Christmas. It is not wrong to do any of these things, or to follow the OT ceremonial laws with regards to not eating pork etc, but we must oppose such practices when they are made part of being a Christian.

In the course of looking at the interaction between Law and Gospel, there is an interesting alegory introduced by Paul, which we would look at now.

[to be continued]

Reformation in Chile?

Well, it seems that Chile has a new national holiday, Día Nacional de las Iglesias Evangélicas y Protestantes, roughly translated into 'National day of the Evangelical and Protestant Churches'. What's with Chile nowadays? Is there a large Reformed movement in Chile somehow?

[HT: Reformation21]

More Excerpts: Translating Truth

Here are a couple more excerpts from the book Translating Truth — The Case for Essentially Literal Bible Translation edited by Wayne Grudem.

Taken from Leland Ryken's article in Chapter 2: Five Myths about Essentially Literal Bible Translation:

The most common criticism that has been voiced against the ESV, since its publication in 2001, is that it violates its own philosophy in not being totally literal and not retaining the syntax of the original Hebrew and Greek. The criticism is frivolous and wide of [sic] the mark, inasmuch as no essentially literal translation claims to be completely literal, least of all in regard to syntax. The formula "essentially literal" means what is says; it does not mean "completely literal". (p. 58. Bold added)

At the heart of the disagreement between the rival theories of translations lies the disagreement about the nature and primacy of words in language communication. (p. 69)

All translation is lexical translation, but this is the least of what excites dynamic equivalence advocates. ... The second translation [applying dynamic equivalence methodology] actually bypasses linguistic interpretation in the final translation and resorts to interpretation of the conceptual meaning. (p. 72. Bold added)

If it [the translated text] is not what the original text says, a so-called readable translation has actually removed from the Bible from a reader, not, as it is claimed, brought the Bible close to the reader. (p. 74)

...

I will summarize my five main points by stating them in a format that corrects the misconceptions that detractors of essentially literal translation have asserted.

1. When essentially literal translators respect and preserve the words of the original, they are not engaging in idolatry but are instead practicing what the Bible itself says about the primacy of words in God's revelation of his [sic] truth in Scripture.
2. There are two ways in which essentially literal translations are simple or naive, namely, in being uninterested in complex linguistic theory and in sticking with translation rather than mingling commentary and editorializing with the translation. Dynamic translation is naive in more ways than this.
3. Essentially literal translations are genuine translations, not transcriptions or transliterations.
4. Essentially literal translations make a necessary distinction between linguistic or lexical interpretation and other types of interpretation, and refuse to add the activities of the exegete and the editor to the task of the translator.
5. Essentially literal translations are fully readable, and where their renderings are difficult or do not carry all the meaning on the surface, they are being true to the original text.

Essentially literal translation theory and practice are regularly misrepresented by devotees of dynamic equivalence. I have attempted to correct what must be frankly acknowledged often to be caricatures. However, the current debate is more than an intellectual inquiry into correct translation principles and a dispelling of erroneous claims about essentially literal Bible translations. What is at stake is whether the Bible reading public will return to the real Bible or accept a substitute for it. (p. 75-76)

In Chapter 3, C. John Collins writes in his chapter What the Reader Wants and the Translator Can Give:

An irony arises from all this: the motive for the dynamic philosophy is a laudable one, namely to let everyone in on the wonders of the Bible, without allowing the experts to get in the way. Its result, however, is to interpose the translator between the readers and the text. The essentially literal philosophy, whose main interest is in doing justice to the original act of communication, opens up a new world to all manner of people, if they are willing to take the trouble to learn the customs of this foreign land. (p. 106)

As it can be seen therefore, the dynamic equivalent (or D-E) advocates or the anything-goes crowd (as a parody of their opposite extremes the KJVOs) fail on both counts. They fail in faithfully delivering the meaning of the text due to their varied bias thus interposing they as the translator between the people and the text of Scripture, ironically out of a desire to make the Bible accessible to all. They fail in delivering the Scriptures clearly because they have lost the Word during translation, so there is no true Scripture to pass on in the first place. Translators are NOT to make the Word perspicuous and so engage in what Leland Ryken calls conceptual translation, but rather to translate it lexically only. The meaning would thus be available to all to understand as the Word is already by its very own nature perspicuous, if one would just take the time and effort to read and study it.

So let's call the anything-goes movement what it actually stands for: Spiritual laziness and a distrust in the power of God through His Word. They look down on the people's reading ability, and instead of calling them [up] to the biblical standard, they dumb down the texts of Scripture to get a hearing. Coupled with that is the spiritual lethargy that does not want to spend time and effort studying and wrestling with the Scriptures in prayer in order to understand the mind of Christ, but instead want easy quick-fix answers NOW; one minute earlier would be better.

Excerpt: Translating Truth

In the book Translating Truth — The Case for Essentially Literal Bible Translation edited by Wayne Grudem, conservative evangelical scholars who taken on the topic of Bible translation, and especially the translational philosophy underlying the entire enterprise of Bible translation.

Here is an excerpt from the first chapter by Wayne Grudem on why we should use essentially literal versions such as the ESV, NSB, NET, HCSB (and I would add NKJV) rather than the dynamic equivalent (or 'functional equivalent') versions such as NIV, TNIV, NLT, LB, Ph, Msg, CEV etc.

... I know I cannot teach theology or ethics class using a dynamic equivalence translation. There are too many details of meaning missing, details that are often important for theology. And there are too many details added, details that will lead people down paths of thought that are not part of God's Word.

Although the NIV is not a thoroughly dynamic equivalence translation, there is so much dynamic equivalence influence in the NIV that I cannot teach theology or ethics from it either. I tried it for one semester several years ago, shortly after the NIV first came out, and I gave it up after a few weeks. Time and ago I would try to use a verse to make a point and find that the specific detail I was looking for, a detail of wording that I knew was there in the original Hebrew or Greek, was missing from the verse in the NIV.

Nor can I preach from a dynamic equivalence translation. I would end up explaining in verse after verse that the words on the page are not really what the Bible says, and the whole experience would be confusing and would lead people not to trust the Bible in English but to distrust it.

Nor can I teach an adult Bible class at my church using a dynamic equivalence translation without checking the original language at every verse. I would never know what words to trust or what words have been left out.

Nor can I lead our home fellowship group using a dynamic equivalence translation. People have sometimes brought a New Living Translation or The Message to a Bible study and I've seen them get excited about seeing some new ideas in a verse, but I have to bite my tongue because I know that the new idea they see in the verse is not there in the Greek or Hebrew text. I don't want to discourage their excitement about contributing to the Bible study, but I just wish they would be excited about something that is actually in the Word of God.

Nor would I ever want to memorize passages from a dynamic equivalence translation. I would be fixing in my brain verses that were partly God's words and partly some added ideas, and I would be leaving out of my brain some words that belonged to those verses as God inspired them but were simply missing from the dynamic equivalence translation.

But I could readily use any modern essentially literal translation (especially the ESV, NASB, NET BIBLE, and HCSB) to teach, study, preach from, and memorize. The wording may differ slightly, but the words are all there and the meaning is all there as completely as it can be expressed in English.

What then can I do with dynamic equivalence translations like the New Living Translation or The Message? I can read them like I read a commentary, not thinking of them as exactly the Word of God, but as a fresh and creative way to convey an explanation of the verse or an interpretation of the verse as understood by some very competent evangelical scholars. I think of these versions as skillful free interpretations of Scripture, but not strictly as translations.

[Wayne Grudem, Chapter 1: Are Only Some Words of Scripture Brethed Out by God? in Wayne Grudem, Translating Truth — The Case for Essentially Literal Bible Translation (Crossway, Wheaton, IL, US, 2005), 49-50]

I concur with Grudem's position on this topic, except for the use of the dynamic equivalence interpretations of Scripture. While some like the TNIV or the NLT may be able to function like reasonable good commentaries, those that are too loose in translations like the Message IMO cannot, since they ideas they add oftentimes distort the Word of God. Not to mention the LB per se which is Arminian as it "re-interprets" the texts of Scripture to reflect the theological bias of its writer 'translator' Kenneth Taylor.

Historical anarchonism by Ponter and the Neo-Amyraldians

Well, it seems that the Neo-Amyraldian David Ponter cannot stop practising the deceitful practice of Historical Anachronism, as Turretinfan aptly points out:

And, as has already been pointed out, quoting loosely worded statements by Reformers from before the Arminian controversy is a recipe for confusion, just as it would be improper to try read the "New Perspective on Paul" controversy back onto Calvin and his contemporaries, it is likewise improper to try to read the Arminian/Amyraldian controversies back into the minds of the pre-controversy Reformers.

There are some quotations, and Ponter's post provides two examples, that taken out of their historical context and placed into ours sound very Arminian or Amyraldian. Ponter's argument seems to be: "no one made a fuss about these comments at that time, so when Amyraldians make such arguments today, everyone should just accept them as part of the 'Reformed' perspective." Such an argument is the result of shielding one's eyes from the value that the Arminian/Amyraldian controversy had in developing and working out clearly the Scriptural doctrine of the Atonement. The debates with Romanists for the most part focused elsewhere.

Ponter's apparent underlying strategy is to amass as many decontextualized quotations as possible from early Reformers, and then argue that despite the Scriptural resolution of the Arminian/Amyraldian controversies (in favor of TULIP, which Ponter so loathes), such positions (the positions contrary to the Reformed confessions) should still be viewed Reformed.

Such indeed seems to be the strategy of the Neo-Amyraldian promoters nowadays, from David Byrne to the misnamed "Calvin and Calvinism" blog, which is anything BUT that.

I truly wonder: Is it too much to expect that these Neo-Amyraldians practice proper historical interpretation of Reformed writings? For example, I am very sure none of them would allow the Romanists to read the church fathers' teaching on the concept of the Real Presence as indicative of the church fathers' belief in the doctrine of Transubstantiation (which require Aquinas' assimilation of Aristotelian categories to be understood)!

[HT: The Crumbs which Fall]

On Regeneration

First of all, Blessed Reformation Day to all my readers. In line with Paul Washer's recent sermon entitled Ten Indictments, I was thinking an article on Regeneration would be good. Here is a good article on Regeneration by J.I. Packer.

As the Evangelical Arminian Charles Wesley sings also, in one of those rare moments inconsistent with his professed theology:

Long my imprisoned spirit lay,
Fast bound in sin and nature’s night;
Thine eye diffused a quickening ray—
I woke, the dungeon flamed with light;
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.

Mistranslations in the NIV and TNIV?

In my review of the book Logical Criticism of Textual Criticism, Dr. Gordon H. Clark has pointed out the mistranslation of two texts in the book of Hebrews in the NIV — namely Heb. 1:5 and 11:11. I had then decided to check out the bible versions themselves electronically on the Biblegateway website. What I saw confirmed the claims of Dr. Gordon Clark and places serious doubts on the fidelity of the NIV and TNIV (which claims to be an improvement over the NIV) at least at those two verses.

Here are the verses in the different versions:

For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”? (Heb. 1:5a — ESV)

For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father"? (Heb. 1:5a — NIV)

For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father"? (Heb. 1:5a — TNIV)

and

By faith Sarah herself received power to conceive, even when she was past the age, since she considered him faithful who had promised. (Heb. 11:11 — ESV)

By faith Abraham, even though he was past age—and Sarah herself was barren—was enabled to become a father because he considered him faithful who had made the promise (Heb. 11:11 — NIV)

And by faith even Sarah, who was past childbearing age, was enabled to bear children because she considered him faithful who had made the promise. (Heb. 11:11 — TNIV)

As I have said in my review:

As it can be seen, the NIV and TNIV in Heb. 1:5a changed the traditional phrase "begotten you" to "have become your Father", which alters the meaning of the text rather significantly. There is a footnote there giving the rendering of "begotten", but the question then is why is the phrase "have become" used here, since there is no textual variant that can be translated "have become" here? Furthermore, this footnote is found only in the NIV not in the later TNIV, so why is that the case?

With regards to Heb. 11:11, the distortion of the text in the NIV and the TNIV is simply amazing. The NIV comes up with a complete novel proposition and places the correct rendering in a footnote, all done without any textual rationale for doing so. The TNIV which is later and supposed to be better reverts back to the correct rendering of the passage (which is good), but inexplicably it places the false rendering of the passage in a footnote for the text! So much for improvement of the NIV! Oh well, I guess swapping the text and footnote text is an improvement after all, but still in error.

So what do the NIV and TNIV supporters have to say about this?

Book reviews

I have just finished reviews of two interesting books that I have read recently. The first is a review of the book The Market Driven Church by Udo W. Middelmann, which can be found here.

The second review is of the book Logical Criticism of Textual Criticism by Gordon H. Clark, which can be found here.

As it can be seen from this book, anyone with even a bit of knowledge on textual issues can see that there is a difference between the textual critical methodology as utilized by Westcort, Hort, Metzger, Aland etc, and the text-types (Byzantine, Alexandrian, Western etc) contributing to the variant readings of the texts.

[Btw, if anybody discovers any link whatsoever that I have missed out to the blog of that irrational, cowardly and reprobate anonymous idiot who calls himself Antithesis (fulfilling Jude 1:10 and 2 Peter 2:12), please inform me so I can delete those links.

But these people blaspheme all that they do not understand, and they are destroyed by all that they, like unreasoning animals, understand instinctively. (Jude 1:10)

But these, like irrational animals, creatures of instinct, born to be caught and destroyed, blaspheming about matters of which they are ignorant, will also be destroyed in their destruction, (2 Peter 2:12)]

Misquoted Verses: Rev. 3:20

Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me. (Rev. 3:20)

In context:

And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: ‘The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God's creation.

“‘I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth. For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked. I counsel you to buy from me gold refined by fire, so that you may be rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your nakedness may not be seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, so that you may see. Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous and repent. Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me. The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’” (Rev. 3: 14-22)

This verse is the second most misquoted verse according to the poll, and most certainly it must be the most misquoted verse used during evangelism. Typically, it is used in a Gospel invitation near the end of an Evangelistic message or tract to ask people to "invite Christ into your heart". As it is normally presented in a well-known tract which does not need introduction:

Law 4: We need to personally RECEIVE Jesus Christ as our SAVIOR and LORD, then we can KNOW God personally and experience His LOVE.

...

We receive Christ by Personal Invitation

[Christ is speaking] "Behold I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him." - Revelation 3:20

The tract or message then uses this text to call sinners to ask Jesus into your heart. For Jesus is outside knocking on the door of the sinner's heart, and wants to dine with the person, if only the sinner would open his/her heart and allow Christ in, then s/he would experience the fullness of life promised by Jesus to all who believe in him (cf Jn. 10:10). The Gospel invitation is then given and the sinner is asked to respond to the Gospel so proclaimed. It all sounds reasonable, or is it?

First of all, this would NOT be an analysis/critique of the 4SL as commonly presented, but rather an analysis of the use of Rev. 3:20 as a proof-text for the Gospel invitation. Suffice it is to say here that the Apostles and most of Church History knows not this form of presenting the Gospel. [One example of the historical method of Gospel proclamation can be seen in evangelists such as Paul Washer as seen in a previous post here]

The context of Revelations 3:20 is the message of Jesus through the Holy Spirit to the Church of Laodicea. The Church of Laodicea was a a lukewarm church that was neither passionate for the Lord (hot) nor refreshing others (cold), and thus it incurred the wrath and judgment of God on her disgusting lukewarmness (v. 16). She thinks herself rich and prosperous (v. 17), which she most definitely is materially, but in spirituality she is wretched and poor. In a parody of her boasted condition, her Lord call her to get true riches, spiritual riches, as opposed to the outward material riches she has and boasts in.

It is in this context that Rev. 3:20 is situated. Rev. 3:20 therefore is addressed primarily to the Church of Laodicea to repent of her lukewarmness; that she by her lukewarmness has removed Christ her lord from her midst. Yet Christ IS the head of the Church (Eph. 5:23, Col. 1:18) and as such He is pleading with the wayward Church of Laodicea to return back to him and allow Him back into their midst, for their disgusting lukewarmness has chased Him away.

It can be seen immediately that there is a problem with applying this verse to the context of salvation and the Gospel call, not the least is which the contexts are different. The biblical context is towards people in the Visible Church as opposed to unbelievers, corporate as opposed to individual, and the call is to return back to their professed faith as opposed to calling unbelievers to repentance and faith. Such a major difference immediately invalidates such an application as committing a case of eisegesis. And pragmatism is no substitute for fidelity to the Word of God. There is no mitigating factor for misquoting the verse even if it somehow works, as if we have the power to convert anyone in the first place.

In fact, dare I say it, but that the application of this verse to evangelism actually demeans Christ. It reduces our sovereign Lord to be the helpless and often rejected beggar always so "meekly" knocking on everyone's doors, and most of them will reject Him anyway. It dethrones God and elevates Man, as if Man is the center of all things. Such an Arminian methodology compromises the person of Christ and the Godhead, and therefore dishonors the Lord we claim to worship.

With regards to the Gospel invitation, why can't we just use the method of the Apostles, of which we have apostolic warrant even? Let us look at Peter's Gospel invitation:

Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. (Acts 2:37-41)

Peter's Gospel invitation does not require him to dethrone God. Instead, the focus of the invitation points to what is known as duty-faith: Man's duty to repent of their sins and therefore turn to Christ. God through the Apostle Peter commands the Jewish sinners present at Pentecost that it is their duty to repent of their sins and thus save themselves from their crooked and perverse generation. As Jonathan Edwards preached, sinners are in the hand of an angry God whose wrath is kindled against them for their many sins. All sinners are obligated to repent of their sins, as fallen creatures owe to their righteous Creator His due. THIS is the biblical basis for the Gospel invitation, and we should proclaim the Creator's right over the sinful creature and of his duty to repent. Of course, this would mean that a more complete Gospel presentation would be needed, but whoever said that the Gospel was just the presentation of a few points based on disjointed verses which do not seem to cohere with each other?

So therefore, let us STOP using this verse out of context, and re-evaluate how we should be presenting the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. And may God be pleased to bless us and use us for the furtherance of His Kingdom. Amen.

Sermon: Ten Indictments by Paul Washer

This is a message from Paul Washer that was preached Wednesday, October 22nd at the Revival Conference in Atlanta, Georgia. Paul Washer delivers a urgent appeal to the Christians and Churches in North America (which is applicable to many in Singapore and around the world too) that many have been believing a false gospel and have false assurance of their salvation. He lists 10 indictments against the modern Church system. The first 9 that I can catch are:

1. A practical denial of the sufficiency of Scripture.
2. An ignorance of God.
3. A failure to address man’s malady.
4. Ignorance of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
5. An ignorance of the doctrine of Regeneration.
6. Ignorance regarding the nature of the Church.
7. A lack of loving and compassionate Church discipline.
8. A silence on Separation.
9. Psychology and Sociology have replaced the Scriptures with regards to the family.

You may download the sermon here

Incidentally, it is heartening to hear of Paul Washer's own testimony of the growing Reformed resurgence. Though it has its flaws, it can be seen that God is moving in the midst of the death throes of Evangelicalism and creating a new movement to advance His Kingdom. This has given me new impetus to start something here even in Singapore. Let us sacrifice our all for the sake of His Kingdom, and count all things but loss for the expansion of the glorious Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ. While it is still day, let us work, and may God be merciful to the Visible churches in Singapore and grant us a new reformation and revival — to turn the entire Christendom in this region upside down!

[HT: Word and Verse, Lane's blog]

P.S.: While I do not agree with his assessment of infant baptism, the rest of his sermon is good and a needed indictment against the many false gospels and false doctrines circulating in our times. Also, it is also my opinion that certain forms of Covenantal Theology are more "theological" than the Scriptures. When your view of Covenantal Theology makes you devalue the necessity to call upon children of believers to personally repent of their sins, and devalue the need to call upon them to examine their lives to see if they are truly of the faith (and not they can assume they are Christians because they are brought up and instructed in Covenant homes), then there is certainly something wrong somewhere. It does NOT need a person to be sufficiently conversant with the intricacies of Covenant Theology to realize that such teaching is wrong. In fact anyone with a good grasp of the biblical Gospel can do so, no matter how "logical" it may seem to be when developing the theme of the Covenant. In fact, may I suggest that if your view of the Covenant logically necessitates such a view of children in the Covenant, perhaps you may need to re-evaluate your theology of the Covenant to see whether it actually conforms to Scripture, or it has become an intellectual and "reformed" yet pseudo-biblical framework which you use to eisegete the texts of Scripture? For Scripture DOES NOT contradict itself. If it seemingly does, then one or many parts of your theology is not biblical.

Sermon: Regeneration v. The Idolatry of Decisional 'Evangelism'

An excellent sermon by Paul Washer at the Deeper Conference, speaking about decisional "evangelism" and what really constitutes true regeneration and salvation at the Deeper Conference hosted by Way of the Master.

Especially liked the earlier part about contextualization, something that the Emerging leaning 'reformed' folks are always harping on. Also, the part critiquing the usage of the first law in the 4SL is something that we must hear. Just because our professed theology is evangelical does not give us the right to be anthropocentric and semi-pelagian in our praxis of evangelism.

[HT: Philosophy of Joel]

The ESV Study Bible: Reformed and Covenantal

Over at Reformation Theology, the blog ministry of Monergism.com (an excellent resource site I may add), the ESV Study Bible has been reviewed and found to be both unashamedly Reformed and Covenantal. This is most certainly good news indeed, and just whets my appetite for it.

The Covenant of Works by Wayne Grudem

In line with the recent assault on the idea of the Covenant of Works, and the biblical idea that the Law has the innate potentiality to save (not that it can save or was meant to save), here is an article by Wayne Grudem from his Systematic Theology on the issue of the Covenant of Works

Excerpt:

Is the covenant of works still in force? In several important senses it is. First of all, Paul implies that perfect obedience to God’s laws, if it were possible, would lead to life (see Rom. 7:10; 10:5; Gal. 3:12). We should also notice that the punishment for this covenant is still in effect, for “the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23). This implies that the covenant of works is still in force for every human being apart from Christ, even though no sinful human being can fulfill its provisions and gain blessing by it. Finally, we should note that Christ perfectly obeyed the covenant of works for us since he committed no sin (1 Peter 2:22) but completely obeyed God on our behalf (Rom. 5:18–19).

On the other hand, in certain senses, the covenant of works does not remain in force: (1) We no longer are faced with the specific command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (2) Since we all have a sinful nature (both Christians and non-Christians), we are not able to fulfill the provisions of the covenant of works on our own and receive its benefits—as this covenant applies to people directly, it only brings punishments. (3) For Christians, Christ has fulfilled the provisions of this covenant successfully once for all, and we gain the benefits of it not by actual obedience on our part but by trusting in the merits of Christ’s work. In fact, for Christians today to think of themselves as obligated to try to earn God’s favor by obedience would be to cut themselves off from the hope of salvation. “All who rely on works of the law are under a curse....Now it is evident that no man is justified before God by the law (Gal. 3:10–11). Christians have been freed from the covenant of works by virtue of Christ’s work and their inclusion in the new covenant, the covenant of grace.