my thoughts, musings, rants and discoveries . . .

This is certainly a topic that I could beat to death if I desired. It appears to be getting much coverage on various other sites, including on some of those linked to this site. So, I really don’t want to go down the path of re-hashing the same old arguments.

How then can we have a meaningful discussion on this subject? Aren’t there certain foundational principles which I must lay out there in order for us to proceed?

There probably is much that I could lay out there to adequately cover this subject. But it is one that tires me as it’s steeped in irrationalism on many sides. My purpose for this post is to clear up a few things to those who actually believe in Christ and in the inerrancy of scripture.

I feel led to clarify some things, here, because of certain events over the past couple of weeks, which have really tired me out. The two primary issues I’ve been dealing with have had to do with KJVO (King James Version Onlyism) and New or Special Revelation.

With respect to KJVO teachings, there’s not much to say. Such teachings are unscriptural in just every respect. How does one actually become convinced that there is only one body of scripture and that it happens to manifest itself in the 1611 King James bible? What about the first century church and the disciples? Well, that’s probably not fair because they actually walked with Christ and spoke with him. And the apostles must have had a great memory in order to infuse what they had heard and memorized to their followers. But it starts going downhill from there. Is it plausible to sustain such word of mouth preservation for fifteen centuries, only to have it finally recorded in English?

Think about that for a second. The early chuch didn’t speak English. In fact, it would be almost four centuries before English would even come into existence. Hmm. So, if it wasn’t preserved verbally to be later deposited onto paper, it must have been preserved via writing. Right? Well, that’s the general understanding of most who believe in the doctrine of preservation and inerrancy. In fact, most would consider that the promise was kept by ensuring the word of God was written by inspired men who recorded that body of doctrine in their own languages as they were moved by the Holy Spirit of God.

This leads me to what I am concerned about. It isn’t the individuals who believe in a form of double inspiration. Nuts will reveal themselves as such. It’s inevitable. My concern is for those who actually take the stance to defend the scriptures we hold dearly against those who stand as a threat. This concern is motivated by the trend to compare one English version against another as a means of dismantling the arguments of the KJVO crowd.

I hope you see where I am going with this. The answer to defending against KJVO positions is not to substitute the KJV with NAS or NKJV or NIV or anything else of the sort. Some of these claim to be literal translations. Others are mere paraphrases of scripture. But they all leave something out in translation. This is because not everything in Greek or in Hebrew is readily translated into English. And this isn’t just because all three languages possess a different alphabet. And it’s not that each language has different connotations for certain words. While all of this is true, the problem gets exacerbated because of different grammars with each language.

To illustrate this point, let’s consider a quick comparison of English vs. Greek imperatives (commands). In the English, we certainly have an imperative (e.g. Eat your vegetables!). But is it an imperative of urgency or of constancy? In other words, should I eat my vegetables right away as if my life depends on it or should I eat them the rest of my life because they’re good for my health? In this example, unless I can hear the tone of the command, I cannot understand the proper context. Well, believe it or not, the scriptures can actually shout.

In the Koine Greek, there are two major types of imperatives. There is the present imperative, which suggests constancy or consistency. Then there is the more emphatic aorist imperative, which brings urgency with it. Going back to the example above, use of the present imperative would encourage me to eat my vegetables for the rest of my life because they’re good for me. If I were to record the same statement using the Greek aorist imperative, it would literally jump out at me and tell me to do it with immediacy and with extreme importance.

Now the problem arises when one tries to use a literal, word-for-word translation or version, because if I were to translate each of the words from Greek to English, I could do so without specifying what type of imperative was actually implied. But the problem goes beyond just verbs. Unlike English, Greek verbs also carry with them the notion of number and person. So, “eat” could be the 2nd person singular form of the verb, which we would translate as “you eat”, though we wouldn’t say “you” because it would be implied in English by who we are addressing and telling to eat. But in Greek, if we really want to make this emphatic, we’d also add the 2nd person singular pronoun “you”. Remember that the number and person is also inherent in the conjugation of the verb. So, if this sentence also contained such a pronoun, it could be translated, “You, you better eat your vegetables right now”. Now, we’ve just taken an aorist imperative and given it further emphasis.

At this point, you might wonder why these English translations don’t take this into account. They could, but most people wouldn’t buy them because they’d be awkward to read. Plus, historically, pastors and teachers would be required to obtain adequate training in Greek and in Hebrew through their seminary training. However, the 20th century placed such institutions under incredible scrutiny and as a result many pastors have what is often referred to as a bible college education devoid of training in the original languages.

Of course there are many schools that profess to provide such training. They’ll even make a couple semesters of each a degree requirement. But secretly, these schools teach the alphabet and teach how to use concordance tools to look up all of the variant translations of a particular word, all the while undermining the necessity of going much further.

Unfortunately, word searches can be quite devastating to biblical theology and to sound hermeneutics. Let’s consider for example Ephesians 2:8-9, “For by grace are you saved through faith and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God lest any many should boast.”

Most Christians would look at this verse and affirm in their heart as well as aloud that salvation is a work of God’s grace. But what’s the instrument of such salvation? Well it’s faith. Right? The answer is yes, though the implications are different for different folks because of translation.

If we look at that phrase “through faith” it is one of the easiest verses to hack via a concordance. Well, why is that? If you were to click on the word “through”, you might find the following meanings: “through”, “by”, “because of”, or “on account of”. That’s because the Greek word “dia” can be translated in several ways based on its declension or ending. If it’s used in the Genitive case (case of possession), it means “by” or “through”. However, if it’s used in the Accusative (case of the direct object), it means “because of” or “on account of”.

Then there’s faith. A search of this word is pretty simple as we’d see that it’s usage is much simpler such as “faith”, “belief” or “conviction”. So, is one saved because of his faith? Or does grace deposit faith resulting in salvation? The implications for either stance are great. If we say that we’re saved because of our faith, then salvation is a man-produced work. If we do this, he’ll do that. If we believe the passage’s testimony that faith is not of ourselves, but the gift of God, then God is truly the author and finisher of our faith. In other words, he initiates it in us and then he brings it to completion.

How then shall we decide? Doesn’t this all boil down to a controversy in interpretation? And isn’t this subject to our individual presuppositions? Truly all of this comes into play, here, if we’re not careful. The answer must be in the text and it must be consistent with other text or it’s a false interpretation.

That simple phrase in its original language is “dia pistews”. The “w” represents the transliteration of the Greek letter Omega. It’s pronounced as a long “o”, not that it matters for this discussion. It’s just in case you want to tell someone about it. Anyway, the phrase contains the genitive form of the word faith. The accusative form is “pisten”. So, when we look at it together, we arrive at grace and salvation being “by faith” or “through the instrument of faith”. This makes sense because the rest of the passage goes on to tell us that this is the gift of God and that it’s not of one’s own nature or volition so that no one can ever boast.

When we consider this textual interpretation with the rest of the body of scripture, we can have confidence that the text has done us justice. In Romans we’re told that he leads us unto repentance. We’re told in Hebrews he’s the author and perfector of our faith. And Philippians tells us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling because it’s God who actually works within us both the notion to will and to work anything in behalf of his good pleasure.

If God does all of these things in the scriptures, how can we replace any of it, let alone all of it, with the idea that somehow man injects his own quality and morality to affect the equation? So we can arrive at a specific soteriology of doctrine, not by other men, not by the church we go to, but by the text of scripture as they are recorded in their original language.

In order for us to derive significant value from an English version, we must depend on our existing presuppositions to interpret this passage either way. This is why the duty of pastors and teachers is so laborious in dividing the scriptures rightly and in equipping the saints.

For those breaking out of such movements as KJVO, moving to another version may help. But it may not be enough to answer the real questions or to defend a particular doctrinal stance. Rather, the student must be dependent on other tools to go about his task. And this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. But it can be.

This leads me to my second observation and concern over the sufficiency of scripture for the believer. It’s much easier to agree with the notion of sufficiency than it is to actually live by it. To say that we believe in such sufficiency is to say that we believe the word of God and the illumination of the Holy Spirit is fully adequate to not only give us our body of faith in the first place; it’s also capable of making us aware of doctrine and to subsequently obey doctrine.

All of this came up in various forms this week. There were certain individuals arguing against doctrine because they believed it was derived by churches and by denominations. Since such entities are fallible, one couldn’t necessarily depend on doctrine to live by. Then there were those who believed we’re all elevating the scriptures all too much. A distinction was being made over whether we should focus on the logos (written word of God) or on the rhma (spoken word of God).

Let’s take a slight dive into the later part of the raised issues. Written vs. spoken word. I should remind you that I’m addressing folks who claim to believe in inerrancy, inspiration and preservation of scripture. Now for the question. Who of you was arround and walked with Christ and was a 1st generation disciple of his? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

My point is this, none of us were around to hear Christ personally teach those around him. But this doesn’t take away from the messages he spoke. We depend on what was spoken on a daily basis. But there are some tests that must be applied for us to know what was and was not spoken:

1) We could physically hear what was said and taught by either being present when he spoke or we could have a trusted audio recording of the conversation. While this is quite possible in our day with our technology, it’s not possible for the first century. They hadn’t even invented refrigeration to make good grape juice.

2) We could have a written account of what was said that is verified by a trusted witness. Well, this is the more likely route for us. First of all these men were all moved and inspired by the Holy Spirit. The scriptures were literally breathed into them as they recorded them. That’s great for back then. What about now? The good news is that the same Spirit that spoke these words through these men, now indwells every believer. This means the same agent that spoke the words, is the same one that ensured they were recorded and is the same one that testifies to our spirit that we can trust the written word, which is a recording of the spoken word. Hmm. I hope that made sense. Should I repeat it?

Because we have this dependable witnessing between the Spirit and the scriptures, we are capable of moving out of the subjective mysticism of other religions and are able to live in the objective reality of the Christ and his discipleship. If this ceases to be the case, we are merely discipled to men or to a cause. But because of the nature of the Godhead and the relationship between the Holy Spirit and the word of God, all true believers, in our generation, are able to be personally discipled just as those that physically walked with our Lord.

Now, there are some who believe this isn’t a wholly sufficient system for us. They believe there is a distinction to be made between the written word of God and the spoken word of God such that we should pay special attention to the spoken word because it’s still being spoken today. This notion of new or special revelation is quite disturbing. Why? The proponents of this thinking say they believe in the inerrancy of the written word, but that we perhaps elevate it too highly in our lives and we need to listen more to the voice of God. All of this may sound ultra spiritual, but it really isn’t. It’s actually an attack on scripture, though it’s subtle in form.

To say God is still speaking to his saints in such a way that the new revelation is of greater significance than the word we have recorded, is to suggest either God is unfinished or God has changed. If God is unfinished in his revelation to us, then how can we test what he is saying to us? John tells us in his first epistle to test the spirits that we encounter to determine whether they’re of God. And what new thing do we expect to hear from God that isn’t already covered in scripture?

If God has changed his mind and presents a doctrine that is different than something previously recorded, then how can we trust anything that we already have and how can we trust any new directive to remain unchanged? The answer is we can’t. This is the danger of making either God’s character or his word mutable.

All of this objection is really nothing more than a means of drawing attention. Such proponents seem to have trouble being consistent in their Christian living, so they must come up with both an excuse and a means of suggesting they’ve actually leaped a level. Bear in mind that the coveting of spiritual gifts is nothing new. Paul dealt with it extensively. But it goes back further than even that. Remember when Moses received the tablets from God? Well, while he was away, his countrymen were busy trying to re-fashion God into an image. They weren’t content in the way God spoke to them. They needed more. And they were also envious of other religions and the fact they felt their gods could be seen.

Well, that’s pretty much all I wish to say on this at this point. As I’ve said, I’ve been dealing with this a lot over the last couple of weeks on different sites and in different conversations. I thought it necessary to place my thoughts on my site.

Sorry for not throwing out a ton of scripture on this. Have at it or simply request my supporting verses for any particular point. My assumption is that you know what I’m talking about and simply need to be reminded.

-Mike

What a tremendous church we find mentioned here in Revelation 3:7-13. The church at Philadelphia was noted by Christ as keeping his word. And, we really don’t find any blemish with this church or with the leadership, though I’m quite sure they had their faults. After all, they were human.

But unlike some of the others, they adhered to the doctrine, which was laid out by the disciples. They maintained their faithfulness to God’s word, despite those amongst them who stood to stifle their daily walk.

What I think is especially noteworthy is that Christ calls out the fact they had those amongst them calling themselves to be Jews, but who weren’t. Unlike the church at Ephesis, which spent their daily energy seeking out all false believers among them, this church kept their priorities straight. They demonstrated Christ’s mandated love for one another, for their neighbors and for their enemies. As such, Christ promised to personally deal with these false Jews and cause them to bow down and to know that Christ loved these particular people.

This is critical to bear in mind in our day. Never before have Christians had so much access to older writers and defenders of the faith. And I’m thankful for this. But I’ve also noticed it’s easy for those who consider themselves reformed and conservative to sit on top of their own pedestals looking down on others.

I have to admit, I’ve become a little distant these days with all of the Spurgeon and other quotes– not that I don’t love Spurgeon. But I am concerned there are many who are still missing the point. Spurgeon, Calvin, Edwards and others may have been great men. But they were still men. And I would go as far as to say they were not inspired in the same fashion as the apostles and prophets who were used by God to provide the scriptures to us.

For this reason, I would rejoice to see a revival of studying the text in the original languages to derive those wonderful doctrines we hold dear. After all, all doctrine is found in scripture. And through careful exegesis and sound hermeneutics, we should each be able to defend our faith and to quiet the critics who would say we only arrive at our thoughts from those authors we read.

Thanks for visiting and hope you will leave your comments.

-Mike