Comments on Founders Ministries Blog: Vines on Calvinism

Read the post, read the comments, have 2 things to...

2008-03-19T04:46:00.000-04:00

Read the post, read the comments, have 2 things to say. While it may seem that Vines is just a little off, whenever you hear a theologians rebuttals cater to human rationalle and feel good answers, you have big trouble. Read them again and think about how he speaks, to whom his remarks lend themselves to. Ask yourself where you have heard that before, whos arguments are similar?

Sounds to me like a step away from much of what Brian McLaren and the emergent movement are saying.

Point number 2 is this, I read a lot of peoples comments saying we need to be kind Vines etc. Remember that there are sheep and there are wolves in sheeps clothing. It is black or white, true or false, and however small the difference may seem, it *will* become a chasm when everything is shaken up, as history has proven. Stop and follow his logic, watch where it begins to take you and ask yourself if you want to go there.

If you think, pray, and look closely at what has happened in the past, everything will look much clearer.

Gray said, (Re: Vine) "He poisoned the well with m...

2006-10-30T01:51:00.000-05:00

Gray said, (Re: Vine) "He poisoned the well with many comments. . ." It actually was a local congregation that drank from it and their clapping gave an indication of their thirst for more. We find in Scripture when the waters have been poisoned, the Lord provided a solution! Preaching the Doctrines of Grace will provide the cure. The elect will hear it. John 6:37 is guaranteed.
In reference to the disparaging remark made in that sermon on Dr John Gill, I would encourage all to read Dr Gill's work. Gill had some tendencies in some areas on hyper-calvinism, but to blast him as such is in error. If the Lord tarries for another hundred years, Dr Gill will still be read, some of "us" won't!! May the Lord help us all to grow in grace,

Scott:I want to believe that, if pressed, Dr. Vine...

2006-10-27T23:48:00.000-04:00

Scott:

I want to believe that, if pressed, Dr. Vines would admit that the fall affected Adam's will. However, you are correct in your assessment of his comment.

Craig, I'm assuming this was a cut and paste of so...

2006-10-27T14:53:00.000-04:00

Craig, I'm assuming this was a cut and paste of someone else's work by the way it is written. BTW, I'm pretty sure Metzger died a few years ago, so the present tense is probably not accurate.

All I have to say is, if you are going to be a man of integrity, by this standard, you have to reject the KJV as well. It's text is a translation from a composite Greek text that stems from Erasmus, a Pelagian Roman Catholic who argued against God's salvation through faith alone in the 16th Cent against Luther. He wasn't just involved like Metzger. He was the sole compiler. He added to the text things that Rome wanted him to add and he perpetuated variants with poor attestation. What Bible do you suggest we read now?

BRUCE METZGEROne of the editors of the United Bibl...

2006-10-27T14:18:00.000-04:00

BRUCE METZGER

One of the editors of the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament is Bruce Manning Metzger. Metzger is George L. Collord Professor of New Testament Language and Literature, Princeton Theological Seminary, and he serves on the board of the American Bible Society. Metzger is the head of the continuing RSV translation committee of the apostate National Council of Churches in the U.S.A. The Revised Standard Version was soundly condemned for its modernism when it first appeared in 1952. Today its chief editor sometimes is invited to speak at Evangelical forums. The RSV hasn’t changed, but Evangelicalism certainly has!

Metzger was the chairman for the Reader’s Digest Condensed Bible and wrote the introductions to each book in this butchered version of the Scriptures. The Preface claims that "Dr. Metzger was actively involved at every stage of the work, from the initial studies on each of the sixty-six books through all the subsequent editorial reviews. The finished condensation has received his full approval." The Condensed Bible removed 40% of the Bible text, including the warning of Revelation 22:18-19! In the introductions to the books of the Reader’s Digest Bible, Metzger questions the authorship, traditional date, and supernatural inspiration of books penned by Moses, Daniel, and Peter, and in many other ways reveals his liberal, unbelieving heart. Consider some examples:

Genesis: "Nearly all modern scholars agree that, like the other books of the Pentateuch, [Genesis] is a composite of several sources, embodying traditions that go back in some cases to Moses."

Exodus: "As with Genesis, several strands of literary tradition, some very ancient, some as late as the sixth century B.C., were combined in the makeup of the books" (Introduction to Exodus).

Deuteronomy: "It’s compilation is generally assigned to the seventh century B.C., though it rests upon much older tradition, some of it from Moses’ time."

Daniel: "Most scholars hold that the book was compiled during the persecutions (168-165 B.C.) of the Jewish people by Antiochus Epiphanes."

John: "Whether the book was written directly by John, or indirectly (his teachings may have been edited by another), the church has accepted it as an authoritative supplement to the story of Jesus’ ministry given by the other evangelists."

1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus: "Judging by differences in style and vocabulary from Paul’s other letters, many modern scholars think that the Pastorals were not written by Paul."

James: "Tradition ascribes the letter to James, the Lord’s brother, writing about A.D. 45, but modern opinion is uncertain, and differs widely on both origin and date."

2 Peter: "Because the author refers to the letters of Paul as ‘scripture,’ a term apparently not applied to them until long after Paul’s death, most modern scholars think that this letter was drawn up in Peter’s name sometime between A.D. 100 and 150."

Metzger’s modernism was also made plain in the notes to the New Oxford Annotated Bible RSV (1973). Metzger co-edited this volume with Herbert May. It first appeared in 1962 as the Oxford Annotated Bible and was the first Protestant annotated edition of the Bible to be approved by a Roman authority. It was given an imprimatur in 1966 by Cardinal Cushing, Archbishop of Boston, Massachusetts. Metzger wrote many of the rationalistic notes in this volume and put his editorial stamp of approval on the rest. Consider some excerpts from the notes:
INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT: "The Old Testament may be described as the literary expression of the religious life of ancient Israel. ... The Israelites were more history-conscious than any other people in the ancient world. Probably as early as the time of David and Solomon, out of a matrix of myth, legend, and history, there had appeared the earliest written form of the story of the saving acts of God from Creation to the conquest of the Promised Land, an account which later in modified form became a part of Scripture. But it was to be a long time before the idea of Scripture arose and the Old Testament took its present form. ... The process by which the Jews became ‘the people of the Book’ was gradual, and the development is shrouded in the mists of history and tradition. ... The date of the final compilation of the Pentateuch or Law, which was the first corpus or larger body of literature that came to be regarded by the Jews as authoritative Scripture, is uncertain, although some have conservatively dated it at the time of the Exile in the sixth century. ... Before the adoption of the Pentateuch as the Law of Moses, there had been compiled and edited in the spirit and diction of the Deuteronomic ‘school’ the group of books consisting of Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, in much their present form. ... Thus the Pentateuch took shape over a long period of time."
NOTES ON GENESIS: "[Genesis] 2.4b-3.24 ... is a different tradition from that in 1.1-2,4a, as evidenced by the flowing style and the different order of events, e.g. man is created before vegetation, animals, and woman. ... 7:16b: The Lord shut him in, a note from the early tradition, which delights in anthropomorphic touches. 7:18-20: The waters covered all the high mountains, thus threatening a confluence of the upper and lower waters (1.6). Archaeological evidence suggests that traditions of a prehistoric flood covering the whole earth are heightened versions of local inundations, e.g. in the Tigris-Euphrates basin."

NOTES ON JOB: "The ancient folktale of a patient Job (1.1-2.13; 42.7-17; Jas. 5.11) circulated orally among oriental sages in the second millennium B.C. and was probably written down in Hebrew at the time of David and Solomon or a century later (about 1000-800 B.C.)."

NOTES ON PSALM 22: "22:12-13: ... the meaning of the third line [they have pierced my hands and feet] is obscure." [Editor: No, it is not obscure; it is a prophecy of Christ’s crucifixion!]

NOTES ON ISAIAH: "Only chs. 1-39 can be assigned to Isaiah’s time; it is generally accepted that chs. 40-66 come from the time of Cyrus of Persia (539 B.C.) and later, as shown by the differences in historical background, literary style, and theological emphases. ... The contents of this section [chs. 56-66] (sometimes called Third Isaiah) suggest a date between 530 and 510 B.C., perhaps contemporary with Haggai and Zechariah (520-518); chapters 60-62 may be later."

NOTES ON JONAH: "The book is didactic narrative which has taken older material from the realm of popular legend and put it to a new, more consequential use."

INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT: "Jesus himself left no literary remains; information regarding his words and works comes from his immediate followers (the apostles) and their disciples. At first this information was circulated orally. As far as we know today, the first attempt to produce a written Gospel was made by John Mark, who according to tradition was a disciple of the Apostle Peter. This Gospel, along with a collection of sayings of Jesus and several other special sources, formed the basis of the Gospels attributed to Matthew and Luke." [Editor: The Gospels, like every part of the New Testament, were written by direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This nonsense of trying to find ‘the original source’ for the Gospels is unbelieving heresy.]

NOTES ON 2 PETER: "The tradition that this letter is the work of the apostle Peter was questioned in early times, and internal indications are almost decisive against it. ... Most scholars therefore regard the letter as the work of one who was deeply indebted to Peter and who published it under his master’s name early in the second century." [Editor: Those who believe this nonsense must think the early Christians were fools and the Holy Spirit was on a vacation.]

NOTES FROM "HOW TO READ THE BIBLE WITH UNDERSTANDING": "The opening chapters of the Old Testament deal with human origins. They are not to be read as history ... These chapters are followed by the stories of the patriarchs, which preserve ancient traditions now known to reflect the conditions of the times of which they tell, though they cannot be treated as strictly historical. ... it is not for history but for religion that they are preserved ... When we come to the books of Samuel and Kings ... Not all in these books is of the same historical value, and especially in the stories of Elijah and Elisha there are legendary elements. ... We should always remember the variety of literary forms found in the Bible, and should read a passage in the light of its own particular literary character. Legend should be read as legend, and poetry as poetry, and not with a dull prosaic and literalistic mind."

This is the same type of rationalistic wickedness that appears in Metzger’s notes in the Reader’s Digest Condensed Bible. This modernistic foolishness, of course, is a lie. The Pentateuch was written by the hand of God and Moses and completed during the 40 years of wilderness wandering hundreds of years before Samuel and the kings. The Old Testament did not arise gradually from a matrix of myth and history, but is inspired revelation delivered to holy men of old by Almighty God. The Jews were a "people of the book" from the beginning. The Jewish nation did not form the Bible; the Bible formed the Jewish nation! In Metzger’s "Introduction to the New Testament" in the New Oxford Annotated Bible, he completely ignores the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and claims that the Gospels are composed of material gathered from oral tradition. The Bible says nothing about this, but Jesus Christ plainly tells us that the Holy Spirit would guide the Apostles into all truth (John 16:7-15). The Gospels are the product of divine revelation, not some happenstance editing of oral tradition.
Bruce Metzger is a Liberal. He piously claims on one hand that the Bible is the inspired Word of God; but out of the other side of the mouth he claims the Bible is filled with myth and lies. He denies the Bible’s history, its miracles, and its authorship, while, in true liberal style, declaring that this denial does not do injustice to the Word of God, for the Bible is not "written for history but for religion" and is not to be read "with a dull prosaic and literalistic mind"!

Metzger has been called an Evangelical by some who should know better, but upon the authority of the man’s own writings, I declare that Bruce Metzger is an unbeliever. He is a false teacher. He is apostate. He is a heretic. Those are all Bible terms. Having studied many of the man’s works, I am convinced those are the terms which must be applied to him. One Baptist writer partially defended Metzger to me with these words—"he did write a superb pamphlet in 1953 refuting the Jehovah’s Witnesses and defending the full and absolute deity of Christ." Even the Pope of Rome defends the full and absolute deity of Christ. A man can defend the deity of Christ and still be a false teacher. A man who denies the written Word also denies the Living Word. They stand or fall together. If the Bible contains error, Christ was a liar. If Christ is perfect Truth, so is the Bible.

In The New Testament, Its Background, Growth, and Content, which appeared in 1965, Metzger claims that "the discipline of form criticism has enlarged our understanding of the conditions which prevailed during the years when the gospel materials circulated by word of mouth" (p. 86). Not so. Form criticism is that unbelieving discipline which claims that the Gospels were gradually formed out a matrix of tradition and myth. Form critics hold a wide variety of views (reflecting the unsettled and relativistic nature of the rationalism upon which they stand), but all of them deny that the Gospels are the perfect, verbally inspired, divinely-given, absolutely infallible Word of God. Metzger says, "What each evangelist has preserved, therefore, is not a photographic reproduction of the words and deeds of Jesus, but an interpretative portrait delineated in accord with the special needs of the early church" (Ibid.). Metzger is wrong. The Gospel writers have indeed given us, by divine revelation, a photographic reproduction of the words and deeds of Jesus Christ. Praise God for it!

I have always respected Dr. Vines and have thought...

2006-10-27T12:14:00.000-04:00

I have always respected Dr. Vines and have thought of him as a kind and generous man.

I know that his attempt was to be fair and balanced in his treatment of this issue, but it simply wasn't. He poisoned the well with many comments...but just the fact that this shows up in a series along with liberalism, pentecostalism, and alcoholism/libertinism is a sad misrepresentation.

Tom, Thanks for the fair review of Dr. Vines. Did...

2006-10-26T20:42:00.000-04:00

Tom,

Thanks for the fair review of Dr. Vines. Did you notice that he used pre-fall Adam to demonstrate the Arminian concept of free will? When God told Adam, "of all the trees you may freely eat" Vines added, "That sounds like free will to me." Isn't that borderline Pelagianism? I mean, to say that our wills are exactly like Adam's was before the fall, this is what Pelagius taught.

Hi Jay,I think we are defining worship differently...

2006-10-26T19:44:00.000-04:00

Hi Jay,
I think we are defining worship differently. When I say "worship" I am talking about the Biblical use of the word "to bow down to" something as a means of submissive communion with God. You seem to be using it in a more general theological sense in which we stand in awe of God's attributes: His glory, His power, etc. (I think of Luther when you mention the thunderstorm). I don't have a problem with anything you said and agree that those are times to really stand in awe of God.

But worship is a little different. As I stated before, if worship means to bow down to something. Then when we are commanded to worship God in the Scripture, we are commanded to bow our minds and wills to His. We don't know God's will apart from special revelation.
I understand your point that we shouldn't act as though Scripture does not have the context of natural revelation, but that wasn't really my issue. Mine was more that one cannot go out and worship God through a thunderstorm by itself, but one can worship God through the Scripture by itself. We all need certain extrabiblical elements to understand Scripture (i.e. natural revelation, logic and a brain with sense perception). But I wouldn't say that one who has a brain can worship God with it just because he has it. I guess my point would be that with all of the extrabiblical elements one can obtain, he is still not capable of worshiping God (if in fact worship is to conform one's mind and will to God's). Scripture really then becomes the ONLY means through which he can do so, since it is the only element that allows him to use all of the other elements in order to know the mind and will of God. Do you see what I mean? or am I being confusing? So I would never argue that one worships God possessing only the element of Scripture and not the element of the mind or context of the world and language, but rather that it is the only element that allows one to worship God as a means to be conformed to His will. He uses all elements to worship, but only one is a means that exists to communicate His mind and will. Make sense?
Let me give an example:

"9 Only be careful, and watch yourselves closely so that you do not forget the things your eyes have seen or let them slip from your heart as long as you live. Teach them to your children and to their children after them. 10 Remember the day you stood before the LORD your God at Horeb, when he said to me, "Assemble the people before me to hear my words so that they may learn to revere me as long as they live in the land and may teach them to their children." 11 You came near and stood at the foot of the mountain while it blazed with fire to the very heavens, with black clouds and deep darkness. 12 Then the LORD spoke to you out of the fire. You heard the sound of words but saw no form; there was only a voice. 13 He declared to you his covenant, the Ten Commandments, which he commanded you to follow and then wrote them on two stone tablets." Deut 4

Notice that there is a lot of smoke and darkness and clouds, etc. (a lot of natural revelation going on), but God warns them not to concetrate on that, but instead the Ten Commandments that were given. They saw no form, but instead a voice. Their "seeing" God has to do, not with the natural elements surrounding the event (which communicate some of His attributes), but rather with what He speaks, His voice, which communicates His will.

I guess I am concerned with the idea that one can commune with God through nature when the Scripture teaches that it is through the Scripture itself. I don't want to ramble on when you probably get my point. Van Til's thing seems to be just an acknowledgement that we exist in the world and with that includes an already existing presupposition of natural revelation. But if that is true, I don't really need to try to know anything about God through it as it will already be there (thus the disposition of the Gentile in Rom 1). Instead my focus should be on that which clearly reveals His will so that I can worship/bow down to Him through it.

When we let Scripture order and interpret natural revelation, we are really worshiping God through special revelation, never natural. The natural interpreted via another means is always disasterous (Rom 1). But we stand in awe of the entire world around us and in that way give thanks for what God has made and done. So I don't really disagree with anything you've said here. The only disagreement is that Biblically one is worship to think with God's mindset and will and the other is more of a state of awe, or a recognition of certain attributes of God.

The only reason I think it is important to dinstiguish the two is because there is a huge movement in our time to see the means of communion and worship of God more broadly because of certain views of Scripture and certain views of man and his abilities to discern God on his own (I know this is not what you were saying); but I feel this trend is really leading us into idolatry, not of worshiping a different god, but of the golden calf sort, where we are trying to worship Yahweh via the wrong means, which is unacceptable to Him.

Thanks again, Jay. I probably just rambled on even though I was trying to keep it short. take care and God bless.

Tom Ascol wrote:"Dr. Vines message screams for a r...

2006-10-26T18:40:00.000-04:00

Tom Ascol wrote:

"Dr. Vines message screams for a response from denominational leaders who never hesitate to issue warnings to Southern Baptist Calvinists whom they label 'Calvinazis'...."

I am not familiar with any "warning" or pronouncement of that nature made to anyone by a Southern Baptist official ACTING AS A DENOMINATIONAL OFFICER.

Calvinist or no, SBC officials can blow smoke and warn all they want, but they have no authority to do so (supposedly), and no teeth with which to enforce any such "warning."

Tom, I am surprised at your call for such a warning against Dr. Vines -- or anyone else. I am quite sure you understand the nature of local church autonomy according to SBC principles.

That being said, Vines is indeed incorrect about SB history with regard to its generally Calvinist origins. MOST (not all) SB's prior to 1900 were indeed "5 point" adherents. That's why you all needed a few Reformation Arminians to join up and set you all straight! (For those Calvinists without a sense of humor -- that's a JOKE).

J. Dale Weaver, M. Div.

Bristopoly,I am thinking of worship in terms of ho...

2006-10-26T00:04:00.000-04:00

Bristopoly,

I am thinking of worship in terms of honoring God and giving thanks to God for who he is. Or, to put it another way, glorifying God in all we do.

I am tracking with you that general revelation is inadequate to be a means of worship. But I don't think that means general revelation cannot be included as a means of worship subordinate to Scripture. In other words, I wouldn't want to totally disregard any aspect of God's revelation as a means of worship when rightly ordered and interpreted.

I agree that general revelation will only be rightly understood when interpreted through the grid of specific revelation. I also agree that general revelation alone is insufficient to be a means of worship. Specific revelation is needed to guide us in that endeavor.

My point is that we should be careful not to separate general from specific revelation. I agree with Van Til's assessment that we would be unable to think at all apart from general revelation. How would I know what the Scripture means when it refers to a tree, a Lamb, a field, a pearl, bread, etc. apart from general revelation? Also, the human mind itself is part of the general revelation.

I think Protestants have tended to react so aversely to the abuses we've seen in Roman Catholicism that we sometimes try to isolate specific revelation from general revelation in an attempt to purify doctrine.

Surely the Bible has priority, but I don't think it should be isolated as the only means of worship. Apart from general revelation the Bible would make no sense at all. The general revelation gives us many of the categories we need to be able to understand specific revelation and vice versa. Of course, in all revelation we are dependent on the illumination of the Holy Spirit to guide us into truth and thus direct us to Christ.

Maybe it would be better to think of revelation as the only means of worship, including both aspects. Priority should certainly be given to specific revelation. Where would we turn without the Scriptures? But we should also recognize the absolute need for general revelation.

Personally, I find the Spirit directing my thoughts to interpret the general revelation according to specific revelation and leading me to worship our trune God often. Of course, my mind does not always remember a particular Scripture, but because of Scripture I know that what I see is declaring the glory of God in Christ. For instance, a thunderstorm can be a very intense means of worship. The sunsets in Texas are spectacular and often lead me to honor God and give thanks to him with my thoughts. I think the Psalmists do the same with regularity. I also think we do it in our hymnody. Take How Great Thou Art for instance. It is very much full of natural imagery and very much a means of worship for my soul.

I wonder if you have had similar experiences?

Jay

Hi Jay, thanks again for the great conversation,Na...

2006-10-25T15:25:00.000-04:00

Hi Jay, thanks again for the great conversation,

Natural revelation must be interpreted through special revelation and therefore it is inadequate to worship God. That's why worshiping God through nature, like trees or such, are out. The word worship itself in the Bible means "to bow down" to something. So since we worship an invisible God, the Sinai Theology teaches us to bow our minds, spirits, emotions down to the revealed Word. By doing so, we are bowing down to God through it (spoken words which are not physical either) rather than through something physical (which is a means of communication of God's attributes, but not His will and therefore it is inadequate to bow down to, i.e., worship). Men are judged for denying the attributes that are due to God by changing His attributes to those of men (thus displaying their inherited rebellion toward Him and their subsequent just condemnation).

Please let me be clear, I am definitely not saying that we should worship the Bible. But the Sinai theology teaches that we cannot worship God, who is "otherworldly" without a means. And the means He has chosen is what He speaks, not what He physically creates. Men used idols to worship their gods who were seen by them as "otherworldly." God replaces idols with His spoken word. So it is the idol of God in that we bow our minds and wills down to it. Not because it is God, but because it is our only sufficient expression of His mind and will that we have in order to know Him. In fact, temples in the ancient Near East are made to house idols, not gods. That is a common misunderstanding. People don't worship idols in the ancient Near East as we understand worship today. They "bow down" to idols, but they are doing so to "worship" the gods through those idols. So idols are a means of worship. The Bible, the Words written to be spoken not the pages, ink and leather, is therefore THE only means through which we can worship God (that's why the High Places in the Deuteronomistic History are considered evil by God and no legitimate worship can be done away from the tabernacle/temple in Jerusalem--hence the primacy of Zion, etc.). John's point concerning the Samaritan woman is actually that of Deut 4---that it is not through something physical (like going to a mountain or temple or later in his Gospel through seeing physical signs or physically even seeing Christ Himself) through which one must worship God, but in an invisible way through the revealed truth of Jesus and His apostles.

Regarding the treatment of the Bible:
No one worshiped the temple or the ark in the OT unless they were in sin, but no one treated them as common either. My point was that I doubt the profs are telling anyone to worship the Bible, since only God can be worshiped; but rather that Christians should treat it as their meeting place with God rather than a floor ornament or drink holder. Moses took off his shoes, not because he worshiped the ground, but because he realized the ground upon which He stood was sacred because of Him with whom he had communion there. The same for the temple or anywhere the revealed Word went (from Sinai to the tabernacle to the temple to the church etc.).

Does that help at all. In what way were you defining worship? If it's just being in awe of God, then that can be through anything (although we still need the Word to interpret the natural revelation). But if defined Biblically, the Bible really is the only means through which we can worship Him.

God bless, Jay.

Bristopoly, Great questions! Help me if I'm wrong,...

2006-10-25T14:30:00.000-04:00

Bristopoly,

Great questions!

Help me if I'm wrong, here's my basic understanding of revelation:

I understand that the Bible is the specific revelation of the triune God that culminates in Christ and everything else that exists, except God, is general revelation. I am thinking in terms of anything that reveals God being a means of worship, whether general or specific revelation. All nature reveals knowledge in divinity, and people are condemnable for not worshipping God according to that knowledge (Rom 1).

I do give the Bible priority though, since it is the only way we can come to know Christian divinity. (I agree with Jonathan Edwards's view as outlined in his sermon "Christian Knowledge") But I couldn't say that the Bible is the only means by which Christians worship God. I think we also worship him through general revelation. And we do so necessarily as an aspect of our creatureliness (Cornelius Van Til has a great explanation of the vital relationship between general and specific revelation. I think he must have read Edwards :-)

Also, I think you and Metzger are correct. The manuscripts we have today accord with one another with amazing consistency. That leads me to believe that the original text has not been lost in most cases. My point was not that the original text has been completely lost, just the autographs (The actual original manuscripts as laid out by the original human authors).

Also, I do view the Bible as holy, if you mean set apart from other books. The Bible is special and it should be appreciated as a great gift from God to his church. But it is not holy in the same way God is holy. It is certainly set apart from all other books, but it is not set apart from the creation. If the Bible was holy in the same way God is holy then no sinful creature could be in its presence. God's holiness is not comprehended in the Bible. Only God is divine. Only he should be worshipped in spirit and in truth.

I think part of the religious tendencies of depraved creatures is to worship places, buildings, books, etc. rather than what they represent. Jesus seems to be making this point when he speaks to the Samaritan woman in John 4.

I am a Puritan at heart, and I think the Bible should be front and center in the Church's worship of God. But it should not be worshipped. God should be worshipped through the preaching of his Word.

Again, thanks for the great questions. I don't think you are splitting hairs. These are fundamental issues that we have to be clear about. As I read Ascol's blog, I am encouraged about the future of the SBC. I am encouraged that SBC ministers are actually taking the time to talk over the fine points of doctrine.

Not that you have done this at all, but sometimes I am very disappointed at the senseless bickering and backbiting that goes on between brothers in discussing the doctrines of grace. What a contradiction! It makes me question the legitimacy of their conversion and the authenticity of their faith. I'm not really surprised by it though. The way is narrow and there are few who find it. We should be clear and straight with one another, but we should never be unkind. Amen?

Blessings to you,

Jay

I just wanted to clarify that I didn't mean Vines ...

2006-10-25T02:14:00.000-04:00

I just wanted to clarify that I didn't mean Vines doesn't know God, but rather he is a case in point of someone who holds up the Bible as infallible and then fails to really exegete it properly when it comes to something like the Doctrines of Grace.

Stilldesiring,why would you say that to me when al...

2006-10-25T02:08:00.000-04:00

Stilldesiring,
why would you say that to me when all I did was point out to you your uncharitable readings of me?

You said I contradicted myself.
You were wrong.

You said I misquoted Jay or took his words via Craig.
You were wrong.

That's all i said. Can you not be corrected, brother, without taking it as hostility? In essence, there is absolutely no reason that your gut should tell you to respond unkindly to me as though I was mean to you like Craig was to Jay. I would have expected an apology for misreading me for both this time and last time. Instead, I either got silence or further aggression (in the form of passive dismissal). You wronged me by misreading me and misreprenting me. Please don't act like its the other way around. It's my gut that should feel unkind. :)

Hi Jay, thanks for the clarification. I understand...

2006-10-25T02:00:00.000-04:00

Hi Jay, thanks for the clarification. I understand your concern. I too am tired of hearing how perfect and infallible the Bible is and then have men not preach from it or go off three hours on a story unrelated to Scripture or simply not bothering to exegete it. I however would caution that the Bible is not just "a" means, but "the" means of worshiping God (I wasn't sure if that was a slip or not). The theology taught in Exodus, the Deuteronomistic History and the Gospel of John is that one cannot know God without it, so it becomes THE means to worship Him (hence cultural expressions like images are out). I realize you may be using the term "worship" a little more broadly, so I'll let you clarify that. However, I agree with your concern as one does not necessarily know God with it either. This sermon by Vines is a case in point.

I don't know if this is splitting hairs, but I just wanted to clarify that, with all the variants in papyri, codices, patristic quotes, lectionaries, etc., every Text Critic will admit that the problem we have is not that we don't have the original text, but that we have more than the original text (I think even Metzger that you cited as a source says this as well). We don't have too little, we have too much. So it's not that the text is lost, but that it must contend with other variants (most of which teach the exact same thing, as you say, with few exceptions). I think with all difficulties presented to us with the Scripture is why God supplies us with teachers to wade through it.

Just to defend a little those who may want you to treat the Bible itself better. I realize you may be defining worship more broadly, but... If you have a theology like that of the Sinai theology in Scripture and you take into account that you meet God there, then you would tend to treat it as holy, not as a common book. We have kind of gotten away from calling it the "Holy Bible" (i.e., the "Holy Book") and now call it just the "Bible" (i.e., the "Book"). Our attitudes toward it are a bit reflective of our view of what it is. One could not profane the temple even though the temple was not the Word of God (it merely housed it) or the Ark (once again only containing it, but not the Word of God itself). So I understand why some profs would say that. Their concern is probably more of the attitude toward Scripture however that we often reflect when we smack the Bible down on the floor or put a soft drink on top of it like a cup holder, etc.

thanks for good conversation, Jay. Let me know if I have misunderstood you somewhere. God bless.

Bristopoly,My gut tells me to respond with unkindn...

2006-10-25T01:57:00.000-04:00

Bristopoly,

My gut tells me to respond with unkindness, but the Scriptures tell me otherwise. I love you and pray the best for you.

I leave you with our triune God and pray that your ministry might honor him.

Blessing to you,

stilldesiringGod

A seminarian taught me that. ;-|

Jay, nicely put. Your four years at Dallas have se...

2006-10-25T01:48:00.000-04:00

Jay, nicely put. Your four years at Dallas have served you well.

Bristopoly,Yes, I am thinking of the term inerranc...

2006-10-25T01:14:00.000-04:00

Bristopoly,

Yes, I am thinking of the term inerrancy as 100% by definition. Only the autographs can be regarded as inerrant.

I think you are right to say that the manuscripts we have today in the original languages do indeed deliver a very true representation of the autographs. However reasonable that view is (and I think it is most reasonable), it is still a belief. It is a non-falsifiable truth claim. In other words, I think we just can't prove our faith. But we can certainly demonstrate it and have it strengthened through historical evidences.

If I might speculate a moment, I believe it is certainly likely that our God allowed the originals to be lost and somewhat corrupted in transmission so that we would not worship the text itself. Personally, I think that is what a lot of pastors who harp on inerrancy are doing. I do not doubt the sincerity of their intentions. Most of them probably do so out of a real desire to see God glorified through his Word. I'm sure that most of them are far more powerful preachers than I could ever hope to be. Nonetheless, an undue focus on the perfection of a text, whether actual or supposed, is idolatry.

I admit, the line between appreciation and worship is fine. It's a delicate balance that no depraved man could ever completely secure. But it's the impossibility of reaching the goal that makes it worth striving after. Though we can't become holy this side of heaven, we certainly strive for holiness. But I digress.

I believe that the Word of God is wonderful and beautiful and absolutely reliable. I believe it is the only place we can turn to find specific revelation of our triune God. What a gift God has given his people! I am indebted to my school, Dallas Seminary, for instilling a respect for the authority of the Bible in me. But I've also heard professors at DTS teach that we should be careful where we sit our Bibles and how roughly we handle them, in order to properly reverence it as God's Holy Word. I think that is going to far.

I affirm the Chicago Statement and am very glad that it was formulated. The autographs of the Scriptures have to be considered inerrant in order for us to be consistent in our belief in the integrity of God. But ultimately it is the integrity of God that we should trust. It is God that we should worship. The Bible is a means to that end. We trust it, because it is from a trustworthy God.

Does that make sense? I hope I haven't been confusing. Thanks for taking time to interact. I enjoy talking with fellow brothers in the faith. I pray we might be able to encourage one another towards love and good deeds.

Blessings to you,

Jay

Just to clarify: I actually didn't contradict myse...

2006-10-24T21:08:00.000-04:00

Just to clarify: I actually didn't contradict myself as if I said: We can know with absolute certainty 100% of the original Greek text and then said we can only know 99%. I never said such a thing. My point was that we can know what the original said, most with certainty and a small portion with probability. To say that it is a contradiction to write that "we can know the original text says" means "we can know 100% of the original text with absolute certainty" is reading a bit into it. I was simply trying to communicate the point that we are not unaware of what the original said---as many people seem to give off that impression---as though the text is lost.

Secondly, I wasn't quoting Jay or Craig. I was gaining an impression from Jay's comments and not sure if he was saying that we didn't know what the originals looked like. That's why I used an "if" in the protasis. You seem to miss those "ifs" Stilldesiring. That's the second time you called me out on a comment I made while igoring that I said "if this is the case, such and such is true" (my "ifs" are indicating that there is some question as to whether what I am stating is true or not). I am therefore open to the person I am quoting to clarify. So I haven't misrepresented anyone here. Please be more generous when you read what is written if you are going to call someone out on it.

I'm not sure how a discussion of historic (Calvini...

2006-10-24T18:02:00.000-04:00

I'm not sure how a discussion of historic (Calvinistic) v. modern (Arminian) Baptist soteriology degraded into a debate on King James Onlyism.

The King James Version, translated by Puritan scholars whose faith in the sovereignty of God was not shaken by their awesome scholarship, fully supports Calvinistic soteriology. The great Baptist Calvinistic writers and preachers of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries had only the KJV as their English Bible.

Calvinists have no reason to disagree with Luther in his assessment of John 3:16 as the Gospel in miniature.

Rather, Craig begs the question as to what the verse actually says. It says "whosoever believeth in him." It doesn't say that any whosoever has the power to believe in him. That is the way that it is preached by modern Arminian Baptists but that's not what (the KJV) says.

The problem with a lot of KJV preachers is not that they don't know Greek; it's that they don't know Elizabethan English. "Whosoever believeth" means "whoever believes." It doesn't speak to moral ability. It doesn't tell us who will or who can believe.

Whoever believes in him will not perish but have everlasting life. But all will not believe. Sinners cannot believe, not because there is something wrong with their faculties, but because they hate God. They cannot believe unless they are born again.

But God does gloriously save sinners, convincing them of sin, of righteousness and of judgment, through the preaching of the glorious Gospel of His Son. Not all are saved, but "as many as were ordained to eternal life believed". (Acts 13:48b KJV)

That is Calvinistic theology. You can learn it from the KJV, as your Baptist forefathers did, if you will read it with an open mind.

Jay, I will take it if you don't. We have been wor...

2006-10-24T17:58:00.000-04:00

Jay, I will take it if you don't. We have been working with Craig from Georgia for a while now and then he pops off with this nonsense?! Has he even bothered reading anything that we have posted?! It seems he is just looking for a fight and has found the Founders blog to do it. Jay, you have answered very well in your responses and I hope that I will be able to retrieve these from the archives for future reference for myself. As for Craig, are you a member of a religious cult? Your arguments are the exact same I have encountered ministering to cult members who believe they are Christians. I believe this is also why Bristopoly wrote and asked if you were Roman Catholic. And speaking of Bristopoly, if you are going to address someone on a blog, please try to not do it third person, we can all get into tangents and chasing rabbits. You tried to make a decent point but ended up contradicting yourself when you said Jay doesn't believe we know the Greek (according to Craig, according to you) and then you say we know 99% of it. Well, you just proved, then, 1% we do not know! Perhaps, if Craig was quoting Jay correctly and you were quoting Craig correctly then Jay was right all along. But do you see why it is silly to follow tracks in blogs? It is like our Baptist churches favorite sin, gossip. It catches wildfire and spreads without the ability to contain it. Go back to the source. I am not going off on you. You have been helpful in your counsel to Craig and I am very sorry he has attacked our brother the way he has. Jay, thank you for staying the course and fighting the temptation to go off. I had another guy on here lose it and I was like, okay, I will just stop typing and let his silliness stand for others to read. But with such an outright attack, you showed incredible restraint. So Craig, this studying you did 15 years ago, why do you feel it was so sufficient that it was above error or that it could not be improved upon? You have at least three Christians who have been consistently coming alongside of you encouraging you to study to show yourself approved unto God, not us, but Him. You do not answer to us, but God. But we have been placed in your life for a short season to help you. Are we all wrong? I would say we are all right as we stand with the overwhelming majority of the thousands who frequent this blog. Do you know more than us? Perhaps? But that is what you are gambling on. That 15 years ago an opinion formed about a subject was going to be sufficient for the rest of your life. One quick point and I will be done. There is a woman who is dear to my family. She is a charismaniac. She has told me that she has come to conclusion about the particular issues that divide evangelicals and those on the fringe and has determined her beliefs and that there is no need to study anymore what Scripture has to say on any of those subjects. I told her she has created a god in her own image. When you no longer need the God of Holy Scripture to keep illuminating you to the truth in His Word, you have created a God in your own image you created yourself. You sir, are walking down a dangerously similar path. You have made a god out of translations and condemned another man for falling in love with God's precious Revelation to us and the purity of His Word. What would make you do such a thing? Is this rebuke? Yes, you are rebuked for condemning your brother and rejecting the holiness of God's true Word. I admonish you to do your homework. Life is not over yet. You, sir, have applied your theological presuppositions to John 3:16. You have placed your theological grid onto the text and are afraid of the truth. If you would submit to the truth then you would be required to change your beliefs. As you have already admitted, 15 years of beliefs die hard. Submit to the authority of Scripture, not presuppositions, Sunday School lessons, my daddy's view, or old Pastor so-and-so. Do you due diligence, study, study, study, study, and when you feel like quitting, good, recognize you are human and repent of that in God's strength and go study some more. It is all about Him! His glory! His renown! His fame! What have we to offer? Submission. Keep going! Persevere! Press on for the prize! Okay, this is long enough. Peace.

Craig from Georgia,My gut tells me to respond with...

2006-10-23T22:50:00.000-04:00

Craig from Georgia,

My gut tells me to respond with unkindness, but the Scriptures tell me otherwise. I love you and pray the best for you.

I leave you with our triune God and pray that your ministry might honor him.

Blessing to you,

Jay

Craig From Georgia,Then you accept that Paul contr...

2006-10-23T16:24:00.000-04:00

Craig From Georgia,
Then you accept that Paul contradicts himself in the Book of Acts when it says in the KJV that those who were with Paul "heard" the voice and then that those who were with Paul did not "hear" the voice? Or do you have to look at the original Greek to understand that something else is going on there? John 3:16 reads very differently in the Greek than it does in man-made traditional English translations that pretty much follow the poetry of the KJV. How do you know the KJV is more accurate than Luther's Bible in German or the NWT of the JW's? The NT is written in Greek and therefore its inspiration (God's breathing out) is through the Greek. I am not arguing that God does not preserve the message or the authority of the message in a translation, but when men translate that Word and then make false theological claims based on inaccurate translations of individual words (and the nature of language itself dictates that inaccuracies will be made even if there were no blame to lay at the translator's feet), then going to the original Greek (since God in His infinite wisdom has preserved it for the Church) is the most responsible thing to do if one honors the Word of God rather than the Word of Man. Do you check what your pastor says in a sermon against the translation. Is not his quoting the text or even teaching from it a translation of a translation? You always check the source. If the foundation is wrong, the whole building collapses.

I do disagree with Jay if he is saying that we don't know what the original Greek says. I would say that if one works hard enough to know the discipline that you can be sure of 99% of the readings that matter and the other 1% is either of no weight theologically, or if it is, has its probabilities one way or the other. But you have to move past the first few years of TC and start to know the mss individually as well as following the Biblical text through an argument and then seeing how a reading fits or does not fit into that argument, etc.

One last thing, Craig, you are trusting in the translators of your English Bible as much as Jay is trusting in scholars. So you are trusting in scholars and Jay is trusting in scholars. You're both in the same boat unless you become experts in the various fields. Are you Roman Catholic? How do you know your English Bible is true if you don't consult the Greek? You trust that God will bring you into the truth through teachers. Jay does the same. How are you different?

JayThanks for your gracious responses. Anytime a p...

2006-10-23T13:11:00.000-04:00

Jay

Thanks for your gracious responses. Anytime a person has to consult “the Greek” to explain a plain straight forward passage like John 3:16, tells me that person is trying to make the Word of God fit their theology rather than let the Bible dictate correct theology to them. You never change up the Word of God to match your theology, but then according to what you say you don’t have the Word of God. As far as you’re concerned it’s lost somewhere in the multiplicity of Greek texts For all practical purposes you’re no different than the Catholic church except while they depend on the priest to tell them what God has said, you’re depending on the scholars to tell you what God has said. You’re more concerned with “The Chicago Statement” than believing that God just might be wise and powerful enough to not only inspire His words, but preserve them for us. Where in the Bible does it say inspiration extends only to the original autographs?

“No serious student of the Bible”

You’re not a student of the Bible; scholarship yes, the Bible, no.

“There are clearly discrepancies in the texts we have”

Yes, I agree there are discrepancies in the texts you have.

“while we do not have an inerrant Bible today, the basic message of the Bible is still absolutely reliable”

How about the very words of God? Are they available?

The words of the LORD are pure words (Psalm 12:6)

Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. (Luke 21:33)

“God has preserved his Gospel“. “We should not trust in a wrong and easily falsifiable view of inerrancy, but in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”

How do you know for sure what the Gospel of Jesus Christ is if you don’t have an inerrant Bible?

“Where else can we turn but the Bible to find specific revelation about our gracious God?”

But your Bible is not the Word of God, but only contains the Word of God….somewhere.

Please spare me your scholarolotry. I set myself to studying the issues about 15 years ago. I have weighed the modern scholars in them balances and found them wanting.

“Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.”

Josh, I don't know if you ever got an answer, so h...

2006-10-23T02:08:00.000-04:00

Josh, I don't know if you ever got an answer, so here's mine.

Robertson is a great grammar, but it is an advanced grammar, so use Mounce to learn basic Greek instead. Keep Robertson because it is a very good resource, but realize also that it is a bit dated in some respects. Wallace is a good intermediate grammar, but also is confused with respect to the Greek verb and a few other issues. So read Porter, McKay, Carson, etc. on the verb when you get to that level, but just concern yourself with Mounce at first. I think there is a handbook on Biblical Exegesis in that same series that takes you step by step in learning how to diagram and do your own lexicography. If you need anymore help with anything, you can email me at scholasticboy2000@yahoo.com. Hope that helps.

To Jay: Don't forget the DSS for the Hebrew OT. That has been a huge help in getting to the original text as well when compared to the MT.