Exclusion in the Church

*Since this post, I have had the opportunity to speak with Mr. DeVries concerning his post to which I respond below. Apparently his post in no way referred to salvation. But rather his "use of the terms "exclusion" and "inclusion" were not dealing with salvation, but with boundaries and invitation". To see his response, go here and look for it under his original post - as well as a "thanks for the clarification" from me. With that said, I vehemently disagree with the position of the UCC - the denomination that funded the commercial - on their "ONA Program" (Open and Affirming Program). Click here to see what this is all about. And I understand what Mr. DeVries was attempting to say. But I still see one major flaw. The commercial he enjoyed wasn't saying that God calls all persons to repentance and faith. It basically asserts that God is not exclusive whatsoever, so it doesn't matter "where you are on life's journey." He still accepts you. And by acceptance they (UCC not Mr. DeVries) don't mention - or believe for that matter - that His acceptance must and will surely bring about radical life change. So, is God exclusive? Yes and no. He calls all persons to repentance and faith. But he in no way allows certain lifestyle choices to continue if one is truly a child of His.

No topic of which I am aware is more prevalent in modern (Emerging?) Evangelicalism today than the topic of exclusion in the Church. I fully understand that people are trying to guard the "Come to Me" aspect of Christ - which is often times lost in many scholastic circles. But in the process of trying to appeal to all persons, the truth is often sacrificed.

Here is a recent post by a gentleman named Mike DeVries. He makes the following statement in regards to an advertisement supporting inclusivism in the church:

It reminds me that Jesus reserved his harshest [sic] words for religious leaders - those who drew boundaries of who was in and who was out, those who chose the path of exclusion over inclusion, and the way of judgment over the way of love.

I think I understand what he is trying to say. But I think he is missing some crucial information. Jesus was harsh toward the Pharisees because of many reasons, not just there exclusiveness toward sinners - yes, that was a major point of dispute (Luke 15), but it wasn't the only point. He also condemned them because of the following:

1. They accuse Him - the Son of God - of being demon possessed (Mark 3:22).
2. They were the ones to whom the law was given. And those to whom much is given, much is expected (Luke 12:48).
3. They were hypocrites (Matt. 6:2,5,16; 15:17; Mark 7:6; Luke 11:44).
4. They were lovers of money, not God (Luke 16:14).
5. They were men "pleasers", not God "pleasers" (Matt 5-7).
6. They shut the kingdom of God from people (Matt 23:13).

The exclusion that angered Jesus was censorious exclusion. So while He did speak harshly of the Pharisees for their censorious, hypocritical exclusiveness, He was in no way advocating inclusivism.

Here is a copy of a refutation of his (Mike DeVries) article, which can be found here:

Hi Mike,

I don't know whether to laugh at the commercial (the ejector seat part - those people went flying!) or not. But it was definitely interesting.

I hope this isn't too long. But I feel that this is an extremely important discussion. I hope that you will read my refutation with patience, meekness, and a discerning heart - as I too hope that I will do the same in regards to any future interactions.

"It reminds me that Jesus reserved his harshed words for religious leaders - those who drew boundaries of who was in and who was out, those who chose the path of exclusion over inclusion, and the way of judgment over the way of love."

Absolutely - to an extent. Jesus was the one who ate with "sinners and tax collectors" (Luke 15) - the despised of the religious elites during the first century.

But as Romans 2:4 makes clear, "Do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?"

God is patient. He calls all men to embrace the Gospel of Jesus Christ, leading to repentance. He wants men and women of every tribe, tongue, nation, creed, etc to come to Christ in repentance, faith, love, joy, hope, trust, submission, and truth. And because He is holy and cannot look upon sin, there must be a covering - an imputation of His righteousness so that we can be made right with the God of Glory and Holiness (2 Cor. 5:21, 1 Peter 2:24, Isaiah 53).

"Jesus once said, "I am the way and the truth and the life." Perhaps Jesus was reminding us that his way of living was "the true way of living" - the way of grace, the way of accpetance, the way of embrace, the way of love, the way of generosity, the way of compassion, the way of inclusion, the way of forgiveness, the way of restortation."

Interesting that you quote this passage as a text supporting inclusion when if you read the rest of the passage he is actually being very exclusive: "Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" (John 14:6). He is answering Thomas' question of how one can get to the Father, or heaven (verses 1-5). And His answer is exclusive. He says in effect, "I am the only Way to heaven."

I don't believe that Jesus is simply saying, "Follow my example." That would be impossible. We can't feed 4000 people from a couple loaves of bread and a few fish. We can't calm the seas. We can't walk on water. We can't raise the dead. We can't call ourselves "I AM." We can't call ourselves the "Lord of the Sabbath."

This doesn't mean that we ought not attempt to follow Christ's example. For clearly we are commanded to "be holy as He is holy." But we can't only assume that He was a good moral example. He was and is so much more. He is Lord. He is the eternal Son of God. He is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life."

He absolutely accepts all types of people, without exception. But He has radical demands for those that would come to Him: "I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish" (Luke 13:3,5). These words of Jesus are loving, forgiving, and caring. But they are also stern and unwavering in accordance with the Truth.

Brother, please don't think that I am in any way attacking you. I am not. I am merely confronting your viewpoint. If I have in any way offended you by my "tone" (I appologize - one can't tell tone over the computer that well). But please know that I am in no way heated. I am merely pointing out things that I believe are apparent flaws in modern, liberal, neo-orthodox theology. And I trust that as fellow brothers in Christ we can continue to glorify Christ by seeking Truth through reasonable disputations.

Matt 9:13 - "For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance."

Mark 2:17 - "They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

Matt 3:2 - "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!"

All of Jesus' stern words - and there are many throughout the Gosplels - were intended to bring people to Him in faith. And He makes it clear that we must obey His commands if we are to be called lovers of God: "You are My friends if you do what I command you" (John 15:14). And what He commands is that the Gospel of His death and resurrection leading to justification, sanctification, and glorification, all to the glory of God, would be preached to all men, without exception (Matt. 5:16; 28:19-20; Rev. 22:17).

Here are a couple of verses in closing that are requirements for believers after true conversion:

1 John 3:9 - "No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God."

1 John 2:15,16 - "Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world."

So in closing, thank you Mike for posting on such an important Christian truth.

We must love our enemies. We must love them as ourselves. We must love our brethren. We must actually exalt them (enemies and brethren) higher than ourselves. We must preach the Gospel that Jesus commanded, the Gospel of repentance leading to faith. Jesus made it clear that He came to reconcile sinners to God. But in the process, He knew that many would reject Him and His truth leading to this stern remark, "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword" (Matt 10:34) and this one, "Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division" (Luke 12:51).

So while Jesus calls all persons to come to Him, for He alone is the Way to heaven, He in no way advocates, or is even tolerant of certain lifestyle choices, certain beliefs, and certain acts that many people in the church today attempt to claim are acceptable.

Again, I hope this wasn't too long. But I truly do feel that this is an extremely important discussion. Thanks for the forum.

May the Grace of God be with you.


In the Love of Christ Jesus our Lord,

Austin Smidt

Weighing Heavy on my Heart

"We want to link arms around the gospel with those who affirm the true gospel, even if there are some important doctrinal differences in other areas [emphasis mine]."

This is a quote from an article written by an elder at Grace Community Church named Nathan Busentiz. His article addressed the fellowship and united service of persons in the ministry who hold differing view points - he specifically addressed the charismatic camps (Mahaney, Grudem, and Piper) who often serve together with cessationists (MacArthur, Sproul, and Duncan). The general point that Busenitz drives home is that "even if there are some important doctrinal differences" between the two sides, they ought to still be able to serve Christ with one another because the essential, foundational truths of the Gospel are affirmed by all parties.

This is something that has been weighing heavily on my heart for the past few months. As I encounter Christians with whom I have differing beliefs, I often find that many of them are unwilling to engage in any sort of reasonable disputation for fear of being "unloving" or "divisive." I can understand the desire to stay away from unfruitful conflict. But I truly don't believe that expressing my theological differences with a fellow brother or sister in Christ is necessarily a bad thing. Granted it can become a bad thing if our prides or tempers flare. But if we are both truly children of the Living God, wouldn't we want to engage in humble, truth-seeking dialogue? "Iron sharpening iron." So often it seems as though the Charismatics stay on their side of the fence; the Pentecostals stay on their side of the fence; the Reformed brethren stay on their side of the fence; the Baptists stay on their side of the fence. And not many of them are willing to engage in, or even see the benefits of, edifying conversation with people with whom they disagree (I just chose to mention a few random sects, it's not by any means an extensive list, but the full list goes on and on and on).

(Please don't misunderstand me. I do know quite a few men and women of differing theological beliefs with whom I have had the blessing to engage in truth seeking, God glorifying conversations. And if you are one of them, I thank God for you.)

My point is that the body of Christ (the whole body) is supposed to be one (1 Cor. 12:12-26). We are commanded to love one another as brothers and sisters of the heavenly household of God. We are to love one another earnestly (1 Peter 4:8). We are commanded to "Let brotherly love continue" (Hebrews 13:3) - which implies that it already exists. So in light of this prevalent command in Scripture, I think that we ought to attempt (when possible) to engage in these types of tender, kind, loving, stern, God-exalting, Christ-centered disputes, not run from them.

It is my hope that we Christians, from assorted denominational backgrounds, can in fact put our differences on the table and "link arms around the gospel" so that we all might grow in the knowledge of our great God and Savior who "bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness" (1 Peter 2:24). One day soon we will all be standing before King Jesus. And I hope that none of us will be ashamed of our dealings with our brethren in this lifetime.

Lord help us!

Maranatha!

Together for the Gospel

Here is the entire purpose statement and confession given at the Together for the Gospel Conference:

We are brothers in Christ united in one great cause - to stand together for the Gospel. We are convinced that the Gospel of Jesus Christ has been misrepresented, misunderstood, and marginalized in many churches and among many who claim the name of Christ. Compromise of the Gospel has led to the preaching of false gospels, the seduction of many minds and movements, and the weakening of the church's Gospel witness.
As in previous moments of theological and spiritual crisis in the church, we believe that the answer to this confusion and compromise lies in a comprehensive recovery and reaffirmation of the Gospel - and in Christians banding together in Gospel churches that display God's glory in this fallen world.
We are also brothers united in deep concern for the church and the Gospel. This concern is specifically addressed to certain trends within the church today. We are concerned about the tendency of so many churches to substitute technique for truth, therapy for theology, and management for ministry.
We are also concerned that God's glorious purpose for Christ's church is often eclipsed in concern by so many other issues, programs, technologies, and priorities. Furthermore, confusion over crucial questions concerning the authority of the Bible, the meaning of the Gospel, and the nature of truth itself have gravely weakened the church in terms of its witness, its work, and its identity.
We stand together for the Gospel - and for a full and gladdening recovery of the Gospel in the church. We are convinced that such a recovery will be evident in the form of faithful Gospel churches, each bearing faithful witness to the glory of God and the power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.


Article I
We affirm that the sole authority for the Church is the Bible, verbally inspired, inerrant, infallible, and totally sufficient and trustworthy.
We deny that the Bible is a mere witness to the divine revelation, or that any portion of Scripture is marked by error, incompleteness, or the effects of human sinfulness.

Article II
We affirm that the authority and sufficiency of Scripture extends to the entire Bible, and therefore that the Bible is our final authority for all doctrine and practice.
We deny that any portion of the Bible is to be used in an effort to deny the truthfulness or trustworthiness of any other portion. We further deny any effort to identify a canon within the canon or, for example, to set the words of Jesus against the writings of Paul.

Article III
We affirm that the truth ever remains a central issue for the Church, and that the church must resist the allure of pragmatism and postmodern conceptions of truth as substitutes for obedience to the comprehensive truth claims of Scripture.
We deny that truth is merely a product of social construction or that the truth of the Gospel can be expressed or grounded in anything less than total confidence in the veracity of the Bible, the historicity of biblical events, and the abilityof language to convey understandable truth in sentence form. We further deny that the church can establish in its ministry on a foundation of pragmatism, current marketing techniques, or contemporary cultural fashions.

Article IV
We affirm the centrality of expository preaching in the church and the urgent need for a recovery of biblical exposition and the public reading of Scripture in worship.
We deny that God-honoring worship can marginalize or neglect the ministry of the Word as manifested through the exposition and public reading. We further deny that a church devoid of true biblical preaching can survive as a Gospel church.

Article V
We affirm that the Bible reveals God to be infinite in all his perfections, and thus truly omniscient, omnipotent, timeless, and self-existent. We further affirm that God posesses perfect knowledge of all things, past, present, and future, including human thoughts, acts, and decisions.
We deny that the God of the Bible is in any way limited in terms of knowledge or power or any other perfection or attribute, or that God has in any way limited his own perfections.

Article VI
We affirm that the doctrine of the Trinity is a Christian essential, bearing witness to the ontological reality of the one true God in three divine persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each of the same substance and perfections.
We deny the claim that the Trinity is not an essential doctrine, or that the Trinity can be understood in merely economic or functional categories.

Article VII
We affirm that Jesus Christ is true God and true man, in perfect, undiluted, and unconfused union throughout his incarnation and now eternally. We also affirm that Christ died on the cross as a substitute for sinners, as a sacrifice for sin, and as a propitiation of the wrath of God toward sin. We affirm the death, burial, and bodily resurrection of Christ as essential to the Gospel. We further affirm that Jesus Christ is Lord over His church, and that Christ will reign over the entire cosmos in fulfillment of the Father's gracious purpose.
We deny that the substitutionary character of Christ's atonement for sin can be compromised or denied without serious injury, or even repudiation, of the Gospel. We further deny that Jesus Christ is visible only in weakness, rather than in power, Lordship, or royal reign, or, conversely, that Christ is visible only in power, and never in weakness.

Article VIII
We affirm that salvation is all of grace, and that the Gospel is revealed to us in doctrines that most faithfully exalt God's sovereign purpose to save sinners and in His determination to save his redeemed people by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, to His glory alone.
We deny any teaching, theological system, or means of presenting the Gospel that denies the centrality of God's grace as His gift of unmerited favor to sinners in Christ can be considered true doctrine.

Article IX
We affirm that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is God's means of bringing salvation to His people, that sinners are commanded to believe the Gospel, and that the church is commissioned to preach and teach the Gospel to all nations.
We deny that evangelsim can be reduced to any program, technique, or marketing approach. We further deny that salvation can be separated from repentence toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.

Article X
We affirm that salvation comes to those who truly beleive and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.
We deny that there is salvation in any other name, or that saving faith can take any form other than conscious belief in the Lord Jesus Christ and His saving acts.

Article XI
We affirm the continuity of God's saving purpose and the Christological unity of the covenants. we further affirm a basic distinction between law and grace, and that the true Gospel exalts Christ's atoning work as the consummate and perfect fulfillment of the law.
We deny that the Bible presents any other means of salvation than God's gracious acceptance of sinners in Christ.

Article XII
We affirm that sinners are justified only through faith in Christ, and that justification by faith alone is essential and central to the Gospel.
We deny that any teaching that minimizes, denies, or confuses justification by faith alone can be considered true to the Gospel. We further deny that any teaching that separates regeneration and faith is a true rendering of the Gospel.

Article XIII
We affirm that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to believers by God's decree alone, and that this righteousness, imputed to the believer through faith alone, is the only righteousness that saves.
We deny that such righteousness is earned or deserved in any manner, is infused within the believer to any degree, or is realized in the believer through anything other than faith alone.

Article XIV
We affirm that the shape of Christian discipleship is congregational, and that God's purpose is evident in faithful Gospel congregations, each displaying God's glory in the marks of authentic ecclasiology.
We deny that any Christian can truly be a faithful descipple apart from the teaching, discipline, fellowship, and accountability of a congregation of fellow disciples, organized as a Gospel church. We further deny that the Lord's Supper can faithfully be administered apart from the right practice of church discipline.

Article XV
We affirm that evangelical congregations are to work together in humble and voluntary cooperation and that the spiritual fellowship of Gospel congregations bears witness to the unity of the Church and the glory of God.
We deny that loyalty to any denomination or fellowship of churches can take precedence over the claims of truth and faithfulness to the Gospel.

Article XVI
We affirm that the Scripture reveals a pattern of complementary order between men and women, and that this order is itself a testimony to the Gospel, even as it is the gift of our Creator and Redeemer. We also affirm that all Christians are called to service within the body of Christ, and that God has given to both men and women important and strategic roles within the home, the chuhrch, and the society. We further affirm that the teaching office of the church is assigned only to those men who are called of God in fulfillment of the biblical teachings and that men are to lead in their homes as husbands and fathers who fear and love God.
We deny that the distinction of roles between men and women revealed in the Bible is evidence of mere cultural conditioning or a manifestation of male oppression or prejudice against women. We also deny that this biblical dinstinction of roles excludes women from meaningful minstry in Christ's kingdom. We further deny that any church can confuse these issues without damaging its witness to the Gospel.

Article XVII
We affirm that God calls his people to display his glory in the reconciliation of the nations within the Church, and that God's pleasure in this reconciliation is evident in the gathering of believers from every tongue and tribe and people and nation. We acknowledge that the staggering magnitude of injustice against African-Americans in the name of the Gospel presents a special opportunity for displaying the repentence, forgiveness, and restoration promised in the Gospel. We further affirm that evangelical Christianity in America bears a unique responsbility to demonstrate this reconciliation with our African-American brothers and sisters.
We deny that any church can accept racial prejudice, discrimination, or division without betraying the Gospel.

Article XVIII
We affirm that our only sure and confident hope is in the sure and certain promises of God. Thus, our hope is an eschatological hope, grounded in our confidence that God will bring all things to consummation in a manner that will bring greatest glory to his own name, greatest preeminence to his Son, and greatest joy for his redeemed people.
We deny that we are to find ultimate fulfillment or happiness in this world, or that God's ultimate purpose is for us to find merely a more meaningful and fulfilling life in this fallen world. We further deny that any teaching that offeres health and wealth as God's assured promises in this life can be considered a true gospel.

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you - unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.... - I Corinthians 15:1-4

Then I saw another angel flying directly overhead, with an eternal gospel to proclaim to thhose who dwell on earth, to every nation and tribe and language and people. And he said with a loud voice, "Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has come, and worship him who made heaven and earth, the sea and the springs of water." - Revelation 14:6-7

Signed: J. Ligon Duncan III, Mark E. Dever, C.J. Mahaney, R. Albert Mohler, Jr., John MacArthur, John Piper, R.C. Sproul.

HT:Jeremy Haywood

The Atonement

Here is a great article by Mark Dever on the atonement.

In case I don't get the opportunity to post before Sunday, Happy Resurrection Day!!!

Two Different "G"od's in the Bible?

Often times, skeptics of the Bible will make the assertion that the God of the Old Testament is very different than the God of the New Testament. They claim that the God of the Old Testament was mean and angry; impatient and vengeful; unforgiving and unloving. Whereas the God of the New Testament is forgiving, loving, patient, and never vengeful.

These assertions are completely unfounded. Recently I came across one of the sweetest, most heart-breaking texts of the Bible, Jeremiah 3. In Jeremiah 3, God is beckoning His defiant, rebellious, faithless people (Israel) to repent. After forbearing hundreds-of-years of their harlotry, God calls His prophet Jeremiah to plead with them to come back to Him. This text honestly ought to bring any lover of God to tears. I can almost feel some of His pain as I read His call for reconciliation.

1 "They say, 'If a man divorces his wife, And she goes from him And becomes another man's, May he return to her again?' Would not that land be greatly polluted? But you have played the harlot with many lovers; Yet return to Me," says the Lord. 2 "Lift up your eyes to the desolate heights and see: Where have you not lain with men? By the road you have sat for them Like an Arabian in the wilderness; And you have polluted the land with your harlotries and your wickedness. 3 Therefore the showers have been withheld, And there has been no latter rain. You have had a harlot's forehead; You refuse to be ashamed. 4 Will you not from this time cry to Me, 'My father, You are the guide of my youth? 5 Will He remain angry forever? Will He keep it to the end?' Behold, you have spoken and done evil things, As you were able."

11 Then the Lord said to me, "Backsliding Israel has shown herself more righteous than treacherous Judah.12 Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say: 'Return, backsliding Israel,' says the Lord; 'I will not cause My anger to fall on you. For I am merciful,' says the Lord; ' I will not remain angry forever. 13 Only acknowledge your iniquity, That you have transgressed against the Lord your God, And have scattered your charms To alien deities under every green tree, And you have not obeyed My voice,' says the Lord. 14 "Return, O backsliding children," says the Lord; "for I am married to you. I will take you, one from a city and two from a family, and I will bring you to Zion. 15 And I will give you shepherds according to My heart, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding. 16 Then it shall come to pass, when you are multiplied and increased in the land in those days," says the Lord, "that they will say no more, 'The ark of the covenant of the Lord.' It shall not come to mind, nor shall they remember it, nor shall they visit it, nor shall it be made anymore. 17 At that time Jerusalem shall be called The Throne of the Lord, and all the nations shall be gathered to it, to the name of the Lord, to Jerusalem. No more shall they follow the dictates of their evil hearts. 18 In those days the house of Judah shall walk with the house of Israel, and they shall come together out of the land of the north to the land that I have given as an inheritance to your fathers. 19 "But I said: 'How can I put you among the children And give you a pleasant land, A beautiful heritage of the hosts of nations?' "And I said: 'You shall call Me, "My Father," And not turn away from Me.' 20 Surely, as a wife treacherously departs from her husband, So have you dealt treacherously with Me, O house of Israel," says the Lord. 21 A voice was heard on the desolate heights, Weeping and supplications of the children of Israel. For they have perverted their way; They have forgotten the Lord their God. 22 "Return, you backsliding children, And I will heal your backslidings."

I think some people want to read a passage like this and claim that God is commanding them with "thunder" to come. But I don't think that's correct. To me it seems like God is pleading out of heart-break to His beloved - his wife - to come back home.

He has always loved beyond measure. He has always been patient beyond description. And I think this text is one of the many that show His tenderness toward His beloved.

Follow Up

Upon further reflection regarding the King James only controversy, I think I have realized that many "KJV Onlyists" are possibly entrusting their faith in the wrong object. I understand their desire to ascertain absolute certitude. But our hope must not be in any single translation of the Bible.

I heard a gentleman make the comment that he uses the KJV because that's the version with which he was saved. Understandable. But God saved him, not the KJV. Christ saved him, not the KJV. The regenerating work of the Holy Spirit saved Him, not the KJV. The Word of God saved him, not the KJV. Granted, the KJV was no doubt the means by which God chose to reveal Himself to this gentleman. But it was not the saving agent.

I do not believe that the power of the Word of God is limited to a single translation. God is the "author and finisher of our faith." And I believe that He is capable of preserving His Word in any language to bring His children from all over the Earth into communion with Himself. In Him alone - as revealed in the Scriptures - our faith and hope must rest. And anything that receives our faith, as opposed to Christ Himself, is a stumbling block.

Please don't misunderstand me; I don't mean that Scripture is not important. It is of utmost importance. It is the self-revelation of God Almighty. Without it, we wouldn't be able to know God. Which is why I can't support all English translations. But as far as I know, there are many great English translations that are all very accurate and equally inspired.


Oh what a joy it would be if the wheat would grow so high that the fences would no longer be seen!

King James Only!!!

This is just a quick vent, not an exposition:

I have never actually been exposed to a clear, concise, rational argument of why certain men and women feel that the King James Bible is the only true Bible. And last night was no exception. I met a man in Santa Monica who has been a Christian for about 55 years. A friend and I began a conversation with him - just a regular "Nice to meet you" conversation. But then he made a negative comment about my pastor, to which I replied, "John MacArthur is my pastor." I wasn't defensive in my tone at all. I am used to hearing people who misunderstand other people make quick judgments. I was more curious about his reservations towards MacArthur. His answer was that "MacArthur called Erasmus (Desiderius) a humanist."

This was the catapult to the rest of the conversation, the KJV only conversation. Before I continue I must explain something. The word "humanist" as used in regard to Erasmus is not a pejorative term. Today humanism is generally understood as secular humanism, which is just another stream to the fountain of methodological naturalism. That's not the type of humanist that Erasmus was - but he was most definitely a humanist. As a matter of fact, Erasmus was called by his contemporaries, "The Prince of Humanists." Here is a definition from Wikipedia:

Renaissance humanists believed that the liberal arts (art, music, grammar, rhetoric, oratory, history, poetry, using classical texts, and the studies of all of the above) should be practiced by all levels of "richness". They also approved of self, human worth and individual dignity.

So, to make a really long story short(er), I will sum up quickly. Erasmus made a translation (actually 5 editions of his translation) of the Bible into Greek. And the KJV translators relied heavily upon the texts (the "Byzantine" texts) that would become known as the textus receptus (Eramsus' Greek translation). So if anyone were to insult Erasmus, he or she would be insulting the King James Bible.

Back to last night; since Larry (the KJV only gentleman) misunderstood the meaning of the word "humanist" he rushed to a quick judgment of Erasmus being called a humanist. That was the basis of his argument against Dr. MacArthur - a faulty argument.

So with all that said, here is the most shocking part of our conversation. After insulting MacArthur, Nestle, and Wescott and Hort he made the most shocking comment I have ever heard come out of a "student of Scripture's" mouth:

The King James Bible corrects any Greek translation of the Bible.

Granted, I am quoting what he said out of memory. But I am in no way misinterpreting what he said and meant.

I understand if someone has a translational preference. I like the King James Bible. It's a good translation. But it is in no way more authoritative than the Greek - the original language.

I really have no summation to this post. I am going to leave it open-ended so that more can be added at another time. But I will say, once again, that people need to think clearly, analytically, and thoroughly through their ideas so a faulty conclusion based on faulty reasoning is avoided.

A Proper Hermeneutic

One of the most common errors that I have witnessed in Christians circles is an improper exegesis of the Scriptures. So many problems are alleviated when one properly examines the Scriptures from an historical, grammatical, and contextual interpretation. Here are Dr. James White's necessary questions to ask oneself when studying the Bible, and tips on how to interpret the Bible properly (taken from his lecture called, "How We Got the Bible" - #476):

1. What is the main theme of the book?
2. What is the author's purpose in writing the book?
3. What is this author's background? Who is this author?
4. What is the historical setting of the book (of the writing of the book)?
5. What kind of literature is it? parable? poetry? apocolyptic? teaching?
6. To whom was it written?
7. Usage of other scriptural concepts (are there quotations from the Old Testament -what is its context? How is it used?)
8. Read the passage in at least three different translations.
9. What immediately precedes and follows the passage?
10. What is the main argument of the entire chapter?
11. What is the main point of the passage itself?
12. What is the consistent understanding of the passage in this context? and in the broad context?
13. Does my interpretation make this passage contradictory with the author himself?other biblical passages? plain common sense?
14. What other passages in Scripture bear directly on the issues raised in this passage?

Keep in mind that the above steps all assume that the Bible is in inspired - or preferably "ex-pired" - by God. It is not merely inspiring.

Further Helps:

1. List the key terms of the passage. Are their meanings clear? How do the translations differ at this point?
2. Go to a concordance for the meanings of the words in the original languages (Greek or Hebrew Lexicon).
3. Examine the usage of the word in the original language by the author in this and other books (eg. How does Paul use the term, "To know"?).
4. If it's a New Testament passage, see how the terms were used in the Old Testament; if Old Testament, see how the concept is picked up in the New Testament.
5. Determine if the phrase in question is an idiom of the language (a common phrase that might have different meanings).
6. Go into word studies, tactical studies, textual studies, etc...

I think it's safe to officially call it a "movement" now.

Cliff College is offering an MA in "Emerging Church."

Interesting... no?

HT: Tall Skiny Kiwi

Universist Movement

The Universist Movement is an international movement that is becoming more popular each day - even by many who wouldn't know to call themselves "Universists."

Here is their self-description from their webpage:

Universism is a religious philosophy that celebrates the mystery surrounding us. Universists don't pretend we have the answers, and we celebrate that fact! As Universists we do our best to seek answers, and the first step in our process of discovery is recognizing what we do not know. Our philosophy unites individuals who have held a wide variety of freethought perspectives along with those who consider themselves spiritual. Universists enjoy a vibrant, open-minded community that improves the world we live in.

Most belief systems center on your view of God. Universism breaks through this religious paradigm. It treats the God concept as one of many compelling questions concerning the nature of existence. Universism places emphasis on the attitude and spirit in which you address these religious questions, and the method you use to do so, rather than focusing on the conclusions you make. In other words, it's not what you believe - but how you believe it.

And here are five priciples that Universists share:

I. The most important activity in life is our ongoing search for meaning and purpose, through love, learning, life experience, and so on.

II. There are no absolute truths that apply universally to all people. Both the search and its fruits are inherently personal. We must remain uncertain, curious, and open-minded about our search and cannot rely on other people or documents as the source of our truths. We must judge the meaning of our own lives.

III. In any situation, moral judgments are the sole responsibility of those involved. Every decision and behavior occurs in the context of unique circumstances and relationships, and should never be subjected to universal religious codes or absolute philosophical principles. "Good or evil" is a false choice that belies the complexity of our universe and the people in it.

IV. Governments and other social structures are only useful to the extent that they facilitate flourishing. People must be able to become and remain happy, healthy, educated and able to work toward personal goals without interfering with others' ability to do the same.

V. We are free to flourish, change and create. Only the laws of nature limit our potential.

Did anyone else notice the literary suicide that was committed? After they make the claim that there is "no absolute truth," they then say that "We must remain uncertain, curious, and open-minded about our search."

There are no absolute truths that apply universally to all people. Both the search and its fruits are inherently personal. We must remain uncertain, curious, and open-minded about our search and cannot rely on other people or documents as the source of our truths. We must judge the meaning of our own lives.

Correct me if I'm wrong: isn't this a document written by someone other than myself? So, why should I believe any of it? (Actually, it seems as though their five points of belief are quite similar to a creed. It is at the very least equivalent to a doctrinal statement.)

I have so many comments regarding this movement. I am sure I could write a books-worth of refutations. But I'll let you examine the claims of the movement from their own lips, lest I be accused of misrepresentation.

Nevertheless, Maranatha!!!!