CALVINISM ON THE MARCH AMONG EVANGELICALS

A 2007 study shows that Calvinism is on the rise in the Southern Baptist Convention and is especially prominent among recent seminary graduates. Ed Stetzer, director of LifeWay Research, says that nearly 30% of recent graduates now serving as pastors are Calvinists (“Calvinism on the Rise,” Christian Post, Nov. 29, 2007). Roughly 10% of SBC pastors at large define themselves as Calvinists, but that includes only those who hold to all five points of TULIP theology and not those who hold to sovereign or unconditional election but not necessarily to all other points of Calvinism. LifeWay Research limits their surveys to a very narrow definition of Calvinism, and I suspect it might not want to know the true influence of Calvinism in the convention.

A report in Christianity Today for September 2006 was entitled “Young, Restless, Reformed: Calvinism Is Making a Comeback--And Shaking up the Church.” It documents the rapid spread of Calvinism in Evangelical circles, and I am seeing the same thing among Fundamentalists.

The report cites John Piper, R.C. Sproul, R. Albert Mohler, Louie Giglio, Joshua Harris, J.I. Packer, and the Puritans as among the chief influences responsible for the upsurge in Calvinism. Piper’s book “Desiring God” has sold more than 275,000 copies.

The trend toward the acceptance of Calvinism is evident at leading evangelical seminaries such as Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Under the direction of Al Mohler, Southern Seminary has become “a Reformed hotbed” and is turning out “a steady flow of young Reformed pastors.”

Updated March 26, 2009 (first published October 18, 2006) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org

Practice Principle

Ephesians 1:15 (ESV):

15For this reason, because I have heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love toward all the saints,



As we continue to look at Ephesians 1:13 – 23 and determine the principles needed to experience the “fullness” (v. 23) of Christ as “head” (v. 22) of the church, we will look at what Paul says is the second important principle.

Last week, Paul stated that in order to truly experience Christ as head of the church, the church must be made up of believers (v. 13 – 14). One cannot understand nor fully comprehend the true power of the church until Christ is Lord and Savior. I call this the Position Principle.

This week, we will look at what I call the Practice Principle. Look into verse 15. Paul says that the Ephesian church has put two important things into practice: Faith and Love.

First, Paul states that they have faith and that he has heard of their faith. Very possibly, the church in Ephesus put their faith into action. James (James 1:22 – 27) tells us that we must show our faith:

"22But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. 23For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror. 24For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. 25But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing. 26If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person’s religion is worthless. 27Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world."

Notice the sequence however; their working faith is step 2. A person cannot show true faith without salvation. Works religion is a dead religion.

Secondly, Paul says the church at Ephesus practices “love toward all the saints,” They loved other Christians and showed that love.
Christ told his disciples in John 13:34 – 35:

"34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. 35 By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."

We are to love other Christians, whether they are of our “fellowship” (local church) or not. If they claim the name of Christ, we are to show our love for them. Notice, Paul states that the Ephesian church had love for ALL “the saints”.

So, this week we must strive to put the Practice Principle into action. Show your faith and demonstrate Christ in the way you live first and foremost; secondly, show your love for other Christians: say a kind word of encouragement, help them with a task, pray together, and help them with a problem. Love them!

May God bless you richly this week.

No God...Know God...

This does not surprise me much. The link below is to a Fox News report concerning the “status of religion” in the United States:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,506849,00.html

According to the article, 15% of Americans say they have no religion. The article highlights how this aspect has increased over the last 19+ years, going back to a study in 1990.

This leads me to a question: why is this trend happening? Most who participate on the blog will easily answer this question. But I wanted to pose it anyway.

John MacArthur has a quote in several sermons and interviews: “Hard preaching makes soft people”; conversely, “Soft preaching makes hard people and hearts”. The world is having a hard time distinguishing between truly redeemed and from those who want to call themselves “Christian”…thus, giving people no true reason to look unto Christ. They see no need. The preaching and teaching is swallow, the music only appeals to the ears and not to the heart, and the people do not show the life of the redeemed.

This article is disturbing but also encouraging to me. As encouraging because I personally know men who are dedicated to preaching the true Word of God, staying true to the Scriptures, and proclaiming “Thus sayeth the Lord…”

So to my brothers on this blog, the harvest is white. You have my prayers that your ministries will counter this trend.

King James Only

KING JAMES ONLY
Posted: 25 Feb 2009 04:14 AM PST
Republished February 25, 2009 (first published January 20, 1996) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org) –

There is a lot of debate and confusion surrounding the man-made term "King James Onlyism." This term has been popularized in recent years by men who claim they are concerned about an alleged dangerous and cultic view of the King James Bible. Rarely do they carefully define this term, though, and as a result a wide variety of Bible-believing men are lumped together and labeled with a term the meaning of which is nebulous.

The term “King James Only” was invented by those who oppose the defense of the King James Bible and its underlying Hebrew and Greek texts. It was intended to be a term of approbation, and it is usually defined in terms of the extremism.

I have been labeled “King James Only” because of my writings on the subject of Bible texts and versions and my defense of the King James Bible. To set the record straight, let me explain what I believe. I know from decades of experience and extensive travels that this is also what a large number of other King James Bible defenders believe.

I WILL ACCEPT THE LABEL OF “KING JAMES ONLY” IF IT MEANS THE FOLLOWING:

If “King James Only” defines one who believes that God has given infallible Scripture in the original Greek and Hebrew writings and that He has preserved that in the Hebrew Masoretic and Greek Received Text underlying the King James Bible and other Reformation Bibles and that we have an accurate translation of it in the English language in the Authorized Version, call me “King James Only.”

Will the Real Israel Please Stand Up?: The Identity of God's Israel

"You know, I'm a Jew." When those immediately surrounding you come from a Christian background, this is a statement that will usually perk some ears. In fact, I have used it at times to transition a conversation toward biblical theology--and more specifically the Gospel--when I sense confusion over the place of Jewish people in relationship to Christianity.

Of course, such a statement comes with necessary qualification, but according to Russell Moore (and more importantly, the New Testament), I'm correct in asserting my Jewish heritage.

At the recently revamped Moore to the Point, Dr. Moore has posted on the too often controversial topic of the identity of true Israel according to the Bible. In his article, "Is there a Future for Israel?", Moore notes that all Christians believe Israel has a future. However, the disagreement occurs in the discussion over to what (or whom) exactly the word Israel refers in various contexts in addition to its place in redemptive history, especially eschatology. After laying out the basic positions taken by dispensationalists and covenant theologians, Moore tells of his differences with both views. He writes:

Both covenant theology and dispensationalism, however, often discuss Israel and the church without taking into account the Christocentric nature of biblical eschatology. The future restoration of Israel has never been promised to the unfaithful, unregenerate members of the nation (John 3:3-10; Rom 2:25-29)-only to the faithful remnant.

The church is not Israel, at least not in a direct, unmediated sense. The remnant of Israel-a biological descendant of Abraham, a circumcised Jewish firstborn son who is approved of by God for his obedience to the covenant-receives all of the promises due to him.

"Israel is Jesus of Nazareth," Moore states. In Ezekiel 37:13-14, God promised to raise Israel from the dead and put his Spirit within them in order to make known that "I am the LORD." According to the apostle Paul, God has done this in Christ (Rom 1:2-4).

Once more from Ezekiel, Israel is referred to as the useless "wood of the vine" which is given over to fiery judgment (Ezek 15:6-8). In John's Gospel, Jesus speaks of himself as the true vine (John 15:1, 5-6). As Israel was judged and eventually given over to exile due to their disobedience, so too was Jesus of Nazareth exiled from the presence of God (Matt 27:46), except not for his own disobedience but ours.

The parallels between Christ and Israel are vastly numerous, indicating the Christocentric nature of the biblical narrative. The apostle Paul summarized this reality best in asserting that "all the promises of God find their Yes in him" (2 Cor 1:20 ESV). Furthermore, Paul goes on to say that through Christ we obtain our guaranteed inheritance (2 Cor 1:21-22; Rom 8:17). This inheritance is not merely the salvation of our souls but to act as rulers of the entire cosmos. Moore explains:

This is the radical nature of the gospel in the New Testament. Dispensationalists are right that only ethnic Jews receive the promised future restoration, but Paul makes clear that the "seed of Abraham” is singular, not plural (Gal 3:16). Only the circumcised can inherit the promised future for Israel. All believers-Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female-are forensically Jewish firstborn sons of God (Gal 3:28). They are in Christ. Circumcision is not irrelevant. Instead, both Jews and Gentiles in Christ are “the circumcision” because they have “the circumcision of Christ” (Col 2:11-12).

To make matters clearer, Moore adds, "In Christ, I inherit all the promises due to Abraham’s offspring because I am 'hidden' in Abraham’s promised offspring so that everything that is true of him is true of me."

Much of the time, due to the influence of dispensationalism upon our churches, evangelicals grow unnecessarily distressed over current events relating to modern-day Israel. Such an anxiety stems from Christians, as so many theologians have put it, "reading the newspaper in one hand and the Bible in another." This anxiety can be resolved in realizing that the promises of God rest not in Palestinian land disputes but in Christ, the firstborn and rightful heir of all creation (Col 1:15).

In other words, the Canaanite land promised to Abraham ages ago will indeed be given to God's people. Yet, it will stretch much farther than the Gaza Strip; it will be literally the entire cosmos (Rom 4:13). And yes, this land is reserved for ethnic Israel. As Russell Moore puts it, this land belongs to "one ethnic Jew whose name is Jesus."

To paraphrase a certain Caucasian rap artist, "Will the real Israel please stand up?" The truth remains that he has already stood up when on the third day he walked out of a Jerusalem tomb almost 2,000 years ago. In the meantime, he sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, from where he will come to judge the living and the dead... and then to reign (Psalm 110).

From hereon, the question, "Are you Jewish?" should call for a bit more perplexing answer.

1 John 5:7-8

One controversial verse, when it comes to the KJV/modern translations debate is 1 John 5:7. I’ll give 5:8 also.

KJV: 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

ESV: 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.

-

Big difference, huh?

As I said in a previous comment, verses don’t simply vanish from Scripture. The accusations from KJV-users are serious indeed. If this phrase (known as the Comma Johanneum) was originally part of Holy Scripture, its deletion is an attack on the Holy Trinity. I argue on the contrary, that this phrase is not Holy Scripture, but rather something added by a scribe later. Allow me to elaborate.

When Erasmus was preparing the Textus Receptus, he originally left this phrase out. Now the phrase had been in the Latin Bible of the Catholic Church, but Erasmus never found a Greek manuscript containing the verse. Erasmus took a lot of criticism for his decision, and in the end said that if he could find only one Greek manuscript containing this verse, he would include it into the Textus Receptus.

Lo, and behold, a short while later, Erasmus was presented with such a manuscript. It is called the Codex Montfortianus, and is Miniscule #61. True to his word, Erasmus added the phrase in his next edition, though he did include a lengthy footnote explaining the curious situation around the verse, and voicing his suspicions that 61 was tailor made for the sole purpose of forcing him to include this phrase into the Textus Receptus.

Bruce Metzger’s textbook describes 61 thus: “This manuscript of the Entire New Testament, dating from the early 16th century, now at Trinity College, Dublin, has more importance historically than intrinsically. It is the first Greek manuscript discovered that contains the passage relating to the Three Heavenly Witnesses (1 Jn 5:7-8). It was on the basis of this single, late witness that Erasmus was induced to insert this certainly spurious passage into the text of 1 John. The manuscript, which is remarkably fresh and clean throughout (except for the two pages containing 1 John 5, which are soiled from repeated examination), gives every appearance of having been produced expressly for the purpose of confuting Erasmus.” (The Text of the New Testament: Its transmission, corruption, and restoration, 4th ed., page 88, emphasis mine.)

Later in the book, Metzger writes: “As it now appears, the Greek manuscript had probably been written in Oxford about 1520 by a Franciscan friar named Froy (or Roy), who took the disputed words from the Latin Vulgate. Erasmus included the passage in his Third Edition (1522) but in a lengthy footnote that was included in his volume of annotations, he intimated his suspicion that the manuscript had been prepared expressly in order to confute him.” (p. 147)

Since Erasmus, we have discovered more manuscripts that do indeed contain the Comma Johanneum. Eight, to be exact. Of the 8, only 4 (one of which is 61) contain the phrase in the text of the Bible, while the other 4 have it as a marginal note. The earliest of the 8 dated a full millennium after the New Testament was written. This 10th century manuscript contains the Comma Johanneum as a variant reading (i.e., NOT in the text of the Bible, but rather, in the margin). The next oldest comes about 400 years later. Of the 5800 or so Greek manuscripts we have discovered of the New Testament, only 8 late witnesses record this phrase. This is hardly the majority text.

However, to the Latin-speaking church, the Phrase goes back to the 4th century work, Liber apologeticus, written by either Priscillian or his follower, Bishop Instantius of Spain (Priscillian goes down as the first person in the history of Christianity to be executed for heresy). It was a piece of allegorical exegesis (for the record, Priscillian respected most of the Old Testament, but rejected the Creation story). The phrase never appeared in the Vulgate (despite its presence in the Old Latin bible) until about A.D. 800.

MOREOVER, we have the testimony (or rather, the lack thereof) from the Greek fathers. The early church was filled with controversy surrounding the nature of Christ and the Trinity. Several heresies (including the Sabellian and Arian heresies) popped up denying the Trinity and it was the work of the church fathers to refute them, preserving the orthodox teaching of the Church (and for that matter, the Bible, though at this point in history, the two were regarded as one and the same). It speaks volumes that none of the Greek fathers ever quoted this verse. Not a single one. However, this is the most obvious verse to quote in the entire New Testament to prove the Trinity. How could they have possibly missed it?

More than that, the translators of the ancient versions must have missed it also. This verse appears only in Old Latin Bibles from the 5th cent. on, and the Latin Vulgate after A.D. 800. No other ancient translations contain this phrase.

So I ask: Which is more likely? Did a beautiful verse explaining the Holy Trinity simply vanish from Scripture, without cause or explanation very early on, only to be recovered by (to the best of our knowledge) a Spanish heretic who denied the first chapters of Genesis , after which it caught on only in the Western (i.e. Roman Catholic) Church? Or, was this phrase added to the Scriptures centuries after 1 John was written as an attempt to more easily prove a doctrine from Scripture.

No, this isn’t a doctrinal issue. The Greek speaking church has defended the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity for centuries without this phrase. Its absence doesn’t make room for Mary. Yes, people get saved from the King James Version, and yes, people that use modern translations can still believe in a young earth and salvation by Christ alone. This isn’t about doctrine, but about textual purity. The evidence stands as it does.

(In all of this, I mean no hostility at all to my KJV-only brothers; I just love text criticism. In many ways I respect them more than people who tend to newer versions, for if someone is using a KJV, you can bank on him believing it. You’ll be hard pressed to find a liberal who believes KJV-only, and for that among many other issues, I thank God for my KJV-only brothers. It is my prayer that all evangelical churches would be characterized by the same zeal for God’s word and it’s primacy in life for all situations that characterizes churches who preach from God’s word in the King James Version.)

Grace and peace be with you through our Lord Jesus Christ,

-Elijah

(note: while my links are to Wikipedia, none of my research was done there. I used Metzger's The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 4th ed., Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd. ed., and the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th ed.)

A Year in Review

Well, here we are with the end of another year behind us and the beginning of a new one ahead of us. The older I get the faster they seem to go. That makes me wonder how much faster time must be going for Ralton! Of all the years I've lived, this is certainly the one that things have changed the most for me. Things have changed for all of us this year. We serve a great God who by His providence has brought us to where we are now. I wanted to list a simple few things, some big and some small, that have really made 2008 a great year for me. In no particular order they are:

-Attending the service on the lake at Clyde Pedigo's house where Grace Community Church was born on May 25.

-I would say watching the Giants win the Super Bowl but that wasn't the best thing about that game to me. The best part was watching the Patriots LOSE the Super Bowl and become the worst ever 18-1 team in NFL history.

-Though it was also one of the saddest moments in my year, it was certainly a hilight to see my little brother off at the airport as he left for basic training in the Air Force.

-While visiting my older brother in Murfreesboro, TN I received a phone call that Sunday afternoon from my mother telling me that my good friend Jared Barnett had been saved that morning. Jared's baptism also took place on May 25 at the first GCC service.

-Getting to hear and meet John MacArthur at Bel Aire Baptist Church in Murfreesboro, TN. Fellow blog mate Haze was with me as well.

-Getting to preach my first ever sermon at Grace Community Church in August.

-Attending the metting of the Evangelical Theological Society in November and having the privelage of hearing great men speak such as Daniel Wallace, Albert Mohler and John Piper

-Enjoying the Thanksgiving holiday with my mother's side of the family (especially playing football!!).

-Enjoying the CHRISTmas holiday with my dad's side of the family.

-Getting to see The Dark Knight, even though I lamented the fact that it was laced with Nihilism.

-Getting to start this blog with you guys

-Graciously being asked to preach my first wedding by my good friends Kiril and Nicole Galloway

-But the No. 1 hilight of my entire year and perhaps my entire life was attending the Together for the Gospel conference in April with my mother and some of my best friends in the world. What a blessing that was and still continues to be in my life

There is a litany of other things I could list but this list should safice. I would love to hear how the Lord blessed you guys this past year. I know we all have many things to be thankful for. I hope it pleases God to give you a wonderful 2009. As Numbers 6 says:

The LORD bless you, and keep you;
The LORD make His face shine on you,
And be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance on you,
And give you peace.