'Strict and Particular' Proved right

In a previous post I linked to a WorldNet Daily story about an alleged 'Homosexual bible Version' called the Princess Diana Version. While WND took the story completely seriously, I warned:

Take the whole thing with a pinch of salt until you see one of these things in print, because it looks like a publicity ploy to me.

I let the whole thing rest for a while, before checking back on the story this morning. Lo and behold, the whole site has changed its appearance, and the 'except of Genesis' given on the site is now completely different. Instead of being about two female homosexuals, 'Aida' and Eve', it now contains a version of the evolution story. I therefore conclude that there is no 'Princess Diana Bible' project, just a website that is actually intended as a joke (not a terribly funny one, but a joke nevertheless). I note that one of the comments quoted in the sidebar says 'Congratulations on a hilarious parody site'. The top banner of the site now reads "A gay Christian is like a black Ku Klux Klansman". Hardly an endorsement of so-called 'Gay Christians'

So who is behind the site? I don't know, but there are two options, firstly, an atheist homosexual, or second, a Christian with a rather tasteless sense of humour. You pays your money and you takes your choice.

Do I think that it is perfectly fine to mess with the text of the Bible like this? No. At the same time, we Christians ought to be careful that we do not take what is obviously just a rather tasteless joke seriously. There is no 'Princess Diana Bible', just the 'excerpts' published at the site. It will not appear in print, and Christians getting worked up about it is simply playing into the hands of the publicists, and making themselves look silly.

The clues were there from the beginning: The WorldNet Daily headline read: "New 'Bible': Heterosexuality is sin". No-one actually believes that, and so we conclude that the author does not, and the content of the site as it has evolved demonstrates this. Christians should therefore ignore it and at all costs avoid becoming hysterical on the matter.

Further Thoughts on 'The Voice'

If there is one thing that I came away from the free PDF of the Gospel of John on The Voice website with, it was a feeling that this so-called translation is nothing of the kind. And the Preface of the Voice confirm this. Here is how it describes the process by which The Voice was produced:

"First, accomplished writers create an English rendering; then, respected Bible scholars adjust the rendering to align the manuscript with the original texts."

This is completely the opposite of a good translation methodology. In a good Bible translation (such as the ESV) what happens first is that a team of linguistic scholars will produce a faithful rendering of the original text, and then a team of English stylists will make sure that it is good English as well as a good translation. This is important because some scholars are not very good at writing clear English, as the New English Bible demonstrates (hence the Revised English Bible). In effect, what the Voice is is actually a paraphrase of an existing English translation (which is the only way that those who do not know the original languages could produce a 'rendering' of a Bible passage) that has been checked against the original. So once again, it fails the test of a translation completely.

The Voice also uses some non-traditional words. The rationale is explained in the preface:

"Words that are borrowed from another language or words that are not common outside of the theological community (such as “baptism,” “repentance,” and “salvation”) are translated into more common terminology."

This sounds good, but there are two objections to it. Firstly, that it is impossible to actually follow this methodology. Read this:

"The Immerser knew his place in God’s redemptive plan. John the Immerser was a man sent from God, but Jesus is the Voice of God. John rejected any messianic claim outright. Jesus, though, accepted it with a smile, but only from a few of us—at least at first. Don’t get me wrong, John was important, but he wasn’t the Liberating King. He preached repentance."

This is obviously The Voice, but look at all those theological words, including one that the preface specifically mentioned, 'Repentance'! Why? This brings us to the second objection, which is that these are technical terms. Every part of life has its technical terms, and every science. Theology is not immune, and nor is religion. Listen to Dr. Lloyd-Jones:

"Take the argument about the terms that the modern man does not understand, 'Justification', 'sanctification', and so on. I want to ask a question: When did the ordinary man ever understand those terms?... This is a very specious argument, but it does not hold water." (Knowing the Times [Edinburgh, Banner of Truth, 1989] P. 111)

The Voice is also downright misleading in some translations. Take just the title. It is derived from the translation given by The Voice to the Greek word 'Logos', translated 'the Word' in other versions. But why is this? Simply because that is the usual meaning of the word 'Logos'. Greek has a perfectly good word for 'voice', namely 'Phone', which is usually rendered as 'voice' in English. The same is true of its rendering of 'Christ' as 'The Liberating King'. This is interpretation pretending to be translation.

What about defenders of the Voice? One of the worst I have seen (and the inspiration for the illustration on this one) was a commenter on Extreme Theology. The fact that Emergent advocates of the Voice also call the critics 'the Elders' (I resent that, I'm 28) had some input into the illustration too! I have read the Voice version of John's Gospel, and the idea of anyone using this as their Bible Version is just too horrible to contemplate. But like The Message, it is being marketed as a Bible version, not as a paraphrastic interpretation.

The biggest failing of The Voice is its extreme expansion of passages. This is intrusive, and it puts man's interpretations on the level of the Word of God. It also actually detracts from the poetry of the Bible itself. If "writers, musicians, poets, and other artists" were involved in this, they must have been very egocentric!

This idea that we need a 'translation' that is nothing of the kind to reach Postmoderns betrays a lack of confidence in what God actually breathed out. Apparently for the Bible to reach people today it has to be added to, paraphrased and chopped around! No, it just needs to be properly translated and sent out into all the World.

This is God's world, whatever 'Emergent man' might say!

Insanity and Bible PER-versions

The other week Chris Roseboro's item about The Voice, the new Emergent 'Bible version' caught my attention, and I considered blogging it. I decided not to at the time. But now a new story has come to my attention that means that Bible per-versions are on the menu again for this blog.

It cannot have escaped the notice of anyone who has not been living under a rock for the last few decades that there has been a proliferation of new Bible versions, from the excellent ESV to the Good News Bible (an Anglican clergyman once remarked to me "If I hear about 'God's Covenant Box' one more time I think I'll go mad."), to the horror that is The Word on the Street (formerly The Street Bible). I for one have nothing against the desire to translate the Word of God from the original languages into the language of every tribe and nation on the planet, including English. The Authorised Version is a good translation, but it is not inspired, and some of its language is archaic. What is more, the translators were restricted in some of their choices of words, and Greek language study has advanced since 1611, as has the number of manuscripts available to modern translators. It is simply irrational to confine ourselves to sixteenth century scholarship, and Anglican Scholarship at that!

Having said that, do we really need so many Bible versions? Ignoring the multiplicity of study Bibles for just about everyone (except me, because I'm just an ordinary white Brit, and we don't count), there are dozens of translations out there. But that's just a thought.

No, my main point has to do with what I call Bible perversions. I know this language is used by rabid KJV-Only writers such as Gail Riplinger to describe any version other than the Authorised Version, but I use it in a more restricted sense to describe supposed Bible 'versions' that are in fact guided not by a desire to accurately render the Greek and the Hebrew in the receptor language, but by a partisan and personal agenda.

This 'Princess Diana Bible' (warning, do not follow the link if of a nervous disposition, or holding a drink over your computer keyboard) is a prime example. That is, if it is not a parody, which I am not convinced that it is not. Look at it, it's linked to a movie, and it could well just be a publicity stunt. My advice is not to take this too seriously until the truth is revealed. Of course, if it is a parody, it works because it is close to the truth, just one step ahead of it. So take the whole thing with a pinch of salt until you see one of these things in print, because it looks like a publicity ploy to me.

Parody or not, one of the statements on the official website caught my eye:

According to Mitchell, "There are 116 versions of the Bible, why is any of them better than ours?"

If this is not a parody, the answer is "because the ESV and other genuine Bible versions are carefully translated from the original languages with a concern for the actual meaning of words, and are not driven by a personal desire to make the Bible say what I want it to. Whether or not Mitchell is actually serious, his words challenge us to ask the question: What makes a good Bible version? One way to answer that is to look at a bad one.

An example of this that is genuine is the Voice New Testament (official site). This is trumpeted as "A dynamic Translation that brings the Biblical narrative to life." 'Dynamic' is definitely the word, but 'translation' is stretching it a bit. This is actually a paraphrase of the Biblical text. This chart is used to show how The Voice compares with other 'versions' (although The Message is actually a paraphrase, not a translation). The Voice italicises those words that have been added 'to clarify' the text. This is acceptable when it is done properly, but rather than adding just a few words here and there to make Greek into good English, the Voice adds whole clauses and even sentences wholesale. Take this random example from their site:

"When you are filled with the Spirit, you are empowered to speak to each other in the soulful words of pious songs, hymns, and spiritual songs; to sing and make music with your hearts attuned to God; and to give thanks to God the Father every day through the name of the Lord Jesus, the Liberating King, for all He has done." Ephesians 5:19-20, in The Voice translation

Remember, words in italics are not in the original Greek Text (I looked, I can't find them). That means that two clauses in this text are simply added to it. The original says nothing about being 'empowered' by the filling of the Holy Spirit, nor does it refer to 'soulful words'. Then look at some of the language chosen for actual translations. To translate 'Christ' as 'Liberating King' is introducing an interpretation into the text, not translation. I would have no objection to 'God's anointed one', since that is an English version of 'Christ', but that is to miss the fact that 'Christ' or 'Messiah' had become a personal title by the time of the New Testament. So of this text, abut 60 words in this English version, fifteen, or a whole quarter of the text, have no antecedent in the Greek whatsoever, and have been arbitrarily inserted because someone thought they made it sound better!

How did this happen? The Voice website gives the answer:

"Previously most Bibles and biblical reference works were produced by professional scholars writing in academic settings. The Voice uniquely represents collaboration among scholars, pastors, writers, musicians, poets, and other artists."

There is a completely different philosophy at work here. The reason why Bibles have historically been translated by textual scholars is that the Bible was viewed as being inspired by God, and so the aim of translating was to render the original text faithfully in a receptor language. In 2 Timothy 3.16 we read:

"All Scripture is God-breathed..."

Despite the Voice's declaration that it:

"Respects cultural shifts and the need for accuracy"

The level of accuracy in this 'translation' is terrible. It adds reams to the Word of God (in a side-note, I found myself wondering how much longer than a proper New Testament The Voice is). But the Greek is very specific. every word of the Bible is breathed-out by God. The Voice is no more an accurate Bible version than the New World Translation of Jehovah's Witnesses or the Inspired Version of Joseph Smith. And if the Princess Diana Bible really exists, then I add that to the mix as well.

The Voice certainly does speak, but what it speaks is not the pure Word of God, but the Word of God twisted and distorted by our ideas. Let the Bible speak, let God speak, and let people read what God has said. The old Bible Societies committed themselves to distribute the Word of God 'Without note or comment' beyond mere textual and translational notes. There was a good reason for that, which is that notes in a Bible can easily be mistaken for inspired (I think of the way some people have viewed the Scofield Reference Bible). If that's true of notes in the margin and under the text, when notes are actually inserted into the text, it is almost certain that people will think they are what God has said. My only advice must be: Don't buy The Voice.

[Illustration: a reader expresses his opinion of these false Bible 'versions'. If Centuri0n can do it, why can't I?]

G. K. Chesterton on comparative religion

As any who have read his Father Brown stories know, Gilbert Keith Chesterton (1874-1936) was a man of uncommon good sense. His book Orthodoxy is much read, and deservedly so. This quotation concerning the idea that 'all religions are really the same in essence' is a gem, and so I make no apologies for bringing it before the world:

"The things said most confidently by advanced persons to crowded audiences are generally those quite opposite to the fact; it is actually our truisms that are untrue. Here is a case. There is a phrase of facile liberality uttered again and again at ethical societies and parliaments of religion: "the religions of the earth differ in rites and forms, but they are the same in what they teach." It is false; it is the opposite of the fact. The religions of the earth do not greatly differ in rites and forms; they do greatly differ in what they teach. It is as if a man were to say, "Do not be misled by the fact that the Church Times and the Freethinker look utterly different, that one is painted on vellum and the other carved on marble, that one is triangular and the other hectagonal; read them and you will see that they say the same thing." The truth is, of course, that they are alike in everything except in the fact that they don't say the same thing. An atheist stockbroker in Surbiton looks exactly like a Swedenborgian stockbroker in Wimbledon. You may walk round and round them and subject them to the most personal and offensive study without seeing anything Swedenborgian in the hat or anything particularly godless in the umbrella. It is exactly in their souls that they are divided. So the truth is that the difficulty of all the creeds of the earth is not as alleged in this cheap maxim: that they agree in meaning, but differ in machinery. It is exactly the opposite. They agree in machinery; almost every great religion on earth works with the same external methods, with priests, scriptures, altars, sworn brotherhoods, special feasts. They agree in the mode of teaching; what they differ about is the thing to be taught. Pagan optimists and Eastern pessimists would both have temples, just as Liberals and Tories would both have newspapers. Creeds that exist to destroy each other both have scriptures, just as armies that exist to destroy each other both have guns." G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, Pp. 333-4 of The Collected Works of G. K. Chesterton, Vol. 1 (Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1986)

The Church Times is an Anglican paper, and the Freethinker a sceptical journal. Surbiton and Wimbledon are London suburbs where one might reasonably be expected to find a stockbroker, at least in 1908 when Chesterton was writing.

The use and Abuse of History

Phyllis Tickle, an Emergent author, has declared that the Emergent Church is 'the Great Emergence', part of a pattern of great events in the Church every 500 years (source, source).

The problem with this is that it is not an interpretation of the evidence, it is a cherry-picking of the evidence to fit a pre-conceived pattern, so as to 'conveniently' wind up with the Emergent Church as being the latest great work of God. But this is not how you do history! What about the Great Awakening of the eighteenth century? It doesn't fit into the 'pattern' at all, yet it produced the modern missionary movement, the Methodist Churches, the New Connexion of General Baptists, and so on. The revival of 1859, which also had worldwide effects, doesn't fit in to the 'pattern' either. Of course they don't, because the 'pattern' doesn't exist, it is, if I may be allowed to borrow a 'postmodern' term, a powerplay, manipulating the evidence to back up one's position. Thus it answers objections by saying: "But this is the Great Emergence. If you don't support us, then you're opposing God's next Great Work!" This is history as propaganda, as a wax nose that can be manipulated into any shape the manipulator desires.

I am an amateur historian (in the sense I don't get paid for it), and the son of a professional historian (in the sense that he does get paid for it), and this sort of pretended historical study irritates me. It has as much to do with real history as the Landmark Baptists' 'trail of blood', and as the Roman Catholic doctrine of Apostolic Succession (in fact those two are the same thing, but we'll let that pass for now). This is simply the manipulation of historical evidence on behalf of a party. It is, in the worst sense of the term, sectarian history.

So then, the reader may ask, what is the proper use of history? First of all, history must be honest. We accept our forefathers 'warts and all'. Christians are sinners saved by grace, not perfect people, and the same goes for those in the past. But then again, we cannot be like the artist who would paint a picture of the wart and entitle it 'Cromwell'. That too is wrong.

History is to the Church what memory is to individuals, it is the life-story of the Church. We read history to inspire and to teach, and we do it to learn, not to buttress our preconceived notions. Unless we read history responsibly and sensibly, we shall find that we have forgotten it.

The preaching we need

Something from my study of John Calvin:

"There is no threshing himself into a fever of impatience or frustration, no holier-than-thou rebuking of the people, no begging them in terms of Hyperbole to give some physical sign that the message has been accepted. It is simply one man, conscious of his sins, aware how little progress he makes and how hard it is to be a doer of the Word sympathetically passing on to his people (whomhe knows to have the same sort of problems as himself) what God has said to them and to him."

-T.H.L. Parker

Animal Rights or Human Responsibilities?

The Spanish government has decided to grant 'rights' to certain apes. Now, some may ask, what objection do we have to animal rights? Actually, we DO have an objection to the idea. Not because we dislike animals. Quite the reverse, we like pet cats and dogs, and we love pigs, cows, deer, sheep and chickens. They're delicious. And add Rabbits and squirrels to that second list, they taste good too. But we do not think that people should mistreat animals. Only we think that this is not so much a matter of animal rights as it is of human responsibilities. We have the responsibility to treat animals well, to rule the creation as God's stewards, taking care of it, not abusing it. My dog doesn't have rights, I've got responsibilities towards her.

The distinction between rights and responsibilities is with whom they lie. If we speak of Animal rights, we say that the animal possesses these. But no animal can push its rights, it cannot plead for itself. To say that we, as human beings made in the image of God have responsibilities towards animals puts the full burden on us, where it ought to be. I have a responsibility towards that dog that I might see being abused, the responsibility of speaking up for it. God has made us stewards of His creation, not tyrants over it.

Let's think clearly about this, shall we? Dr. Albert Mohler discussed the subject on Friday 27th June. Well worth listening to.

Pulpit Language and Eccentric Preachers

While I was at the London Theological Seminary, the then Homiletics tutor recommended to us Mr. Spurgeon's little book 'Eccentric Preachers'. Something of an apologetic for Spurgeon's own preaching, it is a delightful little book about some of the more unusual preachers of the past. In it Spurgeon revels in that 'eccentricity' that is the result of men being themselves in the pulpit. In preachers who, like the Apostles, 'turned the world upside-down'. Men like John Berridge and Rowland Hill, both of whom just could not avoid being humorous at times.

But there is also a bad eccentricity, Spurgeon warns, when a preacher behaves in an odd way with the intent to shock people, and to get publicity. It is one thing for a man to be naturally humorous in the pulpit, and to speak as a common man to common men, as Billy Bray did, but it is quite another to be vulgar. "Real vulgarity lies in foul allusions and indelicate hints," Spurgeon writes (P. 38) "Tinge your stories or your figures with dirt, Mr. Slopdash! and we anandon you: Nothing which is indelicate can be endured in the service of a holy God." (P. 39). This set me thinking about the question of appropriate pulpit language. Perhaps an appropriate response from the man who referred to 'a great steaming pile of manure' in the pulpit yesterday. Not that it was gratuitous, for it was in illustration of a Biblical figure. Read Philippians 4 for context, and use the Greek or the Authorised Version, some modern versions tone it down.. And it wasn't a generic pile of manure I was referring to as an illustration, it was a specific one that I have to go past on the way to work. I am a countryman, after all, and it was a rural congregation.

There was a man called G.A. Studdart-Kennedy, an Army Chaplain in World War I, who went by the nickname of 'Woodbine Willie' because, in an attempt to get closer to the private soldiers, he smoked cheap cigarettes and used bad language as they did. Thankfully the experiment failed. But it seems that we have a resurgence of 'Woodbine Willies' today, who think that the language of the trenches belongs in the pulpit. It does not. Let a man be himself, but please remember that there is a time for everything. I recall a young man speaking at a Christian Union who did not actually use foul language, but used a risqué story to introduce his message, a story that another young man at the same university had been reprimanded for using to introduce an after-dinner speech for a secular political society! If it not appropriate for an after-dinner speech, how can it be in the pulpit?

It is not only foul language and vulgar allusions that are out-of-place in the pulpit. There are some preachers who, having read perhaps that C.H. Spurgeon and D.L. Moody used humour, make the 'sermon' into a stand-up routine, with no aim other than to leave the audience (for that is what they treat them as) rolling in the aisles. To them I say with Mr. Spurgeon that they should at once cease to call themselves ministers and to receive a salary for that end, and let them try to make an honest living on the boards. Humour in the pulpit should have a serious end, and those who like to remind us taht Spurgeon made his hearers laugh need to remember that he made them mourn as well, and that his sermons were in earnest as whole productions.

I conclusion, let me suggest that no minister should ever speak in the pulpit things that would not be welcome in mixed company (excepting of course the things of Christ), that no language that is not allowed on television before nine in the evening is appropriate in the pulpit, and that no story, comical or not, should be allowed in the sermon that does not contribute to the edification of the hearers. Also that no man should be allowed to preach someone else's sermon as if it were his own, and that all artificial tones of voice or mannerisms should be banished as well!

Theses for Discussion with Dispensationalists. 3.

III. Confession of sins.

Since we hold one another to be brothers in christ by profession, we confess before Almighty God that we are all guilty sinners before Him. In this matter especially seeing that...

1. We have called our brothers heretics because they differed from us in minor things.

2. We have used language to describe our brothers that is not appropriate, nor conducive to rational discussion.

3. We have not listened to each other as we ought to have.

4. We have allowed rhetoric to get in the way of reason.

5. We have taken the worst from our brothers' arguments, and we have ignored what is good.

6. We have followed our prejudices more than Christ.

7. We have allowed these issues to define our denominations and ministries, and to divide churches.

Therefore we earnestly repent of these things, and we resolve to discuss this issue without recourse to hostile rhetoric, to name-calling and abuse. We resolve to talk to one another, and not only that, but to listen. To speak more about our own position than about that of those with whom we disagree, and to strive to come to unity in the faith.

Furthermore, we resolve that these issues, as they do not enter into the substance of the Reformed faith as it is found in the Second London Baptist Confession, the Westminster Confession and the Savoy Declaration, will not divide us one from another, but we shall follow the examples of those saints of the past such as C.H. Spurgeon, David Brown and Horatius Bonar who, while they disagreed on these matters, nevertheless were glad to confess themselves brothers in Christ, and to act like it.

We shall NOT follow the example of J.N. Darby, who separated from his brethren over these issues, although he was a good man.

Theses for Discussion with Dispensationalists. 2.

Heads of agreement. We all believe...

1. That the Bible is the Word of God, given by the Holy Spirit through Godly men of old, yet so as to be preserved without error in all its parts (we are not inviting liberals to this at-present notional conference).

2. That the Bible teaches that God has not dealt with all men in all ages in identical ways, but has used different means in different ages.

3. And therefore that it may be said that there are different economies or dispensations in God's dealings with men.

4. That the Bible teaches that Lord Jesus Christ will return again, bodily and visibly, to judge the living and the dead.

5. In the resurrection of the dead. that is, that the same body that was laid in the grave will be raised by God at the Second Advent of Christ.

6. That the BIble is to be understood on its own terms, according to its own words and context, not according to any externally-imposed system.

7. That no-one ever was, or ever shall be, saved by keeping the Law, because the Law cannot save sinners, but only condemn them.

8. And therefore that all who ever were or ever will be saved from their sin were not saved by anything other than the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.

9. Therefore that there is only one way of salvation, and that is through the Lord Jesus Christ.

10. That since the Bible expressly states that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord except by the Holy Spirit, no-one can come to Christ without the Holy Spirit working in them.

Next: Confession of sin.

Why I Admire John MacArthur More than Gary DeMar

Readers of this blog will know that we are not dispensational, and have been quite critical of John MacArthur's commentary on the Book of Revelation. Yet we do not think that MacArthur is outside the pale of Christian orthodoxy, nor do we think the less of him for his strongly-held views that we think are wrong.

Gary DeMar is another kettle of fish. While we have found some of his books, and his radio show (though the length of the commercial breaks is excessively excessive) quite useful, yet there is a problem with him. Not that he is a heretic, but that he has so reacted against dispensationalism that he is willing to join with heretics who deny the visible, bodily Second Coming of Christ, and the resurrection of the dead, and the Last Judgment, in order to oppose dispensationalism.

DeMar is a Preterist, an orthodox one, we hasten to add, at least by all appearances, though one would be hard pressed to tell that from reading his books. We at first thought that his book against the 'Left Behind' series was hyper-preterist, so little time does he devote to the truth that Jesus really is coming back.

And here is the rub. Probably no-one has been more active in opposing the excesses of antinomian dispensationalists than John MacArthur. He is the sworn enemy of the so-called 'Non-Lordship' teachers, who deny the need for repentance, and say that Christians do not have to follow Christ. These heretics (A.W. Tozer called it heresy, so do I) are dispensationalists, like Dr. MacArthur, but he does not let that stop his opposing them. On the other hand, Gary DeMar actively partners with heretics in opposing Dispensationalism, and has said hardly a word against the hyper-preterists and quite a few words for them!

We should be most active against those heretics who are closest to us, not the other way around! Yet I see in DeMar the same attitude that allows Dr. J.I. Packer to partner with Anglo- and even Roman Catholics against the liberals.

Only the Liberals are denying the Bible. At worst the Dispensationalists are misinterpreting it. But the hyper-preterists are worse than the dispensationalists, for they are re-interpreting the Bible so as to empty language of all meaning, and to deny the 'blessed hope', namely the appearing of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

So I'll go with MacArthur any day.


[Note on Preterism. Orthodox Preterism states that many Biblical prophecies which have been understood by many to refer to the Second Coming actually refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. All orthodox Preterists put part of the Olivet Discourse in that category. Some put the whole of the Olivet Discourse in, and some take the book of Revelation as referring to AD 70. All of these do, however, hold that Christ will come back visibly and bodily to judge the living and the dead, and to bring an end to the present age. They hold that the prophecies in 2 Peter (for example) are yet to be fulfilled, and refer to the Second Coming of Christ. They are therefore our brothers in Christ, like the moderate Dispensationalists.]

Theses for Discussion with Dispensationalists. 1.

We have had some words to say about Dispensationalists. But unlike Gary DeMar, who inconsistently works with heretical Hyper-preterists to attack Dispensationalism as a heresy, we think that most versions of it are within the pale of Christian orthodoxy (there is something called Hyper-dispensationalism that is not). Certainly Dr. John MacArthur and his variety of Dispensationalism, and the Progressive Dispensationalist school, are. So we present our ground-work for discussion between non-Dispensational Reformed Christians and Dispensationalist Reformed Christians.

I. Rules of discussion.

1. Arguments of guilt by association, such as 'Romanists are A-mil', and 'Futurism was invented by a Jesuit' are to be forbidden. Not only do they get us no-where, but they are unbecoming in a discussion between Christians. Not everything that the Roman Catholic Church believes is wrong. For one thing, they are Trinitarians, and despite attempts by anti-trinitarians to use the guilt by association argument against the doctrine of the Trinity, we are still Trinitarians.

2. Nor shall we use the argument of innocence by association, e.g. that because Augustine and Calvin taught a certain doctrine, it must be true. Good men see 'through a glass darkly', and can be wrong.

3. Nor shall we make use of doubtful arguments about the ruinous effect of the others' doctrine, so that we on the non-Dispensational side will not argue that it leands to Antinomianism, nor will the Dispensationalists argue that our doctrine leads to anti-semitism. This is really only name-calling, and has no place in a serious Christian discussion. Also non-Reformed folk like to say that Calvinism is antinomianism. John Wesley used the two terms as synonymous.

4. Both sides will seek to understand each other, not through books written by their own side. Definitions will be sought that actually define our position, and are not either so broad as to include practically everyone, or so narrow as to exclude many in the camp of the one defining. Lists of distinctives will actually be drawn up that include real distinctives, not things that the other camp actually holds.

5. Being mindful of the need for charity, we will accept one another's professions at face value, and not try to tell the other side what they believe.

Next time: Theses on agreements.

Spurgeon on Hermeneutics

Charles Haddon Spurgeon was a very sagacious writer, and a gifted preacher. His commentaries on the Psalms and on the Gospel of Matthew are still very useful. Therefore we would like to give two quotations from Spurgeon dealing with the question of Bible interpretation. In both of these quotations Spurgeon’s main target is the early Plymouth Brethren. The original dispensationalists, they taught the famous Dispensationalist catchphrase, “if the plain sense makes sense seek no other sense”, and the notorious ‘law of first use’, which meant that a word was always to be understood in the Scriptures in the sense that it bore in its first use chronologically.

These have a show of wisdom, but both are false. Spurgeon explains below:

“In Holy Scripture the same word does not always mean the same thing. The Bible is a book meant for human beings, and therefore it is written in human language; and in human language the same word may signify two or three things. For instance, “a pear fell from a tree;” “a man fell into drunken habits.” There the meaning of the second word “fell,” is evidently different from the first, since it is not literal, but metaphorical. Again, “the cabman mounted the box; the child was pleased with his Christmas box;” “his lordship is staying at his shooting box.” In each case there is the same word, but who does not see that there is a great difference of meaning? So it is in the Word of God. You must explain the difference between a word used in a peculiar sense, and the ordinary meaning of the word, and thus you will prevent your people falling into mistakes. If people will say that the same word in Scripture always means the same thing, as I have heard some assert publicly, they will make nonsense of the Word of God, and fall into error through their own irrational maxims. To set up canons of interpretation for the Book of God which would be absurd if applied to other writings is egregious folly: it has a show of accuracy, but inevitably leads to confusion.

“The obvious literal meaning of a Scripture is not always the true one, and ignorant persons are apt enough to fall into the most singular misconceptions: a judicious remark from the pulpit will be of signal service. Many persons have accustomed themselves to misunderstand certain texts; they have learned wrong interpretations in their youth, and will never know better unless the correct meaning be indicated to them.”

CHS - The Swords and the Trowel’ Vol. 2, P. 293

The trouble is, the understanding of a text that is the ‘obvious literal meaning’ to me may be false. It may be anachronistic, so that some have understood ’through a glass darkly’ as having reference to a telescope - which had not been invented yet. The word ’mill’ may conjure up a false image to me. In my home county of Norfolk, we historically used water mills. In Kent and Sussex most mills were wind-powered. But in Biblical times they were either hand-driven or driven by an animal. Or take the word ‘corn’. In America that is usually understood of maize, but in Europe in the past it was used to describe wheat and Barkley and other cereal crops. We have laughed out loud when we have heard atheists use the mention of ‘corn’ in the Bible as evidence that the Bible is in error (what do they think, that it was made up in the last five hundred years?).

Again, in Apocalyptic and figurative language, the ‘obvious literal meaning’ as I might take it is false, because the author’s intent was to use language symbolically. What we seek in Biblical interpretation is not my ‘obvious literal meaning’, but what the Holy Spirit sought to communicate in the text.

Another caution that Spurgeon gives is against those who try to find new meanings for texts. This is always a very hazardous enterprise:

“Do not be carried away with new meanings. Plymouth Brethren delight to fish up some hitherto undiscovered tadpole of interpretation and cry it round the town as a rare dainty. Let us be content with more ordinary and more wholesome fishery. No one text is to be exalted above the plain analogy of faith, and no solitary expression is to shape our theology for us. Other men and wiser men have expounded before us, and anything undiscovered by them it were well to put to test and trial before we boast too loudly of the treasure-trove.”
- ditto, P. 296

It should be noted that Spurgeon was pre-millennial and held to a future restoration of the Jews. He was NOT, however, a Dispensationalist, and some of his harshest words about misinterpreting the Bible are reserved for the disciples of John Nelson Darby.

Further thoughts on the Todd Bentley Affair

While we are glad that Todd Bentley's false revival, that has devastated hundreds, maybe thousands who were falsely told that they had been healed from life-threatening diseases and crippling conditions, we are deeply concerned that what is causing many people to distance themselves from Bentley now is in fact the false prophet's separation from his wife. Only now are these leaders in the Charismatic movement coming out and speaking about concerns about Bentley's doctrine and behaviour that ought to have been apparent at least from June, if not May. J. Lee Grady, who in April was declaring that this was a "Holy Ghost outbreak", is now bemoaning the fact that so many were taken in by Bentley. Thankfully he has been asking questions since May, but oh how timidly he began, even when Bentley's violent techniques became apparent! It seems that the assumption was that this was a genuine work of the Holy Spirit. In May he wrote:

"But I would be dishonest if I told you that I wholeheartedly embraced what I saw in Lakeland. Something disturbed me, but I kept my mouth shut for three weeks while I prayed, got counsel from respected ministry leaders and searched my heart to make sure I was not harboring a religious spirit. The last thing we need today is more mean-spirited heresy hunters blasting other Christians."

Now, apart from the fact that 'religious' is a perfectly good word, if Mr. Grady had these concerns from the beginning, why did he not just say nothing about the events in Lakeland for those three weeks, instead of immediately calling it a "Holy Ghost outbreak"? For weeks he was one of those encouraging others to get on the Bentley bandwagon, but now he is declaring that the whole thing was wildfire. What has changed? Bentley has separated from his wife. No new false teaching from the Lakeland platform, no new false prophecy. We have always based our criticism of Bentley on his public behaviour, and we have not changed what we are saying.

We hope that men like Grady will be more wary in future, but we really have no confidence that they will not be taken in by the next false revival. And please note, despite statements to the contrary, no organic condition has been certified as healed at Lakeland.

Others have expressed similar opinions. See here, and here.

Critics of Lakeland 'Revival' Vindicated

Our deep suspicion of Todd Bentley has been further vindicated by the news that this supposed 'Man of God' is to separate from his wife. The false revival at Lakeland in Florida is over, and as the post mortem examination begins, the great question that Charismatics are asking is: "How could we be so gullible?" Here is a good example:

"Why did God TV tell people that “any criticism of Todd Bentley is demonic”?

This ridiculous statement was actually made on one of God TV’s pre-shows. In fact, the network’s hosts also warned listeners that if they listened to criticism of Bentley, they could lose their healings.

This is cultic manipulation at its worst. The Bible tells us that the Bereans were noble believers because they studied the Scriptures daily “to see whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11, NASB). Yet in the case of Lakeland, honest intellectual inquiry was viewed as a sign of weakness. People were expected to jump first and then open their eyes.

Just because we believe in the power of the Holy Spirit does not mean we check our brains at the church door. We are commanded to test the spirits. Jesus wants us to love Him with our hearts and our minds.

Because of the Lakeland scandal, there may be large numbers of people who feel they’ve been burned by Bentley. Some may give up on church and join the growing ranks of bitter, disenfranchised Christians. Others may suffer total spiritual shipwreck. This could have been avoided if leaders had been more vocal about their objections and urged people to evaluate spiritual experiences through the filter of God’s Word."

We have been deeply suspicious of the movement since we first heard of Bentley's claims, since we tend to treat claims of revival with caution. An examination of Bentley's teaching and behaviour convinced us that this was not the real thing, and so when Justin Peters reported that Lakeland 'healings' were nothing of the kind, we merely nodded and prayed for those who were thus deceived. And it wasn't only people in the Charismatic churches. God willing, this coming Lord's Day we shall be attending the chapel where we first heard of Todd Bentley and the goings-on in Lakeland. We may have some words of advice for friends.

John Piper has a good article on the subject. His advice to test claims of Revival with doctrine must be heeded.

While we applaud the editors of Charisma magazine, we have to ask, why did it take Bentley's marriage breaking down for them to print a critique of the man that was true whether or not he separated from his wife?

Let us also praise God that He has taken this false prophet out of the way. And let us pray that Bentley will repent of his spiritual wickedness.

We were alerted to these articles by Rhett of Rhett's Rants.

A Refreshing change from Lambeth

For those readers who have read of the total failure of the Anglican Communion to decide anything on the question of homosexuality, we would recommend this paper produced by the Committee on Doctrine of the United Free Church of Scotland in 1995. This is how to deal with the issue - Biblically. What does the Bible say?

Our own favourite point of this document was this comment:

"c) 1 Samuel 18: 1, 20:30

These verses have been adduced as evidence in support of the claim that the much vaunted friendship between David and Jonathon was a homosexual relationship. There is, however, no hint of erotic behaviour in the Biblical text and the 'shame' described in 20:30 related to Jonathon's [sic] disloyalty to his father and family when siding with David against Saul. Indeed it was the Panel's view that the current preoccupation with homosexuality could devalue and cast unnecessary suspicion upon those wholesome relationships that are possible between same-sex friends."

'Correct' Spelling and the 1611 AV

A recent news report on the BBC caught our attention. A university lecturer, fed up with having to correct spelling mistakes, has suggested that English might be relaxed to allow some variation in spelling. This immediately causes us to think of the 1611 Authorised Version of the Bible that we have. Not an actual 1611 printing, we hasten to add, but the 1911 reprint. Back in 1611, English spelling was quite fluid, and as long as a word sounded right, the spelling was fine. Would it really be so bad to go back to the 17th century in this respect?

We give some examples chosen at random:

Number 34. 21: "Sonne" for 'Son'

Numbers 35.7: "Fourty" for 'Forty'

Exodus 4.4: "And the LORD said unto Moses, Put Forth thine hand and take it by the taile: and he put foorth his hand, and caught it." Note two different spellings of 'forth', and the 'e' on the end of 'tail'

Exodus 4.8: "And it shall come to passe, if they will not beleeve thee, neither harken unto the voice of the first signe, that they will beleeve the voice of the latter signe." Note spellings of 'pass', 'believe' and 'sign'

Exodus 4.9: "Powre" for 'pour'

John 3.7: "Marveile" for 'marvel'

John 3.11: "Verely, verely I say unto thee, we speake that we doe know, and testifie that wee have seen; and yee receive not our witnesse." Note that the number of 'e's in 'we' is a matter of indifference, the same is true of 'ye', and of any word with a terminal letter 'e'. The letter 'e' can be added to the end of a word or not, depending on how the writer feels. Note also variant spelling of 'testify'.

John 4.25: "Commeth" for 'cometh'

John 4.30: "Citie" for 'city'

2 Corinthians 810: "Yeere" for 'year'

Our intention is not to make fun of the 1611 AV. No, we quote it to add to the debate on how strict spelling rules ought to be. Would it really hurt to allow all these wonderful 17th century spellings to be used in modern English?


For those Americans interested in our spelling, we advise popping over to the BBC website here.

Todd Bentley 'fire' cooling

It seems that false prophet Todd Bentley's attempts to spread his strange fire through America have fallen a little flat. We pray that these failures will lead to his planned visit to the United Kingdom being cancelled.

We first heard of Bentley when he was praised from the pulpit (well, not the pulpit, it wasn't being used) of a chapel that we have preached from. Rather than instantly condemning the 'healings' when we heard of them, we looked into the Lakeland 'revival', and held back until we had certain proof that the screaming tattooed man who likes to kick sick people is a false teacher and a false prophet. We fist heard of him in connection with an alleged healing of a pastor with throat cancer. Since the man has not been healed, Bentley has given him false hope. The destruction of that false hope will be terrible, and we pray that it will not destroy the man who was told that he had been healed.

It is God's will that all of His people, save those who will be alive at the Second Advent, die. The cause of death will vary, but we will all, unless the Lord comes back first, die. We will all suffer sicknesses. God does not want us to live a healthy and wealthy life, he wants us to live a life of faith. Men like Todd Bentley undermine that faith when they falsely claim to speak for God.

How to Criticize those we disagree with

Michael Haykin has written an excellent post over at the Andrew Fuller Centre on the subject of criticizing Andrew Fuller. A quotation used by Dr. Haykin in the post struck us as particularly apt:

“Once for all, we must enter our protest against that system of wholesale condemnation, that will admit of nothing good in a man, if some part of his divinity system happen to be open to question.”

This is excellent advice, especially as it comes from a critic of Fuller. We have begun serious study of John Calvin in preparation for a lecture that we shall be giving in Surrey, God willing, some time next year, and if ever there was a man concerning whom the wise words of this old book review whom Haykin quotes were often broken, it is the Reformer of Geneva. From Jerome Bolsec through every sort of silly Arminian and Romanist, to Dave Hunt and Nelson Price (from the ridiculous to.. the ridiculous), Calvin has been besieged by all sorts of men who have decided that, because they do not agree with Calvin's theology, he must have been the greatest monster who ever lived.

It was therefore refreshing to receive by post this morning Volume 2 of the Cambridge Modern History (first published in 1903), which contains a delightful essay on Calvin and the Reformed Church by Principal A.M. Fairbairn of Mansfield College, Oxford (pictured). A lifelong Arminian and forthright critic of Calvin's theology (let it never be said we only read biographies of Calvin by Calvinists!), Fairbairn nevertheless refused to ignore the good that Calvin had done. Of Fairbairn's essay, his biographer, W.B. Selbie, writes:

"In Calvin Fairbairn had a subject altogether to his mind, and his study of him is among the best things he ever wrote. He always distinguished between the man and his system. Of the latter he had been a convinced and determined critic from the earliest days of his ministry. But he always recognised the great part it had played in the development of Christendom, and he would never suffer the good that was in it to be forgotten. For the man he had a genuine admiration. In describing him as one whose mind was the mind of Erasmus, while his faith and conscience were those of Luther, he struck a point of affinity with himself that could not fail to win his sympathy." (The Life of Andrew Martin Fairbairn [Hodder and Stoughton, 1914] Pp. 403-4)

Like Arminius himself, he lauded Calvin's work as a commentator to the skies. Indeed, We doubt that any Calvinist has been so immoderate in praise of Calvin:

"His services to the cause of sacred learning must not be forgotten. These it is hardly possible to exaggerate; he is the sanest of commentators, the most skilled of exegetes, the most reasonable of critics. He knows how to use an age to interpret a man, a man to interpret an age. His exegesis is never forced or fantastic; he is less rash and subjective in his judgments than Luther; more reverent to Scripture, more faithful to history, more modern in spirit. His work on the Psalms has much to make our most advanced scholars ashamed of the small progress we have made either in method or in conclusions. And his work is inspired by a noble belief; he thought that the one way to realise Christianity was by knowing the mind of Christ; that this mind was to be found in the Scriptures; and that to make them living and credible was to make indefinitely more possible its incorporation in the thoughts and Institutions of man." (Cambridge Modern history, Vol. 2 P. 376)

And what Calvinist can disagree with this Arminian? It warmed our heart to know that Calvin's personality and skill as a commentator had won the sincere admiration and regard of the Oxford scholar.

Tell the Minister!

Have you ever sat in a service and wanted to tell the minister afterwards that something he said confused you, or that you disagree with something he said? Probably. But have you actually done so? We do not mean in a mean-spirited, fault-finding way, but sincerely. If you have held back, we submit that you were wrong. Ministers need critics, not the nasty sort, but those who are genuinely concerned for the effectiveness of the Gospel ministry. We tend to develop bad habits over time, and it is only constructive criticism (we count personal remarks about the minister as out of court and unhelpful) that will allow us to spot these bad habits and correct them. So take care of your minister, and remember, unless he is completely self-centred and a fool, he will thank you for criticism. What he will not thank you for is holding back.

Despite rumours to the contrary, and claims by those who should know better, ministers are not pysychic. We do not know what you are thinking unless you tell us.

Servetus.

With the 500th anniversary of Calvin's birth approaching, we have been asked to give a lecture some time next year on John Calvin. In preparation for this we are searching out the facts of Calvin's life, not only in our own extensive library (more than 2'000 volumes, plus electronic versions of other works, including the complete works of Arminius and Calvin), but also online. An interesting article on Servetus is to be found here.

A word on Calvin sources

W while ago we wrote a series defending John Calvin from the attacks of Nelson Price in an abominably badly-written and researched piece on his website (our series is here). Although our list of sources contained some fifteen books, it has come to our attention that in a discussion on another blog, we were charged with relying heavily on Calvinist sources. First of all, we shall say that simply because a book is written by someone who is favourable to its subject does not mean that it is to be discarded as reliable history. Were we to do that, we should have to reject the four Gospels, since they were written by men who worshipped the subject as God!

One of the few gains of Postmodernism is the realisation that there is no such thing as an unbiassed writer. We all have our biases, and this is certainly true with John Calvin. Yet we must here show our hand. Our main source in the writing of our defence of John Calvin was none other than the biography by R.N. Carew Hunt (R.N. Carew Hunt, Calvin [London, the Centenary Press, 1933]). Of this book T.H.L. Parker noted:

"whatever qualifications must be made about its interpretation of Calvin's theology, [it] is reliable and well-written history."

Robert Reymond wrote of it:

"As a biography it is unsurpassed, but Hunt is somewhat hard at times on Calvin because of his doctrine of predestination." ('John Calvin: His LIfe and Influence [Christian Focus, 2004] P. 146)

In other words, far from being heavily dependent on Calvinist sources, our main source was a scholarly biography by a non-Calvinist writer!

Our other non-Calvinist sources were:
Hugh Y. Reyburn, John Calvin (London, Hodder and Stoughton, 1914) [Modernist Church of Scotland pastor who rejected Calvinism]
Williston Walker, History of the Church (Edinburgh, T. and T. Clark, 1960) [Modernist Yale historian]
John Laurence Von Mosheim, Institutes of Ecclesiastical History. Trans. James Murdock (London, William Tegg, 1880) [Historic Lutheran]

In addition we quoted John Wesley, Richard Baxter and Jacobus Arminus himself to show that one need not agree theologically with Calvinism to speak well of Calvin as a man. We examined a number of the older and better non-Calvinist writers to see what they had to say about the man Nelson Price portrayed as an evil dictator. All of these men gave balanced and on the whole favourable accounts of Calvin. Why? Let us leave the last word to Carew Hunt:

"At this point what we may think of his doctrine or his system become of no importance. We are left in the presence of a man who followed what he believed to be the truth, and consecrated his life to its attainment, and for this he will be had in honour as long as courage and singleness of purpose are held as virtues among men."
R.N. Carew Hunt, Calvin (London, the Centenary Press, 1933) P. 316

How not to debate Theology. 1 -Begging the Question

Theological debate is a cut-and-thrust world. To get the best out of any debate, we have to understand some of the principles. Just as Don Carson's book 'Exegetical Fallacies' teaches good exegesis by bringing up examples of bad, so we shall make some remarks on how to conduct onesself in a debate by bringing up a few examples of how not to. We begin with the ever-popular fallacy of 'begging the question' consists in assuming one or more of the points to be proved in the debate. A wider application of this would be to attribute to your opponent a view that you hold, but that he does not.

In the debate with our Dispensational brothers in Christ:

1. Dispensationalist: "If you interpreted Genesis the way you interpret Revelation you would make the Bible into silly putty." (But we don't, because we don't believe that there is a single hermeneutic for all of Scripture, but different genres should be interpreted differently. So apocalyptic should NEVER be interpreted in the same way as history)

2. Dispensationalist: "You believe the Church has replaced Israel." (No, we believe that the Church is an enlarged and reformed Israel. The Dispensationalist, on the other hand, views the Church as an exclusively Gentile body.)

3. Dispensationalist: "You believe that the centre of history is God's redemption of man. We believe it to be His own glory." When the Covenant Theologian replies that he thinks nothing of the sort, the Dispensationalist will declare that he does so, though not in those words. Thus theological debate will be stifled.

4. Roman Catholic: "The early Church was Catholic. They believed what I believe." (No, the word 'Catholic' then did not mean what it means in western culture today. It meant universal, as opposed to heretical)

NOTE: We do not think that the errors of Dispensationalism are one tenth as bad as those of Rome.

'MacArthur's Millennial Manifesto' - 5

We close our review with a few observations about other parts of Waldron's book.

Waldron shows that, despite the protestations of MacArthur to be speaking as a simple pre-mil, in fact Dr. MacArthur’s sermon presents a form of Dispensationalism, so that the sermon ought to have been entitled ‘Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist is a Dispensational Premillennialist’. This is not to accuse Dr. MacArthur of dishonesty, it is to note that he has unconsciously confused Dispensationalism with historic premillennialism (unless he has, like Barry Horner, defined historic premillennialism with almost sole reference to Horatius Bonar). Church history, Waldron points out, shows that Calvinism and premillennialism have historically NOT been closely related. While J.N. Darby and other early Brethren leaders were Calvinistic, those who have come after (for example C.A. Coates) moved to a more Arminian position, making the claim that Dispensationalism is the natural Calvinistic position rather tenuous to say the least. To give one prominent example, C.I. Scofield in his ‘Reference Bible‘, P. 1203 refers Romans 9.11 to corporate election, not personal. This is really quite logical if you believe that the purpose of the Dispensation of grace is to test men in respect to obedience to the command to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. While Dr. MacArthur insists (rightly) that Dispensationalism teaches God’s gracious election of Israel, he fails to point out that even the most rabid Arminians teach corporate election. The thing is, that’s the only election that they DO teach.

Dr. Waldron points out that Dr. MacArthur and other Dispensationalists assume in their criticism of the non-Dispensational position the Dispensational distinction between Israel and the Church, namely that the Church began at Pentecost and is an essentially Gentile institution, while those they criticise hold that there is a continuity between Israel and the Church, so that the Church does not replace Israel but is Israel reformed and expanded to embrace Gentiles who are engrafted into Israel by faith. Thus it is inaccurate to describe this alone as replacement theology. The trouble is that Dr. MacArthur is assuming that we agree with him on the nature of the Church and the relation between the Church and Israel. WE DON’T!!! This is one of the points at issue, not a point of agreement between us!

We teach, following what we understand the Bible to teach, that Christians are members by faith of a Jewish Church with a Jewish head and founded by Jewish Apostles, based on a Bible written by Jewish men (though some think that Luke was a Gentile, we tend to agree with those who think that he was a Jewish man like the other Biblical writers). In this book Dr. Waldron exegetes the key passages showing that the Apostle Paul identifies the Church and Israel. He points out that MacArthur is erroneous in supposing that non-Dispensationalists teach that God cast out Israel for disobedience and made a new people out of the Gentiles. No, He engrafted the elect Gentiles into the olive tree of Israel.

Other chapters deal with such important issues as “Must Israelites be ethnic Jews’ (No. By accepting circumcision those who were born Gentiles could become Israelites by law) and ‘If the Church is Israel, why doesn’t it inherit Israel’s curses?’ (because the true Church is made up of faithful people. As Cranmer put it, it is "the blessed company of all faithful people". The true Church can‘t apostatize, so it cannot receive the curses for disobedience).

This is an excellent response to Dr. MacArthur, presented in a loving, straightforward way. Waldron corrects from the Bible and does his utmost to present MacArthur’s true position. The whole of MacArthur’s offending message is printed as an appendix, allowing the reader to check Waldron’s use of MacArthur in the work. Like all works by men, it ought to be read with discernment, but it will be profitable for anyone who wants to understand more about the ongoing debates over eschatology and Dispensationalism.

'MacArthur's Millennial Manifesto' - 4

Last time we referred further to the common Dispensationalist argument that non-dispensationalistsinterpret the Bible 'allegorically' and showed it to be false. This argument is often stated as 'if you interpreted Genesis the way you interpret Revelation, you'd all be theistic evolutionists', or in the still more sweeping accusation 'if you interpreted the rest of the Bible the way you interpret Revelation, you'd all be raving liberals'. Unfortunately both of these accusations proceed on the mistaken assumption of a SINGLE, simple hermeneutic, which whist it is often assumed by Dispensationalists, is in fact one of the very things we deny. Instead we hold that each book of the Bible is to be interpreted according to its genre. Thus we CANNOT interpret Revelation (apocalypse) as if it were Genesis (history).

As a six-day, young-earth creationist, Dr. Waldron takes Chapter 14 to show that slippery-slope arguments about non-Dispensational hermeneutics leading to theistic evolution and ultimately liberalism are false, using exactly this argument, one which even Dr. MacArthur actually understands. Dr. MacArthur’s contention is further falsified by the difficult fact that it is not only a-millennialists and post-millennialists who hold and have held the various old-earth and theistic evolutionist positions. The 1917 Scofield Bible, the touchstone of early Dispensationalists (we have in our possession one that was literally read to pieces by an old Brethren lady) taught the Gap Theory, which is a form of old-earth creationism. Here is the quotation:

“The first creative act refers to the dateless past, and gives scope for all the geological ages.” (Scofield Reference Bible [Oxford University Press, 1917] P. 3, note 2, emphasis ours)

John Rendle-Short in his book Green Eye of the Storm (Edinburgh, Banner of Truth, 1998) documents how his father, Arthur Rendle-Short, was a devoted member of the Brethren nevertheless embraced a form of theistic evolution (P. 133; 135). So far from this leading to his being put under discipline by the Fellowship, Dr. Rendle-Short was a popular Brethren preacher! The Brethren (we refer to the old Brethren, obviously) do not have a full-time ministry, and so a Brethren preacher cannot rest on his official position. If his theology is suspect he will simply not be invited to preach. The Brethren of Dr. Arthur Rendle-Short’s day did not HAVE liberals, they were thoroughly evangelical and Dispensationalist (we have met many of them, and our Scofield Bible comes from a member of the same Brethren grouping as Dr. Rendle-Short). Thus we must conclude that the Open Brethren of that age found theistic evolution to be within the pale of orthodoxy. We could add that Scofield’s embrace of the Gap Theory opened up the way for this, and we will. After all, the Bible says that God made the sun on the fourth day of creation (Genesis 1.16: “and God made two great lights…” emphasis ours), yet Scofield says of the light of Genesis 3:

“The ‘light’ of course came from the sun.” (SRB P. 3)

And we would ask in passing, what happened to the literal reading of the Bible? Surely ‘if the plain sense makes sense, seek no other sense’. But the plain sense is that God created the sun on the fourth day! That makes sense, so why insert the idea of a pre-existing sun? Answer: because Scofield wants to fit long ages into the Bible!

No doubt there have been many other Dispensationalists who have embraced a form of Theistic Evolution, and many more who have held a form of the gap theory that requires the sort of hermeneutical wriggling that Scofield was forced to use. I might say that this was the inevitable result of a hermeneutic that imposed from without certain conclusions such as the pre-tribulation rapture, and therefore allowed its adherents to impose long ages and evolution on Genesis. But that would be unfair and silly. The fact of the matter is that men on both sides come to the Bible with our presuppositions and cultural influences. The Victorian age with its commitment to the dogma of development has affected us all, either positively or negatively. So men’s reasons for embracing the error of theistic evolution or long-age creationism are not related to their hermeneutic in Revelation, but to the influence of secular science. While we understand the reasons for Dr. MacArthur’s mistake, we wish that this misrepresentation would cease. For further study on this matter we strongly recommend the 2007 James Begg Society lecture.

We have spent so much time on this point because we hold it to be important. Just as the old Brethren idea of a ‘law of first use’ (namely that the meaning of a word in Scripture is to be defined by its meaning the first time that it is used) was an exegetical fallacy, so is this idea of a single ‘normal hermeneutic’. Now this is not (as some may think) to shut up the Bible to scholars alone, for we further maintain that the genres of Biblical literature are apparent to the ordinary reader on their face. Only a fool would mistake the Psalms for history, and as we have noted the Revelation carries in its first verse the declaration that it is a symbolical book. Furthermore, a man does not need to take some commentary to understand the meaning of the symbols of Revelation mean, but only to search the Scriptures diligently.

God willing, we shall conclude next time with some random observations on other parts of the book.

'MacArthur's Millennial Manifesto' - 3

Last time we made some remarks on what is and is not allegorical interpretation. Whilst we hold strongly that the Medieval method of finding symbolism everywhere and claiming that this symbolism was the true meaning of historical texts such as Genesis is utterly illegitimate, having no basis in the text, obviously there are times when a symbolical interpretation of Scripture is appropriate, for example in the book of Revelation. In Revelation 1.1 we read that the Revelation was ‘sent and signified’ to John. This word ‘signified’ is the Greek ‘eshmenon’ which is a form of shmeion, meaning (according to Thayer’, a sign or mark’. John Wesley says on this word (Notes on the New Testament),

“Sent and signified them - Showed them by signs or emblems; so the Greek word properly means.”

The brilliant Dr. Gill agrees with Mr. Wesley on this point (surely one of very few on which they did!!!) explaining the word as meaning:

“By various emblems, signs and visions, represented and set before John.” An Exposition of the New Testament [London, William Hill Collingridge, 1853] Vol. 2, P. 931).

To the testimony of these two great Englishmen we add that of the American Presbyterian commentator, Albert Barnes:

“Eshmanen. He indicated it by signs and symbols. The word occurs in the New Testament only in Jn. Xii.33; xviii.32; xxi.19; Ac. Xi.28; xxv.27, and in the passage before us, in all which places it is rendered signify, signifying, or signified. It properly refers to some sign, signal or token by which anything is made known, and is a word most happily chosen to denote the manner in which the events referred to were to be communicated to John, for nearly the whole book is made up of signs and symbols.” (‘Notes on the Revelation’ [London, Blackie, 1951] Pp.35-6)

Waldron quotes one of MacArthur’s associates, Michael Vlach, as saying

“The presence of symbols does not mean that symbolical or allegorical interpretation in necessary.” (P. 76).

As Waldron notes:

“One would have thought the presence of symbols would have exactly meant that some symbolical interpretation is necessary.” (P. 77)

Conversely the absence of symbols precludes the possibility of symbolic interpretation! Poetical books require a poetical hermeneutic, historical books an historical and symbolical a symbolical. This is the contention of the non-Dispensational teachers. Different genres of literature require different hermeneutics. In practice we all recognise this. Let us take up the writings of John Bunyan. Do we approach the Pilgrim’s Progress the same way that we approach Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners? No! We recognise that the one is an allegory, the other a spiritual autobiography. One is to have an allegorical hermeneutic applied, the other an historical.

The idea of a single simple hermeneutic for every part of the Bible is actually so blatantly wrong that dispensationalists don’t believe it. We take as an example the letters to the seven Churches in Revelation 2.1-3.22. Dr. John MacArthur, like all historic non-dispensational protestant theologians, holds these to be letters to seven literal historic Churches then existing in Asia Minor. But dispensational writers such as C.I. Scofield find a fourfold application to these letters:

“1. Local, to the churches actually addressed; (2) admonitory, to all churches in all time as tests by which they may discern their true spiritual state in the sight of God; (3) Personal, in the exhortations to him “that hath an ear”, and in the promises “to him that overcometh; (4) prophetic, as disclosing seven phases of the spiritual history of the Church from, say, AD 96 to the end. It is incredible that in a prophecy covering the Church period there be no such fore view. These messages must contain that for view if it is in the book at all, for the church does not appear after 3.22.” (SRB p. 1331 Note 3)

This is certainly spiritualizing if there is such a thing, and even Dr. MacArthur does not escape its influence, for he says of Revelation 3.10,

“this verse promises that the church will be delivered from the tribulation, thus supporting a pretribulation rapture.” (‘Because the Time is Near’, [Moody, 2007] P. 92)

. For Dr. MacArthur then to fault those with whom he disagrees for employing spiritualizing interpretation therefore reminds us of an old saying about pots and kettles. What Revelation 3.10 says is: “Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.” It is directed to the Church at Philadelphia, which Dr. John MacArthur tells us,

“The Christians in Philadelphia stood firm even after the region was overrun by the Muslims, until finally disappearing sometime during the fourteenth century.” (P. 89).

Thus, even if we take the passage as applying to the Church at Philadelphia throughout its history, the stubborn fact remains that there is no church there, though there would have to be to support MacArthur’s interpretation unless he is in fact spiritualizing the passage, so that ‘Church at Philadelphia’ really means ‘faithful Christians alive at the time of the Great Tribulation’. Unless we come to this text with a pre-existing idea (like that to which Scofield confesses in the quotation above), we would suppose that the passage refers to a great empire-wide persecution in the first or second centuries. The phrase ‘the whole world’ is the same one found in Luke 2.1 and Acts 11.28, so unless you want to insist that Caesar Augustus wanted to tax the whole globe, and that the famine affected the whole globe, you have to admit that it means ‘the whole empire’ in those places, and therefore there is no reason to take it as meaning anything else here. The ’plain sense’ of Revelation 3.10 is that the church at Philadelphia would be kept from an imminent empire-wide persecution. This makes sense, so why must Scofield and MacArthur seek another sense? If you will pardon the pun, that does not make sense.

Mr. Andrew Fuller, in his commentary on Revelation, writes:

“Some have considered these churches as prophetically representing the different states of the Church at large under the Gospel dispensation. There is no doubt that analogies may be found between them, but it appears to me that the hypothesis is unfounded… Instead of considering the epistles to the seven churches either as prophetic or as descriptive of the church at large as it then was, I should rather consider them as descriptive of the state of those seven churches as they then were.” (Works of Andrew Fuller [Sprinkle, 1988] Vol. 3 P. 210)

. The Puritan Matthew Poole agrees:

“The epistles concerning matters of faith and manners are written plainly, not in mysterious expressions.” (Commentary on the Holy Bible [Banner of Truth, 1963] Vol. 3. P. 953)

. And Dr. Adam Clarke, the great Wesleyan commentator, is extremely strong in expressing his opinion of those who spiritualize the seven churches:

“I do not perceive any metaphorical or allegorical meaning in the epistles to these churches. I consider the churches as real; and that their spiritual state is here really and literally pointed out; and that they have no reference to the state of the church of Christ in all ages, as has been imagined, and that the notion… is unfounded, absurd and dangerous; and such expositions should not be entertained by any who wish to arrive at a sober and rational knowledge of the Holy Scriptures.” (Commentary on the Holy Bible [Thomas Tegg, 1837] P.2028)

All three of these commentators, following their insistence on a literal interpretation, take the view that we do, that the ‘hour of temptation’ was some empire-wide persecution in the immediate future when the Revelation was written. Let us repeat, ANY OTHER VIEW IS ILLEGITIMATE SPIRITUALIZATION. Now we would not be as pungent as Dr. Clarke, who effectively declares Scofield and MacArthur to be extravagant and irrational in their interpretations, but we agree with the good doctor’s point. In fact let us add that we find Dr. Clarke an excellent commentator except when he is blinded by his own Arminianism. He certainly has a horror of spiritualizing that would make Dr. MacArthur look like Origen’s second cousin!

So long as passages like the above quotations from MacArthur and Scofield exist in Dispensationalist writings, it is most unwise for them to accuse non-dispensational writers of spiritualizing. What they mean really is that they think that the non-dispensational writers spiritualize in the wrong places. They are at liberty to think that, but be it known that we think that they spiritualize in the wrong places!!! How is the above quote from MacArthur on Revelation 3.10 the ‘plain sense’ or ‘literal meaning’ of the passage? Scofield admits that the reason he must find a prophecy of the ‘Church Age’ in these two chapters is that “these messages must contain that’. It is not exegetical, it is in fact the eisegetical imposition of an a priori upon the text. We are so bold in fact as to say that no-one can find a pre-tribulation Rapture in any of MacArthur’s proof texts given on page 92 of Because the Time is Near who does not come looking for evidence of one. But we have written at great length on that subject elsewhere and would refer readers interested in the deficiencies to that.

God willing, we shall continue this series next time.

'MacArthur's Millennial Manifesto' - 2

Another dispensationalist error is identified by Waldron in MacArthur’s use of the common accusation of allegorical interpretation leveled against amillennial and postmillennial interpreters of the Revelation and the prophets. He points out that this is a mistake, and in fact the dispensationalist is guilty of an error himself in not acknowledging, though he does in practice recognise, the existence of different genres of literature in the Bible, which require to be interpreted in distinct ways. For example, no-one interprets the poetical language of the Psalms as they do the historical narratives found in, for example, the Former Prophets. Indeed, the error of true allegorists is that they DO interpret the Kings as though it were the same as Psalms. The dispensational statement that ‘if the plain sense makes sense, seek no other sense’ is quite inadequate and fails to take into account the analogy of faith. The old Brethren writers and preachers were certainly guilty of a large number of exegetical fallacies, and we think this idea of a single ‘normal hermeneutic’ for the whole Bible is one of them.

This is not to say that there is no such thing as allegorizing, plainly there is. We would however emphasise that there is a difference between those things that are expressly presented as signs and making historical passages into allegories. We have in our possession a copy of Emmanuel Swedenborg’s ‘Heaven and Hell’. Swedenborg was a genuine allegorizer. We give a random example:

“The members, organs and viscera of man, when mentioned in the Word, denote similar things, for every expression in the Word has a signification derived from correspondence; by the head, therefore, is signified intelligence and wisdom; by the breast, charity; by the loins, conjugal love; by the arms and hands, the power of truth; by the feet the natural [principle]; by the eyes, understanding; by the nostrils, perception; by the ears, obedience; by the kidneys, the purification of truth; and so forth.” (‘The Future Life’, [London, the Missionary and Tract Society of the New Church, 1879] P. 31)

This is true allegorizing, affixing a symbolic meaning to every word of Scripture and interpreting the Bible (especially the historical portions) according to these symbolic meanings. So, for example, taking Swedenborg for our example, we might say that when the Scripture says ‘Stretch out your hand’, what it really means is that we should exalt the power of Truth. That is allegory. But when The Apostle Paul speaks in Romans 11 of the one olive tree, that is symbolism, for he makes it clear that this olive tree is not a literal tree but a symbol of the people of God. So the ‘Beyond Creationism’ people who make the early chapters of Genesis a picture of Israel’s judgment are allegorizing, but those who say that the Harlot of the Revelation is symbolic of the antichristian apostate Church are simply seeking to understand a symbol. This loose use of the term ‘allegorical’ is something that we confess that we dislike. Particularly as it would be a brave man who compared William Hendriksen with Swedenborg!!! Allegorical is not a synonym for symbolic. The two are different, at least in modern English usage. We would prefer to reserve the term 'allegorical' interpretation for the illegitimate application of a symbolical hermeneutic. the book of Revelation is explicitly symbolic, and only makes sense interpreted in this way.


Of which more, God willing, next time.

Cornelius Van Til: Reformed Apologist and Churchman - Review

Cornelius Van Til:
Reformed Apologist and Churchman

John R. Muether

We were suprised to find that Muether's book is the first biography of Van Til since William White's 'authorized biography' of 1979. Cornelius Van Til, whilst never the easiest of men to read (he writes in Dutch American, which is equally difficult for those of us not used to it to follow when it is spoken), is by far the most influential Reformed apologist of the 20th century. Yet Muether has not simply taken that part of VAn Til, he has presented, as his subtitle shows, Van Til as both thinker and churchman. Indeed, as Muether contends, you cannot truly understand Van Til except in both of these capacities. We need, as it were, a stereoscopic picture of Van Til, the man in the Church as well as the professor in his study.

Muether has an obvious sympathy for his subject, always a good thing in a biographer. Whatever anyone else may think, we prefer our biographies to be written by those who actually like their subject. And Van Til, though inclined to fierce rhetoric, and the last man to back away from a fight, comes across as a genuinely likeable man, the man that we recognise from listening to recordings of his lectures (a word to those who find Van Til difficult to read, listen to him first. Sermonaudio.com has a number of excellent Van Til lectures). Here is Van Til in context, not some disembodied voice floating in the ether, but the Dutch Reformed man in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, the outsider trying to forge a place in America for his adopted denomination, and the champion of Reformed theology.

Like Dr. Van Til, we regard the Reformed Faith as simply Biblical Christianity in its purest form, and that theology needs a consistent defence. We believe that Van Til, both practically and in his writings, offered and still offers that defence. Meuther gives us food for thought, showing how Van Til was one of the first to raise concern about the direction of the New Evangelicalism, and how he was the strongest voice of warning when Karl Barth came on the scene. This is a gripping read. In one sitting it would probably take about three and a half hours to read properly. We read most of it on a three-hour coach journey, and it certainly shortened the journey time.

Highly, HIGHLY recommended to all who want to know something about the man whose apologetic methodology still casts a long shadow (and, we think, a welcome shadow) over the Church today.

'MacArthur's Millennial Manifesto' - 1

We have now read Samuel Waldron's book 'MacArthur's Millennial Manifesto'

Dr. John MacArthur is no stranger to controversy- quite the reverse, in fact. His works against modern-day antinomianism such as ‘The Gospel According to Jesus’ sparked a healthy debate about the connection of repentance and saving faith. And, on the whole, we have agreed with MacArthur in these controversies. Yet, as readers of this blog will know, we have been compelled to register our objections to the eschatology promoted by Dr. MacArthur.

Dr. MacArthur’s opening sermon at the 2007 Shepherds’ Conference, ‘Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist is Premillennial’, sparked off quite a debate at the time, a debate that has finally reached the United Kingdom, if a recent letter in the British Church Newspaper is anything to go by. Therefore the appearance of Dr. Samuel E. Waldron’s book ‘MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto’ is most welcome. This is, as the subtitle states, ‘A Friendly Response’, certainly its tone is far more irenic than that of MacArthur’s sermon that is herein critiqued.
We are not in total agreement with Dr. Waldron. He holds to a form of Augustinian amillennialism that sees no future conversion of the Jewish nation as a nation to Christ, we hold to a Puritan postmillennialism that sees, on the basis of Romans 11, a future restoration of the people of Israel to the Land and to faith in the true Messiah. Those wishing to read a commentary on Romans 11 from that perspective will find it in David Brown’s contribution to the Jamieson, Faussett and Brown Bible Commentary. We find David Brown’s writings on this point every bit as convincing as we find his book on the Second Advent of Christ.

Having made these necessary critical remarks, we find much to appreciate in Waldron’s book. He demonstrates that an unconscious dispensational tradition has distorted MacArthur’s understanding of Amillennialism, so that when MacArthur says that all Calvinists ought to be pre-mil, in fact what he is saying is that they ought to hold one particular brand of pre-mil teaching. Certainly he would not consider the teaching of Justin Martyr to be preferable to Amillennialism on this point. In fact, he would reject all the pre-mil teaching that existed before the Reformation, as there was a consensus at that time that the purpose of God for the Jewish nation had ceased. Those who wish to examine the veracity of this statement should consult David Brown’s ‘The Restoration of the Jews’, Iain Murray’s ‘The Puritan Hope’, and Peter Toon’s 1968 Puritan Conference paper ‘Puritan Eschatology: 1600 to 1648’. Unfortunately, like Dr. Barry Horner, MacArthur considers his brand of pre-millennial Dispensational teaching to be just ‘pre-mil’ on this point, when it is not. Waldron shows this clearly by appeals to history.

More, God willing, next time.

Dispensational Men of Straw Demolished: 4

We conclude our remarks with some little defence of what we have said.

The question will be asked “what then about Roman Catholic claims that they believe in salvation through grace? Do you believe them?” In one sense, yes. You see, the Reformers never claimed that Rome taught salvation apart from grace. The Council of Trent is explicit that men are never saved apart from grace. But there is a word missing from Rome that the Reformers affirmed: ALONE. Rome has never claimed to teach salvation by grace ALONE, or by faith ALONE. Rome is actually quite open and honest.

The ‘cults’ are another matter. They redefine words, and that is why they can make statements that sound quite protestant and sound, but are in fact anything but - because words like ‘grace’ and ‘works’ have been redefined.

Let us emphasise that we know it is very possible for a person to unconsciously deny that which they consciously affirm, but we are always very reluctant to consider this and to charge people with holding positions that they explicitly deny. We Particular Baptists are historically very reluctant to accept inferences from Scripture. WE are still more reluctant to accept inferences from people’s writings as definitions of what they believe, particularly inferences that they themselves would deny. This was an unwarranted and tyrannical procedure when the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland used it to condemn the Marrow of Modern Divinity for teaching antinomianism (it actually teaches against it), it is just as unwarranted today. Again, when men accused J.C. Philpot of antinomianism ’by inference’ though he preached against it, that was uncharitable. We believe that it is always uncharitable to accuse a man by inference alone, particularly when he denies the charge inferred. Let us give the example of the ‘Marrow’. A Moderate minister might say to Thomas Boston: “You high-flyers are antinomians! Look at that book, it teaches rank antinomianism.”
Boston: “Indeed, sir, it does not. Look, one of the characters in the book is an antinomian, and his views are roundly condemned.”
Moderate: “It may do so, but nevertheless, as I read it I find that throughout it tends towards the teaching that Christians are under no obligation to live a holy life.”
Boston: “I deny that inference. Antinomianism is a horrible doctrine that both I and that book stand against.”

Or Mr. Philpot:
A Wesleyan: “Mr. Philpot, you are an antinomian.”
Mr. Philpot: “No, sir, I am not. Indeed, I believe that should a man teach that a Christian may live as he will without reference to God’s demands, that man is a false teacher.”
Wesleyan: “You may say so, but by teaching that believers are not under the law, your teaching tends to antinomianism.”
Philpot: “I deny that inference, I think antinomianism to be the most pernicious of teaching, and have stood against it ever since I was called by God’s grace.”

There is a direct parallel, in our opinion, between the argument of our hypothetical Moderate and Wesleyan and that of Mr. Phillips. We think both are unfair and could be used in a devastating fashion against Mr. Phillips’ own side, just as Mr. Boston could have used it to argue that the Moderate was a legalist. But we prefer to act as Mr. Boston did and act according to that famous dictum:

“In all things Charity.”