Wednesday, October 19, 2022

Is Everything "Divinely Preserved"?

"T. Austin Sparks makes the case that God's Book was divinely preserved and ordered in the way we have it."

Does that include the marginal notes in the 1611 KJV, such as the one at Luke 17:36 that informs the reader that this verse should not be there as it does not exist in the majority of Greek copies? The same marginal note that exists in all translations today?

Does that include chapters and verses, which are 700 and 500 years old respectively? The earliest English Bibles, such as Wycliffe and Tyndale, only had chapters as the verse system had not been invented yet.

Does that include the Apocrypha? These books were part of every Bible up until the late 1800s.

Does that include cross references? Regardless of who is behind the translation, these are often incorrect and are only cross linked because the translators believed there was a connection. There are older Bibles that even have cross references to the Apocrypha!

Does that include a Concordance?

Where do we draw the line?

T. Austin Sparks, as with all KJV-Onlyists and Ruckmanites, did not have a clue what he was talking about. To him, every aspect invented by the human mind is "divine preservation." He does not have a clue what genuine divine preservation is. God's Word is preserved in the extant manuscript copies we have of the original autographs — not in the KJV!

No, the order in which our Bible appears is not divinely preserved. God had nothing to do with its order. When they first started binding books, they bound them with the author's largest work first and their smallest work last, regardless of chronology. They did this with Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, etc. Does T. Austin Sparks want to try and tell me that God "divinely preserved" those works in that order, too?

Paul's letters are bound in the exact same way, but in two different groupings. His letters to the churches are first, arranged from longest to shortest, followed by personal letters, arranged from longest to shortest. Sorry, but this is no way to understand the New Testament.

God is not the author of confusion, and the long established order we find our Bibles in is chaotic. Man bound the Scriptures together. Man decided the order. Man included the Apocrypha (Which, if they are not inspired, do you really think God would have included them?). Man added the chapter system. Man added the verse system. Man added the cross references and marginal notes. Man added a concordance. If God had laid out the Bible by divine preservation, it would have been perfect in every single detail.  Sorry, but T. Austin Sparks was wrong!

Proof Text Theology

"Beware the teacher bearing verses!"

Traditional Protestant views come to us not so much from Yahweh's Word itself as from the way we Protestants approach Yahweh's Word. Practically everything we are taught as being "scriptural" comes from our use of Yahweh's Word, rather than from Yahweh's Word. This methodology is referred to as teaching by means of proof text. This approach proves very little, yet can "prove" anything!

Here's how it works: First you select your topic. Then you pick out a series of verses from all over Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation. Then you take these random, isolated verses you have selected by ripping them out of their immediate context and arrange them in some sort of order . . . probably one that reinforces your view and interpretation on your chosen topic. Voila! A doctrine that is "absolutely the Word of Yahweh."

Imagine I were a marriage counselor. Throughout my career, I had written many letters to both groups of people and particular individuals. After I had died, only 9 letters written to groups could be found, and 4 letters written to individuals. Some time later, someone had the idea to add chapters to my letters and turn each sentence into verses. If you were to take one sentence from one of my letters and try to tie it together with another sentence from another one of my letters, unless the context surrounding the one agrees with the context surrounding the other, you have just made me say and teach something that I never said or taught. The two sentences are in no way, shape, or form related or complementary.

Our entire Protestant mind-set has as its underpinnings the proof text approach to Scripture. This is dangerous. Very dangerous. Once a person embraces a certain teaching arrived at by the proof texting method, it is extremely difficult for them to ever let go of it. Fifteen centuries of this approach have convinced them that this method is "biblical." Once a man completes his "tapestry in verse," you would be wise not to disagree with him because he may react rather poorly: "You don't believe the clear teaching of the Word of God?!?" Who wants to have the noose of such a fallacious accusation tied around their neck?

Not only does this approach prevent us from truly seeing the first century Christians, but also from seeing the first century. The Bible is not a pile of jigsaw pieces waiting for us to discover their place in a jigsaw puzzle. All this approach does is provide opinion. There is extremely little in the proof text approach to Yahweh's Word. This method is open to wholesale abuse of Yahweh's Word, the end result of which is dear brothers and sisters of the faith who are hurt by these teachings.

Even our cross reference systems are based on the proof text methodology. Depending who does the cross references, they will attempt to "prove" their doctrines. Imagine if the Jehovah's Witnesses provided the cross reference system!

The proof text approach has its origins in paganism—not Christianity! It was birthed by Aristotle and other Greek philosophers who turned it into an art form. Because these proof-texters needed to quickly find the page of a book they were arguing from, they began dividing their favourite books into chapters and giving each sentence a number. We Protestants still use this pagan practice as well.

The number of pagan practices the modern "church" uses regularly is astonishing!

Just as the pagans isolated quotations and thoughts in their favourite books by taking them out of context, so too has the Christian "church" done since the 6th century. Remember this the next time you attempt to argue chapter and verse!

When you see a dozen random, isolated verses of Scripture strung together to support some doctrine, you need to stop and think. Read each of these verses in its immediate surrounding context. You notice how the verse takes on an entirely different meaning? That is because the proof text approach is unbiblical and only leads to further confusion, on top of the confusion raised by not having the books of the Bible in the correct historical-chronological order.

Proof texting is a formula for disaster, which consists of numbered verses, numbered chapters, taken from chaotically arranged books, with little knowledge of the first century, blended liberally with philosophical logic. John Nelson Darby employed this formula well when he gave us the entire unbiblical concept of Dispensationalism.

Tuesday, October 18, 2022

Death Blow to the Abortion Debate

"If men fight and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely . . . [and] if any lasting harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." Exodus 21:22-23

Abortion is not new, and it certainly is not a 20th century problem. Abortion has existed since at least the Roman Empire, and likely long before that. There are no new sins. Man has been dealing with them for his entire existence. These sins have merely taken on different names or attempted different arguments as justification for them. For example, the 20th century attempts to argue for "committed, faithful and loving monogamous partnership" of homosexuals, but sodomy is sodomy and it is all condemned as a perversion and an abomination by Yahweh almighty (see Death Blow to the Homosexual Debate). A "committed, faithful and loving monogamous partnership" does not change what it is. Would this argument be used to support every form of incest?

Tomi Lahren, a Republican, professes to be a Christian, but she also says, "I'm a pro-choice conservative." On May 16, 2019, she tweeted, "I will be attacked by fellow conservatives for saying this, but so be it, this Alabama abortion ban is too restrictive. It doesn't save life, it simply forces women into more dangerous methods, other states or countries. You don't encourage life via blanket government mandate!" In response to a woman who called her "anti-Christian, anti-family, and anti-freedom," Tomi responded, "If you think banning abortion with no exception for rape or incest will stop women from terminating pregnancy, you're not being honest with yourself. P.S. you're not God so don't you dare evaluate my Christian faith based on your moral superiority complex." Sorry, Tomi, but your views on abortion are anything but "Christian faith."

Tomi needs to be honest with herself. Banning abortion will not prevent those who desire to terminate the infant life in their womb, but that does not mean we should legalize abortion. Should we legalize rape and murder, too? After all, laws that prohibit rape and murder do not prevent rapists and murderers from raping and murdering. Maybe we should eliminate all gun laws, too, since criminals do not obey them. Apparently, Tomi needs an education in logic and critical thinking. The lawless never obey the law, but that does not mean that we should become a lawless society. That is both ludicrous and asinine.

For a so-called "Christian," Tomi Lahren's views are completely contradictory to the Lord Jesus, Yahweh's Word, and early Christianity. Observe:

ABORTION:
"You shall not kill the child by obtaining an abortion. Nor, again, shall you destroy him after he is born." —Barnabas (c. 70-130, E)

"You shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill one who has been born." —Didache (c. 80-140, E)

"They bear children, but they do not destroy their offspring." —Letter to Diognetus (c. 125-200)

"We say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder. And we also say they will have to give an account to God for the abortion. So on what basis could we commit murder? For it does not belong to the same person to regard the very fetus in the womb as a created being (and therefore an object of God's care)—yet when he has passed into life, to kill him. We also teach that it is wrong to expose an infant [the practice of abandoning infant children along roadsides]. For those who expose them are guilty of child murder." —Athenagoras (c. 175, E)

"Fathers, forgetting about their children who have been exposed, often unknowingly have intercourse with a son that has debauched himself and with daughters who are prostitutes." —Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E)

"Although keeping parrots and curlews, the [pagans] do not adopt the orphan child. Rather, they expose children who are born at home. Yet, they take up the young of birds. So they prefer irrational creatures to rational ones!" —Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E)
Gee! What does this sound like? This sounds like today, where Westerners cry a foul over the "rights" of animals and treat animals with more dignity than they do a child in the womb. "Save the animals! Kill the children!" is the mantra of the West today.

"What cause is there for the exposure of a child? The man who did not desire to beget children had no right to marry at all. He certainly does not have the right to become the murderer of his children, because of licentious indulgence." —Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E)

"In our case, murder is once for all forbidden. Therefore, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier way to kill a human. It does not matter whether you take away a life that has been born, or destroy one that is not yet born." —Tertullian (c. 197, W)

"First of all, you [pagans] expose your children, so that they may be taken up by any compassionate passer-by, to whom they are quite unknown!" —Tertullian (c. 197, W)

"Although you are forbidden by the laws to kill newborn infants, it so happens that no laws are evaded with more impunity or greater safety. And this is doe with the deliberate knowledge of the public." —Tertullian (c. 197, W)

"Among surgeons' tools there is a certain instrument that is formed with a nicely-adjusted flexible frame for first of all opening the uterus and then keeping it open. It also has a circular blade, by means of which the limbs within the womb are dissected with careful, but unflinching care. Its lasting appendage is a blunted or covered hook, by which the entire fetus is extracted by a violent delivery. There is also a copper needle or spike, by which the actual death is brought about in this treacherous robbery of life. From its infanticide function, they give it the name, "killer of the infant"—which infant, of course, had once been alive." —Tertullian (c. 210, W)

"Indeed, the Law of Moses punished with appropriate penalties the person who causes abortion. For there already exists the beginning stages of a human being. And even at this stage, [the fetus] is already acknowledged with having the condition of life and death, since he is already susceptible to both." —Tertullian (c. 210, W)

"Are you to dissolve the conception by aid of drugs? I believe it is no more lawful to hurt a child in process of birth, than to hurt one who is already born." —Tertullian (c. 212, W)

"I behold a certain ceremony and circumstance of adultery. On the one hand, idolatry precedes it and leads the way. on the other hand, murder follows in company. . . . Witness the midwives, too! How many adulterous conceptions are slaughtered!" —Tertullian (c. 212, W)

"There are some women who, by drinking medical preparations, extinguish the source of the future man in their very bowels. So they commit murder before they bring forth. And these things assuredly come down from the teaching of your gods." —Mark Minucius Felix (c. 200, W)

"Women who were reputed believers began to resort to drugs for producing sterility. They also girded themselves around, so as to expel what was being conceived. For they did not wish to have a child by either a slave or by any common fellow—out of concern for their family and their excessive wealth. See what a great impiety the lawless one has advanced! He teaches adultery and murder at the same time!" —Hippolytus (c. 225, W)

"The womb of his wife was hit by a blow of his heel. And, in the miscarriage that soon followed, the offspring was brought forth, the fruit of a father's murder." —Cyprian (c. 250, W)

"I cannot find language to even speak of the infants who were burned to the same Saturn!" —Lactantius (c. 304-313, W)

[Speaking of Pagans:] "They either strangle the sons born from themselves, or if they are too "pious," they expose them." —Lactantius (c. 304-313, W)

"Let no one imagine that to strangle newborn children is allowable. For this is the greatest impiety! God breathes into their souls for life, not for death. Mean . . . deprive souls that are still innocent and simple, of the light that they themselves have not given. . . . Or can those persons be considered innocent who expose their own offspring as pray for dogs? As far as their participation is concerned, they have killed them in a more cruel manner than if they had strangled them! . . . Therefore, if anyone is unable to bring up children because of poverty, it is better to abstain from marriage than to mar the work of God with wicked hands." —Lactantius (c. 304-313, W)

"You shall not slay your child by cause abortion, nor kill the baby that is born. For "everything that is shaped and has received a soul from God, if it is slain, shall be avenged, as being unjustly destroyed" [Ezek. 21:23, LXX]." —Apostolic Constitutions (compiled c. 390, E)

Infanticide—abortion, the murder of a child in the womb—is always wrong, Christian! It does not matter whether the child is the result of rape or incest, there is no excuse for obliterating the life of an innocent child! Punish the guilty party, not the child! Are you aware of just how many famous people the world over would never have existed if you aborted every child who was the result of rape or incest? Research it some time! Anyone who attempts to call themselves a "Christian" who argues in favour of abortion had best examine and re-evaluate themselves because they are opposed to Yahweh almighty; they have made themselves His enemies. Not only are Tomi Lahren's views inconsistent with the Republican Party's stance (historically), but they are also extremely inconsistent with Christianity. Again, sorry, Tomi, but your views on abortion are anything but "Christian faith."

If you profess to be a Christian, you need to start being counter-cultural just as the early Christians were! You need to evaluate your life and start living according to Jesus' words, and stop trying to make excuses for yourself! Christianity is not something that is "cool"; you need to consider the cost of what it means to follow Jesus (Luke 14:27-28; cf. Matt. 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23; 2 Tim. 3:12), and then surrender all to Him. Your life is forfeit for Christ: "Whoever seeks to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life [for My sake and the gospels] will preserve it" (Luke 17:33; cf. Matt. 16:25; Mark 8:35; Luke 9:24). Many who profess Christ today have no clue what it means to actually be a Christian. They are looking for some sort of benefit in this world, because false teachers have sold them a lie. The early Christians had their eye on eternity, considering the present persecution to be nothing in comparison with eternity. If they were to suffer for 70 years for the name of Jesus, it was considered a short period of time compared with eternity, and they were willing to endure it.

Saturday, October 15, 2022

The Death of Discernment 2

Then the king of Israel gathered the prophets together, about four hundred men, and said to them, "Shall I go against Ramoth-gilead to battle or shall I refrain?" And they said, "Go up, for the Lord will give it into the hand of the king." But Jehoshaphat said, "Is there not yet a prophet of Yahweh here that we may inquire of him?" And the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, "There is yet one man by whom we may inquire of Yahweh, but I hate him, because he does not prophesy good concerning me, but evil. He is Micaiah son of Imlah." But Jehoshaphat said, "Let not the king say so." Then the king of Israel called an officer and said, "Hasten to bring Micaiah son of Imlah." Now the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat king of Judah were sitting each on his throne, clothed in their royal garments, at the threshing floor at the entrance of the gate of Samaria; and all the prophets were prophesying before them. And Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah made horns of iron for himself and said, "Thus says Yahweh, 'With these you will gore the Arameans until they are consumed.'" All the prophets were also prophesying thus, saying, "Go up to Ramoth-gilead and succeed, and Yahweh will give it into the hand of the king."
Now the messenger who went to summon Micaiah spoke to him saying, "Behold now, the words of the prophets, as if from one mouth, are good towards the king. Please let your word be like the word of one of them, and speak that which is good." But Micaiah said, "As Yahweh lives, what Yahweh says to me, that I shall speak."
Then he came to the king, and the king said to him, "Micaiah, shall we go to Ramoth-gilead to battle, or shall we refrain?" And he said to him, "Go up and succeed, and Yahweh will give it into the hand of the king." Then the king said to him, "How many times must I make you swear that you will speak to me nothing but the truth in the name of Yahweh?" So he said,
"I saw all Israel
Scattered on the mountains,
Like sheep which have no shepherd.
And Yahweh said,
'These have no master.
Let each of them return to his house in peace.'"
Then the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, "Did I not say to you that he would not prophesy good concerning me, but evil?"
Then Micaiah said, "Therefore, hear the word of Yahweh. I saw Yahweh sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by Him on His right and on His left. And Yahweh said, 'Who will entice Ahab so that he will go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?' And one said this while another said that. Then a spirit came forward and stood before Yahweh and said, 'I will entice him.' And Yahweh said to him, 'How?' And he said, 'I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.' Then He said, 'You shall entice him and also prevail. Go out and do so.' So now, behold, Yahweh has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; but Yahweh has spoken calamity against you."
Then Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah came near and struck Micaiah on the cheek and said, "How did the Spirit of Yahweh pass from me to speak to you?" And Micaiah said, "Behold, you will see on that day when you enter an inner room to hide." Then the king of Israel said, "Take Micaiah and return him to Amon the commander of the city and to Joash the king's son; and say, 'Thus says the king, "Put this man in prison and feed him sparingly with bread and water until I come back safely."'" And Micaiah said, "If you indeed return safely, Yahweh has not spoken by me." And he said, "Listen, all you people."
1 Kings 22:6-28

Four hundred lying mouths speaking pleasantries (what you want to hear), and one mouth speaking the truth (what you need to hear). When you do nothing but speak good of someone, because you do not love the truth, do not be surprised when Yahweh sees to it that you are deceived. These prophets presumed to speak in the name of Yahweh. These prophets may have been close friends of the king, and because they would only speak what he wanted to hear, Yahweh deceived them into thinking they were speaking for Him. "Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but deceitful are the kisses of an enemy" (Prov. 27:6).

Even if you are not a close friend, love from a stranger is better than apathy from a friend. "Better is reproof that is revealed than love that is hidden" (Prov. 27:5). Ahab showed partiality to those who spoke well of him. Micaiah was encouraged to "go along to get along." If this is how you behave with your brothers and sisters in the faith, with your partners in ministry, then you do not truly love them. You are a flatterer who does not love the truth. Because the king showed partiality, discernment died and deception was the only remaining option.

If you do not want to hear the truth being spoken about yourself, whether by a friend, a stranger, or an enemy, then Yahweh will put a lying spirit in the mouths of your so-called "friends" and partners. If you do not want to hear truth because it contradicts you in some way or another, discernment dies and deception is born.

Well-respected men, out of their pride, cannot stand to be corrected by those they deem to be lesser than themselves, whether in prestige, power, or position. They have a "How dare you try to rebuke or correct me" attitude. Out of their embarrassment, they will seek to destroy the person they deem to be lesser. This is the way of religious hypocrisy.

If any of these people (John MacArthur, Phil Johnson, Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, Todd Friel, Justin Peters, Matt Slick, Chris Rosebrough, Jordan D. Hall, etc.) or these ministries (Bible Thumping Wingnut Network, Conversations That Matter, Fighting For the Faith, Justin Peters Ministries, No Compromise, Polite Leader, Pulpit & Pen, Protestia, ReformedWiki2.0, Right Response Ministries, Wretched, etc.) were to read my previous article or this article, because truth is not on their side, I have absolutely no doubt that they will lash out with their hatred against me by engaging in denial, deflection, projection, censorship, "cancelling," manipulation, smearing, gaslighting, jamming, framing, ad hominem, name calling, character assassination, intimidation, and the use of fallacious arguments that have no basis in reality.

When you see ad hominem attack, when you see someone going after the individual in order to circumvent what they are saying, in order to dodge and evade the issues (often by way of obfuscation, technicalities, ambiguous language, and equivocation), being unable to argue the main point and never providing a reasonable refutation or an intelligent counter-argument (merely presenting subjective opinions and irrational feelings), that is a person speaking by way of the Devil and confession of intellectual bankruptcy. They do this because they are incapable of having a serious, mature, respectful, intelligent, rational, honest conversation.

When you call these men and their ministries out, seeking to hold them accountable, because of their stubborn pride and egotistical arrogance, they will not give you the time of day. They will turn on you in an instant like a wild dog. These men are hypocrites. They call other men and women out for their sins, men and women who are not part of their clique, but when their friends and ministry partners commit the same sins, they are purposefully silent about it. One man unrelated to their group beats his wife and they are quick to talk about it and condemn it, but when a member of their group beats his wife they are silent and vague about it. Is this how they learned Christ?

I could provide endless quotes from the early Christians as to how Christians are to live and behave, and compare them to these men and their ministries, which would condemn them and disqualify them entirely from ministry, questioning whether they truly are genuine born again believers, and yet most of their followers would not even bat an eye. Christians who have truly encountered the Lord Jesus will have a permanent change in their character and life, and they will continue to grow in that character and life. The early Christians were entirely against violence and war, and yet American Christians entertain violence and are eager for war, even engaging in threats. Is this how American Christians have learned Christ?

Reading the early Christians has convicted me a number of times already, and no doubt will continue to do so. I know for a fact that they will condemn others, and yet these people will seek to make excuses for themselves. These people network closely together, being on the board of each other's ministries. They are no different than those in the Charismatic camp. They may not preach the false prosperity gospel, but they have certainly found another way of accomplishing the same end goal—fleecing the flock. How about doing these conferences and the like for FREE? The early Christians would have!

If you speak well of these people and encourage them, then you will be in good standing with them. If you stand up to them, call them out, and hold them to account, they will hate you for it, bad mouth you for it, and demonize you for it. They will accuse me of being "abrasive" in the tone of my writing, and yet they will behave in a much worse manner against me. That is okay. Let them hate me. Let them speak ill of me. It does not bother me. I do not seek validation from them. I am not being "persecuted" by them doing so (as some professing Christians would attempt to claim for themselves), however. I do not love these men any less, regardless of whether they hate me or not. I love them as Christ loved me and gave Himself for me.

We are commanded to expose the unfruitful deeds of darkness (Eph. 5:11), mark those evil and divisive men who deceive others (Rom. 16:17-18), and strongly reprove those who are "detestable and disobedient and unfit for any good work" (Titus 1:10-16). May the exposure of these sins bring repentance to evil men, purify the Congregation, and silence the mouths of foolish mockers. When you show partiality among your own network, discernment necessarily dies and you are being deceived at the behest of Yahweh. He who has ears let him hear. Learn the lessons taught in Scripture. Obey the commands and teachings of the Lord Jesus. Do not imitate these men and their ministries with their walking hypocritical contradictions. Imitate men who actually imitate Christ.

Friday, October 14, 2022

The Death of Discernment

"When partiality is present, discernment necessarily dies."

When you hitch your wagon to a particular team, you will inevitably end up defending everything they do to your own embarrassment and chastisement. You cannot show partiality or favour to anyone. You cannot use one standard to judge those you have hitched your wagon to, and use another standard to judge everyone else. That is known as hypocrisy. What was it Jesus said again?

"Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with what measure you measure, it will be measured to you. And why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye, and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye" (Matt. 7:1-5).

All these Christians who fancy themselves to be "Discernment Ministers" are nothing but frauds, lairs, and charlatans. They judge those who are not part of their particular circle according to their deeds, but their personal partners and friends in ministry who commit the same deeds they either ignore or attempt to make excuses for. These Christians are not loyal to Jesus the way the early Christians were. They are loyal to the sales of their products, their material possessions, and their money. Not to mention each other.

In order to serve as an elder in the early Congregation, a man had to be willing to lay down everything--beginning with material possessions--for Christ. Elders did not leave their secular occupations in exchange for a middle-class salary from their congregation. In fact, it was considered heretical for a congregation to pay any salary to its elders. Instead, congregations financially maintained their elders on the same basis as they supported widows, orphans, and the like. This meant that elders had the necessities of life and little else. (see Hermas The Shepherd bk. 2, comm. 11; Clement Miscellanies bk. 1, chap. 1; Apollonius Agaisnt Montanus; Tertullian Heretics, chap. 41.)

Do you think such individuals as John MacArthur, Phil Johnson, Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, Todd Friel, Justin Peters, or any of these other guys would ever elect to live according to such conditions? That would be a wager you would lose ten times over. These people commit sacrilege, sin, and error, and do you think any of them calls their friends and ministry partners out on it? Of course not. That would be bad for business. You would not be invited to the next godless conference. Why do I say these "Christian" conferences are godless? Because the early Christians believed it to be heretical to receive money for the gospel or the things of Christ. "Freely you received, freely give" (Matt. 10:8).

You cannot show partiality or favour to your own husband, wife, child(ren), families, friends, etc. You cannot judge them with one standard and everyone else with another standard. This is hypocritical. When family, friends, or colleagues do questionable things, you should be twice as quick to call them out on it and hold them accountable as you would be to a complete stranger. Especially if they profess to be Christians. When you point this egregious oversight out to such individuals, rather than apologize and repent in humility, they lash out at you using the same tactics employed by those who have no argument and cannot address the main point.

Someone obviously needs to explain to such individuals as John MacArthur, Phil Johnson, Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, Todd Friel, Justin Peters, Chris Rosebrough, Jordan D. Hall, etc., that it is better to do the right thing and to lose friends, lose gigs, lose money, lose jobs, etc., than to willfully turn a blind eye to the corruption they are engaged in. I could pull up sermon after sermon and podcast after podcast from these people talking about this precise issue, and yet they are completely numb when they are committing it themselves. They profess to have discernment and yet are discernment handicapped. Irony and hypocrisy are lost on these people.

If you are showing partiality and favour to your friends and partners in ministry, then you lack wisdom. According to Scripture, you are a fool. Stop making excuses for those you have hitched your wagon to and start behaving the way Christ compels you to. Jesus was constantly torqued with the Pharisees and Sadducees because of their hypocrisy. How do you think He would feel about your hypocrisy?

Justin Peters calls out David Jeremiah and Beth Moore for collaborating with Matt and Laurie Crouch and fundraising for the godless TBN network, and yet he refuses to open his hypocritical mouth when his close pals Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, Ken Ham, etc., do the same thing. In fact, John MacArthur even shows up on TBN now. Mr. Peters fancies himself some kind of "Discernment Minister" and yet has zero discernment when it comes to those he has tossed his hat in with. If he does notice, he certainly does not open his mouth. Why? Because it would be bad for business and Mr. Peters cares more about himself than He does the character and likeness of Christ.

The early Christians were truly counter cultural. They were against divorce, abortion, R-rated entertainment, high fashion and low modesty, etc. They possessed character, honour, and integrity, unlike many professing Christians today. They were entirely loyal to Jesus, and their lives demonstrated it. They did not just talk the talk (like most professing Christians today), but they walked the walk (even unto death). They produced genuine fruit. Read the works of the early Christians from A.D. 70 to 300 and compare their words with the teachings of the "good guys," as Justin Peters calls them. Is Justin aware that many of the beliefs of the "good guys" were considered heretical by the early Christians? Yet these "good guys" attempt to label the beliefs of the early Christians, which they had received at the hands of the apostles, as "heretical."

By the way, these ministers are not the only hypocrites engaging in this godless behaviour. Hundreds of laymen engage in the same godless behaviour, attempting to come to the defense of their particular favourite race horse, exposing their own hypocrisy. They have blindly committed themselves and hitched their wagon to these people as well. The only person you should be committed to is Christ Jesus and His Word!

If the words out of your mouth are "John MacArthur this, John MacArthur that," or "Charles Spurgeon this, Charles Spurgeon that," or "John Calvin this, John Calvin that," or insert any other man's name there, you are an idolater. When such men are in error, or are committing error, and you attempt to make excuses for them or come to their defense, you expose yourself as a hypocrite. You are obviously not familiar with what the Bible teaches you, or you simply do not care. In the case of the former, you are ignorant, but in the case of the later, you are a heretic and a fraud.

Do not hitch your wagon to any minister or ministry. This includes me. Doing so will render you unable to exercise biblical discernment and to hold such individuals or ministries to account. You can follow particular men, but do not hitch your wagon to them. This is wisdom. By turning a blind eye or making excuses for them, you become a partaker in their sin. You need to be discerning in every moment. All it takes is one instance where you lack discernment and suddenly you have deviated from the straight and narrow.

Find individuals who are seeking for the truth and conforming themselves to that truth regardless of how they were raised, what they were taught, or what they might presently believe. Watch them grow in their faith as they reform and conform themselves to God's truth. But never blindly hitch yourself to them, because all it takes is that one instance. You should be able to spot their bad footing and catch them, keeping them on the right path. Christianity is not a solitary religion, it is a communal religion. Every member of the body needs every other member of the body. That is how the body functions. I am not perfect, nor will I ever be all by myself. I need others just as much as you do. We are not islands unto ourselves.

The sad state of reality is that the modern congregation, or "church," is extremely lacking in discernment. The so-called "Discernment Ministers" (Bible Thumping Wingnut Network, Conversations That Matter, Fighting For the Faith, Justin Peters Ministries, Polite Leader, Pulpit & Pen, ReformedWiki2.0, Right Response Ministries, Wretched, etc.) expose themselves regularly as not possessing any actual discernment. What they call "discernment" is nothing more than opinion. While some of their theologically dogmatic opinions are right, some of their theologically dogmatic opinions are entirely wrong. If you compared some of that John MacArthur believes and teaches with the the early Christians, do you think he would be humble enough to admit he is wrong and to correct those beliefs, conforming them with the Scriptures and the early Christians? Of course not! Mr. MacArthur thinks way too highly of himself. He may even believe his own press, that he is the Evangelical Pope, as Todd Friel frequently calls him.

All Christians are to exercise discernment. No Christians are to show partiality and favouritism to anybody, blindly hitching their wagon to them. By doing so, you make yourself to be a partaker in their sins. Basically, you are aiding and abetting their crimes, and then either turning a blind eye or attempting to make excuses for them. This is godless behaviour unbecoming of those who profess the name of Christ.

By the way, why is it that men who stand on idolatrous pedestals always tend to have a right-hand henchman to fire shots across the nose of anyone who attempts to call them out and hold them accountable? Tim LaHaye had Thomas Ice, James "Jacob" Prasch has David Lister, and John MacArthur has Phil Johnson. If you have ever listened to or read Mr. Johnson's responses to those who call Mr. MacArthur to task, he is less than charitable with his responses and always resorts to spewing ad hominem. He is incapable of being honest. He behaves exactly like the true heretics of the "church," Augustine, Calvin, and Luther. The early Christians would have labeled these men as heretics and liars, because all three have ignored, denied, and rejected the Words of Jesus, contradicting Him and teaching their own opinions instead.

Bible Publishers' Egregious Error

No matter how often you encourage and urge Christians to do so, most of them will not continue reading their New Testament. for very long. There is a reason for this. Most Christians who read the New Testament once never read it again. Those who keep reading it cannot understand what it says. Why do you suppose this is?

Imagine I were a marriage counselor. Throughout my career, I had written many letters to both groups of people and particular individuals. After I had died, only 9 letters written to groups could be found, and 4 letters written to individuals. Some time later, someone had the idea to add chapters to my letters and turn each sentence into verses. If you were to take one sentence from one of my letters and try to tie it together with another sentence from another one of my letters, unless the context surrounding the one agrees with the context surrounding the other, you have just made me say and teach something that i never said or taught. The two sentences are in no way, shape, or form related or complementary.

This is what Christians of every denomination have done with the Bible ever since the addition of chapters and verses. They continuously proof-text the Bible in order to support all sorts of ridiculous and unbiblical teachings.

The individual books of the Bible were not written with chapters and verses. The biblical authors intentionally wrote their works structured with natural sections. Most people are unaware that chapters and verses are 700 and 500 years old respectively, and serve no purpose to the average reader other than being distractions that suggest false starting and stopping points. Cardinal Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Cantebury, a professor at the University of Paris, created the chapter system that we are all familiar with in the 13th century (A.D. 1205). His reason? He was composing a Bible commentary. He required a way in which to reference more specific portions of Scripture. His contemporary, Cardinal Hugo de Sancto Caro, also created a chapter system between A.D. 1244 and 1248. Robertus Stephanus (sometimes called Robert Estienne), a French printer and scholar, created the verse system that we are all familiar with in the 16th century (A.D. 1551). His reason? He was composing a Bible concordance. He required a way in which to reference smaller portions of biblical passages.

For the past 1,700 years, our Bibles have been incorrectly bound and printed. If you look at the works of Pliny, Socrates, Plato, etc., they were bound with their longest piece of work first and their shortest piece of work last, despite not being chronologically accurate. Our New Testament was bound in this exact same manner with all Paul’s letters lumped together in two different groupings: ecclesiastical letters first, personal letters second. Our Bible is so chaotically arranged that it is difficult to imagine how anyone could ever get a clear understanding of what it is saying. In fact, nobody has rightly understood the New Testament, let alone the entire Bible, for the past 1,700 years. Our commentaries reveal as much.

Are you aware that in reading Paul’s letters alone, you start in A.D. 58 with Romans, go back to A.D. 57 with 1&2 Corinthians, back to A.D. 50 with Galatians, forward to A.D. 63, back to A.D. 51, and ad nauseam. It is no wonder no one can understand what they are reading. It is a chronological mess.

Why do Bible publishers continue to print the Bible in such an archaic and chaotic manner? What superstitious traditions are they adhering to? I have news for them: God did not inspire the Bible to be published in this manner. Bible publishers have had long enough to start printing the Bible correctly so that people can finally start to understand it. Why do they refuse to do so? There is absolutely no logical reason or excuse as to why they continue printing the Bible in this out-dated and erroneous manner. It is time they corrected this egregious oversight. It is long overdue.

I would like to see a Reader's Bible printed without chapters, verses, or headings in its correct historical-chronological order.

OLD TESTAMENT NEW TESTAMENT
Historical Writings:
Genesis
Job
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
1&2 Samuel
1&2 Kings
1&2 Chronicles
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Song of Solomon
Ezra
Esther
Nehemiah

Pre-Babylonian Captivity Prophets:
Obadiah
Joel
Jonah
Amos
Hosea
Isaiah
Micah
Nahum
Zephaniah
Jeremiah
Lamentations
Habakkuk

Babylonian Captivity Prophets:
Daniel
Ezekiel

Post-Babylonian Captivity Prophets:
Zechariah
Haggai
Malachi

Remainders:
Psalms (Because Psalms spans several centuries, it is best placed last.)
Historical Writings:
Mark
Matthew
Luke
John
Acts

Letters:
James
Galatians
1&2 Thessalonians
1&2 Corinthians
Romans
Philemon
Colossians
Ephesians
Philippians
1 Timothy
1 Peter
Titus
2 Timothy
2 Peter
Hebrews
Jude
1, 2, 3 John
Revelation

Thursday, October 13, 2022

Death Blow to the Infant Baptism Debate

Tertullian stated,

"I say that my gospel is the true one. Marcion [a leading Gnostic teacher] says that his is. I say that Marcion's gospel is adulterated. He says mine is. Now, how can we settle this stand-off, unless we use the principle of time. According to this principle, authority lies with the one who is prior in time. It's based on the elemental truth that corruption (of doctrine) lies with the one who is shown to have originated later in time. Since error is falsification of truth, truth must necessarily precede error."

Why do Baptists (and other Christians holding similar beliefs) today choose doctrines that were first taught 1,600 years or more after the deaths of the apostles over ones that were taught within a few decades of their lives? Who necessarily speaks the true biblical beliefs of faith?

Infant baptism has not only been taught for the majority of Christian history, but even today it is practiced by the majority of denominations. The first implication of infant baptism was during the life of Irenaeus (the disciple of Polycarp, who was the disciple of the apostle John), who was born about A.D. 130. Origen, born about A.D. 155, asserted that infant baptism was apostolic. If the apostle John died sometime after A.D. 98, both of these men were within 50 years of his death. Remember the principle of time? Whose beliefs and practices are likely to be biblical, based entirely on Scripture? The Baptists? Or the early Christians?

Since Baptists want to argue the subject based upon silence for their position, let us look to what the early Christians taught on the issue:

INFANT BAPTISM:
"He came to save all persons by means of Himself—all, I say, who through Him are born again to God—infants, children, boys, youth, and old men." —Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W)

"And so, according to the circumstances, disposition, and even the age of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable. This is particularly true in the case of little children. For why is it necessary—if baptism itself is not so necessary—that the sponsors [Godparents] likewise should be thrust into danger? . . . Let the children come, then, while they are growing up. Let them come while they are —while they are learning where to come. Let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the remission of sins? . . . If anyone understands the weighty importance of baptism, he will fear its reception more than its delay. Sound faith is secure of salvation." —Tertullian (c. 198, W)

"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them." —Hippolytus (c. 225, W)

"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous." —Origen (c. 248, E).

"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit." —Origen (c. 248, E)

"In respect of the case of the infants, you say that they should not be baptized within the second or third day after their birth—that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded. So you think that one who has just been born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day. however, we all thought very differently in our council. . . . Rather, we all believe that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to anyone born of man. . . . As far as we can, we must strive that no soul be lost, if at all possible. For what is lacking to him who has once bee formed in the womb by the hand of God?" —Cyprian (c. 250, W)

"Moreover, belief in divine Scripture declares to us that among all—whether infants or those who are older—there is the same equality of the divine gift. . . . Otherwise, it would seem that the very grace which is given to the baptized is given either more, or less, depending on the age of the receivers. However, the Holy Spirit is not given with measure. Rather, it is given alike to all, by the love and mercy of the Father. . . . For although the infant is still fresh from its birth, yet it is not such that anyone should shudder at kissing it in giving grace and in making peace." —Cyprian (c. 250, W)

"Even to the greatest sinners and to those who have sinned much against God, when they subsequently believe, remission of sins is granted. Nobody is hindered from baptism and from grace. How much more should we shrink from hindering an infant? For he, being lately born, has not sinned—other than, in being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death at its earliest birth. For this reason, he more easily approaches the reception of the forgiveness of sins. For to him are remitted—not his own sins—but the sins of another. Therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council that no one should be hindered by us from baptism and from the grace of God." —Cyprian (c. 250, W)

"Baptize your infants also and bring them up in the nurture and admonition of God. For He says, "Allow the little children to come unto me and do not forbid them."" —Apostolic Constitutions (compiled c. 390, E)

GODPARENTS:
"For why is it necessary—if baptism itself is not so necessary—that the sponsors [Godparents] likewise should be thrust into danger? For, because of mortality, they may fail to fulfill their promises. Or they may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition in those for whom they stood." —Tertullian (c. 198, W)

Who are you going to listen to? The Baptists, who were 1,600 years removed from the lives of the apostles? Modern preachers, such as John MacArthur, etc., who are 1,900 years removed from the lives of the apostles? Or the early Christians (A.D. 70 to 300)?

As you can see, the teachings of the early Christians drive the final nail in the coffin on this issue, ending the discussion once and for all for all time. Only the disobedient and rebellious will continue to disregard their words, and the words of God's Word, and insist against all evidence and logic that infant baptism is "unscriptural" and that the apostles "taught no such thing." Any professing Christian who teaches this is in denial!

Death Blow to the Homosexual Debate

Tertullian stated,

"I say that my gospel is the true one. Marcion [a leading Gnostic teacher] says that his is. I say that Marcion's gospel is adulterated. He says mine is. Now, how can we settle this stand-off, unless we use the principle of time. According to this principle, authority lies with the one who is prior in time. It's based on the elemental truth that corruption (of doctrine) lies with the one who is shown to have originated later in time. Since error is falsification of truth, truth must necessarily precede error."

Why do Christians today choose doctrines that were first taught 1,400 years or more after the deaths of the apostles over ones that were taught within a few decades of their lives? Who necessarily speaks the true biblical beliefs of faith?

Since more and more denominations are buckling under, rejecting the Word of God, and succumbing to the opinions of the culture (because the Holy Spirit has long ago left their congregations), let us look to what the early Christians taught on the issue:

HOMOSEXUALITY:
"You shall not commit adultery; you shall not commit pederasty." —Didache (c. 80-140, E)

"It is well that they should be cut off from the lusts of the world, since "every lust wars against the spirit" and "neither fornicators, nor homosexuals . . . will inherit the kingdom of God."" —Clement of Rome (c. 96, W)

"Some polluted themselves by lying with males." —Aristides (c. 125, E)

"The Greeks, O King, follow debased practices in intercourse with males, or with mothers, sisters, and daughters. Yet, they, in turn, impute their monstrous impurity to the Christians." —Aristides (c. 125, E)

"Paederasty is condemned by the barbarians. However, by the Romans it is honored with certain privileges. In fact, they try to collect herds of boys like grazing horses." —Tatian (c. 160, E)

"They do not abstain even from males, males with males committing shocking abominations, outraging all the noblest and comeliest bodies in all sorts of ways." —Athenagoras (c. 175, E)

"Show me yourself whether you are not an adulterer, a fornicator a thief, a robber, or a thief. Show me that you do not corrupt boys. . . . For God is not manifest to those who do these things." —Theophilus (c. 180, E)

"Men play the part of women, and women that of men, contrary to nature. Women are at once both wives and husbands. . . . O miserable spectacle! Horrible conduct!" —Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E)

"The whole earth has now become full of fornication and wickedness. I admire the ancient legislators of the Romans. These men detested effeminancy of conduct. The giving of the body to feminine purposes, contrary to the law of nature, they judged worthy of the most extreme penalty." —Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E)

"The fate of the Sodomites was judgment to those who had done wrong, and instruction to those who hear. The Sodomites had fallen into uncleanness through much luxury. They practiced adultery shamelessly, and they burned with insane love for boys." —Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E)

"The Christian man confines himself to the female sex." —Tertullian (c. 197, W)

"I find no dress cursed by God except a woman's dress on a man. For he says, "Cursed is every man who clothes himself in woman's attire."" —Tertullian (c. 200, W)

"The coupling of two males is a very shameful thing." —Tertullian (c. 200, W)

"Such sins are committed by fornicators, adulterers, abusers of themselves with men, effeminate men, idolaters, and murderers." —Origen (c. 245, E)

"The sin of Sodom is contrary to nature." —Apostolic Constitutions (compiled c. 390, E)

As you can clearly see, the teachings of the early Christians drive the final nail in the coffin on this issue, ending the discussion once and for all for all time. Only the disobedient and rebellious will continue to disregard their words, and the words of God's Word, and insist against all evidence and logic that homosexuality is acceptable and that Jesus has nothing to say about it.

Death Blow to the Divorce Debate

Tertullian stated,

"I say that my gospel is the true one. Marcion [a leading Gnostic teacher] says that his is. I say that Marcion's gospel is adulterated. He says mine is. Now, how can we settle this stand-off, unless we use the principle of time. According to this principle, authority lies with the one who is prior in time. It's based on the elemental truth that corruption (of doctrine) lies with the one who is shown to have originated later in time. Since error is falsification of truth, truth must necessarily precede error."

Why do Christians today choose doctrines that were first taught 1,400 years or more after the deaths of the apostles over ones that were taught within a few decades of their lives? Who necessarily speaks the true biblical beliefs of faith?

Since modern Christians refuse to listen to what God's Word has to say on the issue of divorce, let us look to what the early Christians taught on the issue:

DIVORCE:
"And I said to him, "Sir, if anyone has a wife who trust sin the Lord, and if he detects her in adultery, does the man sin if he continues to live with her?" And he said to me, "As long as he remains ignorant of her sin, the husband commits no transgression in living with her. But if the husband knows that his wife has gone astray, and if the woman does not repent, but persists in her fornication, and yet the husband continues to live with her, he also is guilty of her crime, and a sharer in her adultery." And I said to him, "What then, sir, is the husband to do, if his wife continues in her vicious practices?" And he said, "The husband should put her away and remain by himself. But if he puts his wife away and marries another, he also commits adultery."
And I said to him, "What if the woman who has been put away should repent, and wishes to return to her husband? Shall she not be taken back by her husband?" And he said to me, "Assuredly. If the husband does not take her back, he sins. And he brings a great sin upon himself. For he should take back the sinner who has repented. But not repeatedly. For there is but one repentance to the servants of God. In case, therefore, that the divorced wife may repent, the husband should not marry another after his wife has been put away. In this matter, man and woman are to be treated exactly in the same way. Moreover, adultery is committed not only by those who pollute their flesh, but also by those who imitate the pagans in their actions. For that reason, if anyone persists in such deeds, and does not repent, withdraw from him, and cease to live with him, otherwise you are a sharer in his sin."" —Hermas (c. 150, W)

"All who have been twice married by human law, are sinners in the eye of our Master." —Justin Martyr (c. 160, E)

"She considered it wicked to live any longer as a wife with a husband who tried to indulge in every kind of pleasure contrary to the law of natures. . . . So she desired to be divorced from him. But she changed her mind because of her [Christian] friends, who advised her to remain with him, with the thought that some time or other her husband might give some hope of change." —Justin Martyr (c. 160, E)

"That the Scripture counsels marriage and allows no release from the union is expressly contained in the law, "You will not put away your wife, except for the cause of fornication." And it regards as fornication the marriage of those separated while the other is alive. . . . "He who takes a woman who has been put away commits adultery."" —Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E)

"Where is that happiness of married life, ever so desirable, that distinguished our earlier [Roman] manners? As the result of that, for about 600 years there was not among us [Romans] a single divorce. Now, [Roman] women have every member of their body heavy laden with gold; . . . and as for divorce, they long for it as though it were the natural consequence of marriage." —Tertullian (c. 197, W)

"The Lord holds it more pleasing that marriage should not be contracted, than that it should at all be dissolved. In short, He prohibits divorce, except for the cause of fornication." —Tertullian (c. 205, W)

"Christ prohibits divorce, saying, "Whoever puts away his wife and marries another, commits adultery. And whoever marries her who is put away from her husband also commits adultery." In order to forbid divorce, He makes it unlawful to marry a woman who has been put away." —Tertullian (c. 207, W)

"Christ plainly forbids divorce; Moses unquestionably permits it. . . . Even Christ, however, when He commands, "the wife not to depart from her husband, or if she departs, to remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband," both permitted divorce (which indeed he never absolutely prohibited) and confirmed marriage (by first prohibiting its dissolution). If separation had taken place, He wished the marriage bond to be resumed by reconciliation." —Tertullian (c. 207, W)

"The reason why He has abolished divorce, which "was not from the beginning," was in order to strengthen that thing which "was from the beginning"—the permanent joinder of two into one flesh. . . . So He permits divorce for no cause, except one. . . . So true is it that divorce "was not from the beginning," that among the Romans, it was not until after the six hundredth year from the building of the city [of Rome] that this type of "hard-heartedness" began to be permitted. . . . To us, even if we do divorce them [i.e., adulterous spouses], marriage will not be lawful." —Tertullian (c. 217, W)

"She must necessarily persevere in that peace with him whom she will no longer have the power to divorce. Not that she would have been marriageable—even if she had been able to divorce him." —Tertullian (c. 217, W)

"We gladly abide by the bond of a single marriage. In the desire of procreating, we know either one wife, or none at all." —Mark Minucius Felix (c. 200, W)

"When being inquired of, Christ gave this judgment: He said that a wife must not be put away, except for the cause of adultery. . . . Laws are prescribed to married women, who are so bound that they cannot thence be separated." —Novatian (c. 235, W)

"Some of the laws were written—not as excellent—but as by way of accommodation to the weakness of those to whom the Law was given. For something of this kind is indicated in the words, "Moses, because of your hardness of heart, allowed you to put away your wives." —Origen (c. 245, E)

"A wife must not depart from her husband. Or, if she should depart, she must remain unmarried." —Cyprian (c. 250, W)

"He who marries a woman divorce from her husband is an adulterer. So is he who divorced a wife for any cause other than adultery, in order to marry another." —Lactantius (c. 304-313, W)

"Do not let it be considered lawful after marriage to put her away who is without blame. For He says, "You will take care to your spirit and will not forsake the wife of your youth" [Mal. 2:14-15]. . . . And the Lord says, "What God has joined together, let no man put asunder." For the wife is the partner of life, united by God into one body from two. However, he who divides back into two that body that has become one—he is the enemy of the creation of God and the adversary of His providence. Similarly, he who retains her who is corrupted [by adultery] is a transgressor of the law of nature. For "he who retains an adulteress is foolish and impious" [Prov. 18:22]. Also, He says, "Cut her off from your flesh" [Sir. 25:26]. For she is no longer a helpmate, but a snare, having turned her mind from you to another." —Apostolic Constitutions (compiled c. 390, E)

REMARRIAGE:
"And I said, "If a wife or husband dies, and the widower or widow marries, does he or she commit sin?" "There is no sin in marrying again," he said. "However, if they remain unmarried, they gain greater honor and glory with the Lord. Still, if they marry, they do not sin."" —Hermas (c. 150, W)

"A person should either remain as he was born, or be content with one marriage. For a second marriage is only a specious adultery. Jesus says, "For whoever puts away his wife and marries another, commits adultery." He does not permit a man to send her away whose virginity he has brought to an end, nor to marry again. A man who deprives himself of his first wife, even though she is dead, is a cloaked adulterer, resisting the hand of God. For in the beginning, God made one man and one woman." —Athenagoras (c. 175, E)

"That erring Samaritan woman did not remain with one husband. Rather, she committed fornication by many marriages." —Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W)

"Being a heretic by his very nature, . . . he maintains repeated marriages." —Tertullian (c. 200, W)

"The Lord . . . hurdled His denunciation against Herod in the form of unlawful marriages and of adultery. For he pronounced as an adulterer even the man who married a woman who had been put away by her husband. He said this in order the more severely to load Herod with guilt. For Herod had taken his brother's wife after she had been loosed from her husband—by death rather than by divorce. For he had been impelled thereto by his lust—not by the commandment of the Law. For his brother had left a daughter. Therefore, the marriage with his widow could not be lawful." —Tertullian (c. 207, W)

"But now, contrary to what was written, even some of the rulers of the church have permitted a woman to marry—even when her husband was living, doing contrary to what was written. For it is said, 'A wife is bound so long as her husband lives."" —Origen (c. 245, E)

"A woman is an adulteress—even though she seems to be married to a man—if the former husband is still living. Likewise, also, the man who seems to marry the woman who has been put away, does not so much marry her as commit adultery with her—according to the declaration of our Savior" —Origen (c. 245, E)

""To the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they can remain even as I am. But if they cannot contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn." Here Paul also persisted in giving the preference to continence. . . . He challenged his hearers to this state of life, teaching that it was better that a man who had been bound to one wife should from then on remain single, just as he did. on the other hand, . . . on account of the strength of animal passion, Paul allows "by permission" one who is in such a condition to contract a second marriage. . . . He allows a second marriage to those who are burdened with the disease of the passions, lest they should be wholly defiled by fornication." —Methodius (c. 290, E)

"Let not the younger widows be placed in the order of widows, lest . . . they come to a second marriage and become subjects to sin. . . . For you should know this, that marrying once according to the law is righteous, as being according to the will of God. But second marriages, made after the promise, are wicked—not because of the marriage itself, but because of the falsehood. Third marriages are indications of incontinency. But any marriages beyond the third are manifest fornication. . . . But to the younger women, let a second marriage be allowed after the death of their first husband." —Apostolic Constitutions (compiled c. 390, E)

Who are you going to listen to? The Reformers, who were 1,500 years removed from the lives of the apostles? Modern preachers, such as John MacArthur, Jay Adams, etc., who are 1,900 years removed from the lives of the apostles? Or the early Christians (A.D. 70 to 300)?

As you can see, the teachings of the early Christians drive the final nail in the coffin on this issue, ending the discussion once and for all for all time. Only the disobedient and rebellious will continue to disregard their words, and the words of God's Word, and insist against all evidence and logic that Jesus and the apostle Paul made provisions for divorce. Any professing Christian who teaches that the Lord Jesus or the apostle Paul made provisions for divorce is a liar and a false teacher, putting lies in the mouths of both Jesus and the apostle!

Monday, October 10, 2022

Historical-Cultural Context

Is Background Information Ever Necessary to Understand the Bible?

Yes!

Wayne Grudem ignorantly answers, "No," writing in an article titled "The Perspicuity of Scripture":

"Historical background information can certainly enrich our understanding of individual passages of Scripture, making it more precise and more vivid. But I am unwilling to affirm that background information can ever be properly used to nullify or overturn something the text actually says. In addition, I am not reluctant to affirm that additional historical background information is ever necessary for getting a proper sense of a text."

The problem with Mr. Grudem's argument is that without historical-cultural context of what was happening in the Roman Empire, in Israel, and in the Congregation at the time, you are likely to misrepresent the text and misinterpret it by turning it into mere verses to be ripped out of their immediate context at random and arbitrarily used in isolation of their context to say whatever your opinion of them is.

Galatians was Paul's very first letter written. It was arguably the first letter of the New Testament ever written, with the letter of James possibly pre-dating it. Romans was Paul's sixth letter written. There are eight years between these two letters. Paul was not writing doctrinal treatises with his letters. He was responding to precise issues. Unless you know what these issues were, you will inevitably misinterpret Scripture.

The early Christians experienced these things, and understood what the apostles were writing about. We are 1,900 years removed from their experiences. We need that historical-cultural background in order to properly understand their letters. Some of that information is provided in the book of Acts, but not everything. Reading the letters in their proper chronological context helps a little, but not completely. Any Christian who says that we do not need such information is putting his ignorance on full display for all to admire.

Paul had gathered several Christians from various congregations he had already planted and was sending them to Rome to establish a congregation there, since Jews had been banished only years earlier. Romans 16 is a list of the friends Paul had sent to Rome. This should be the first chapter you read, followed by chapters 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, and 11, which give us the need of salvation for both Jews and Greeks, and lastly by chapters 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, which are about the Christian life. Chapters 12-15 list almost every problem Paul or the congregations ever experienced in community life. (A true dose of community life will be similar.) Paul is writing primarily to these Christians, and to any believers they convert.

Does Mr. Grudem understand any of this context? Does this context inform any of his beliefs as to what the letter to the Romans is actually saying? Not in the least. As a typical theologian, Mr. Grudem uses the typical two tactics the Jewish theologians had perfected in order to gaslight the "ordinary and uneducated" believer: (1) language bullying and (2) a claim to special status as the official interpreter of Scripture.

Mr. Grudem's interpretation is that the apostle Paul was discussing theological dogma, which simply is not true. You have to engage in a great many mental gymnastics in order to retain that erroneous and fallacious belief. Were the "ordinary and uneducated" twelve writing theological treatises with their letters, too? Highly unlikely. None of them, including the apostle Paul, wrote theological treatises. The first 300 years of Christianity are opposed to the last 1700 years.

The fact of reality is this: the further away from the time of writing you are, the more historical-cultural context you need to rightly interpret the text. Individual verses mean nothing. In fact, chapters and verses are 700 and 500 years old respectively. They were not put their by the original authors, and they are a distraction to reading Scripture accurately and correctly, paying attention to the natural breaks provided by the author. Christians need to come to terms with this quickly because they keep getting further and further away from the teachings, practices, and traditions of the apostles and the early Christians who were all loyal to Jesus.

What did the early Christians understand from these letters? How did they use/interpret them? If you ass-u-me that they were in error in their usage/interpretation, being only 50 years separated from the apostles, and that we are somehow correct, being 1,900 years separated from the apostles, then you have some serious issues to address in your thinking processes. Specifically, you need to study logic because yours is fallacious. I will reiterate Tertullian's argument:

"I say that my gospel is the true one. Marcion [a leading Gnostic teacher] says that his is. I say that Marcion's gospel is adulterated. He says mine is. Now, how can we settle this stand-off, unless we use the principle of time. According to this principle, authority lies with the one who is prior in time. It's based on the elemental truth that corruption (of doctrine) lies with the one who is shown to have originated later in time. Since error is falsification of truth, truth must necessarily precede error."

If your interpretations are in the same vein as Augustine, Luther, or Calvin, then your interpretations are justifiably in error. If you do not know why that is, then you are not as intelligent as you suppose you are. You need to do more reading. These men had no qualms about willfully contradicting the Lord Jesus' teachings and insinuating that they were merely suggestions than actual commands. Interestingly enough, the early Christians for the first two and half centuries took Jesus' teachings literally. It was not until the fourth century that everything fell apart, and the Congregation has never recovered—not even with the Reformation!

This further exposes the logical fallacy committed by Paul Washer:

"Let's go back through 2000 years of Christian history. If the men and women who loved and cherished the Scriptures, and had a high view of Scriptures, are all in agreement with regard to a certain doctrine, and they don't agree with you, then who's probably wrong?"

The beliefs, practices, and traditions of the last 1,700 years of Christian history are opposed in many ways to the beliefs, practices, and traditions of the first 300 years of Christian history. Ergo, who is most definitely wrong? Clearly Mr. Washer with his several beliefs that originated with the Gnostics, such as: that man is totally depraved, that we are saved solely by grace, that works play no role in our salvation, and that we cannot lose our salvation once we obtain it. If our evangelical doctrine of salvation is true, we are faced with the uncomfortable reality that this doctrine was first taught by "deceivers and antichrists," according to the apostle John, before it was taught by Luther, Calvin, and others. If this does not concern you, it should.

Lastly, historical-cultural context is of grave importance because the Bible is an eastern book. The Eastern mindset is based on collectivism and communal conformity, while the Western mindset is based on individualism and countercultural nonconformity. Westerners regularly eisegete the Bible by reading into it their own preferences and experiences. For example, we assume that on the night He was betrayed, Jesus went to a private place in the garden of Gethsemane to pray. But this is inaccurate. He merely separated Himself from the disciples. At Passover, the garden was most likely packed with people, making it not a good place to find privacy. Observe the following:

"The very nature of Scripture demands that the exegete have some skills in investigating the historical-cultural background of NT texts. The NT, after all, does not come in the form of timeless aphorisms; every text was written in a given first-century time/space framework. Indeed, the NT authors felt no need to explain what were for them and their readers common cultural assumptions. Only when provincial customs might not be understood in broader context are explanations given (e.g., Mark 7:3-4); but these instances are rare.
The lack of such help within the texts themselves is only to be expected, since most people who communicate with each other do so on the basis of shared assumptions that are seldom articulated. These shared assumptions have to do with common history (family or group stories), sociology (the relationships and social structures that determine everyday life), and culture (the values, often not articulated, that a group shares in order to function). Contemporary readers share very few of these assumptions, but at the same time we bring to the text another whole set of shared assumptions within our own culture(s).
These matters are the more complex for the reading of the New Testament because it is the product of two worlds: Jewish and Greco-Roman. This complexity can be seen simply by looking at its two primary figures, Jesus and Paul. While they shared a common history—the OT story of God and his people—which is assumed in everything they say and do, they were born and raised in quite different socio-cultural settings, evidenced first of all by their native tongues (Aramaic for Jesus, Greek for Paul) and then found in a whole variety of other, mostly sociological and cultural, differences.
When one turns to the communities to which the NT documents were written, one finds similar diversity in sociology and culture. The majority of NT documents were addressed to church communities in the Greco-Roman world, most of whose adherents would have been [non-Jewish]. By conversion these people now shared the common history of the people of God—indeed, from Paul's perspective they were integral to the completion of that story, in keeping with the Abrahamic covenant (Gen. 12:2-3) as ti had been articulated eschatologically in the prophets, especially Isaiah. But their sociology (government, city/town structures, family structures, etc.) and their cultural assumptions on all sorts of deep-seated values (honor/shame, sexual morality, patron/client relationships, friendships, etc.) were of a considerably different kind from those shared by Jewish communities in Palestine who followed Jesus (just read James and 1 Corinthians side by side to sense the differences).
The problems that the modern exegete faces here are several. First, we have our own (mostly unrecognized) set of historical-social-cultural assumptions, which cause us unwittingly to read our ideas and customs back into the first century. So one of the difficulties lies in learning to become aware of what needs to be investigated, in overcoming the assumption that we know what the NT writers are saying. The second problem has to do with the immensity of the task of investigation and the paucity of material that is accessible. But even that which is available is mostly beyond the mastery of any one of us; thus we are dependent on others to do some of this work for us, and they will themselves be interpreters of the data. Third, part of the complexity of this issue is that, on the one hand, one needs to read widely on the larger historical-sociological-cultural issues that impact on these early Christian communities, while, on the other hand, there are specific matters that are related to the paragraph you are exegeting that need investigation. This leads to the questions, fourth, of how one goes about the process of investigation and, fifth, of how to evaluate the significance of what has been discovered. This is obviously the (off-and-on) work of a lifetime. Fortunately, the last two decades of the twentieth century saw a spate of studies that are designed to guide one through these matters." —Gordan D. Fee

Ignore historical-cultural context and you necessarily misinterpret God's Word.