"What do you think of Joseph Prince' view of I John 1:9?" A friend sent me a text with this question. Before I even went on the internet to see what J.P. was teaching I was certain I already knew. I first read it a 1970 book by Peter Gilquest, "Love Is Now". The concern of P.G. then and of J.P. now is that some believers do not realize their standing in Christ is already one of complete forgiveness and that they see forgiveness as a partial thing. The most radical form of this is that if a believer dies with any unconfessed sin they will be lost. I shared that concern in 1970, so I spoke favorable of Gilquest' view of I John 1:9, that it was saying, essentially, how to be saved. I got some very angry criticism for this.
But, I sill wondered how the verse applied to believers. The common view is that the verse is written to believers and talking about sanctification and not about justification. This view is that when a believers sins they lose "fellowship" with God and that the forgiveness spoken of in this verse is a restoration of that fellowship. It is true that sin in a believer will "grieve" and "quench" the Holy Spirit and that until that sin is freely admitted a believer cannot be "filled with the Holy Spirit". Some go so far as to say that the believer becomes "lost" and must "get saved" again.
All of this moved me to do a deeper study of I John and the context of this passage. John was warning against an early form of what would become known in the second century as Gnosticism. This early form of it, among other things, denied the reality sin. So, John warned, in the most severe terms in chapter 1 of this letter, that no one can be in right standing with God without freely acknowledging their sin. In that respect, those who say that verse nine applies to unbelievers have a valid point. But they limit the message of the verse too much.
The key word of I John is "know" (or "known", etc.). How can we know for sure who is a child of God and who is not? John gives a number of tests but which we can know, and one of the very first tests is whether someone freely admits their sin. When this is understood, we move beyond this debate about whether verse 9 is for a believer or an unbeliever. IT IS FOR EVERYONE!
The next thing about this letter from John that we need to know is the way in which he uses the present tense of the verbs in the Koine Greek in which he originally wrote. This is something that we cannot always see in our English translations. The present tense indicates a practice or a way of life.
John uses this with a number of things. In chapter three he says that a true child of God does not "continue to sin" as a practice or a way of life. That passage in chapter three has been greatly misunderstood because of ignorance about the present tense verbs in I John. In chapter one he has already said that the mark of a true child of God is that they freely admit their sins. Chapter four adds the thought that continuing to sin, with no change, is a test that shows who is, in fact, NOT a child of God.
So, what have we learned about I John 1:9? Here is how the verse could be paraphrased: "If, as a practice and a way of life, we freely admit our sins, then we can be assured that we stand forgiven. We have this assurance because God is faithful and just. He cannot forgive one who, as a way of life, denies their sin. If, as a way of life and a practice, we freely admit our sin, we have assurance that we are cleansed and purified before God through the finished work of Christ on the cross."
To return to the original question about the teaching of Joseph Prince now or of Peter Gilquest in 1970; in both instances these men create a false dichotomy of trying to limit this verse to either believers or unbelievers. It speaks to all people. To the unbeliever it says, "there is full and free forgiveness in Christ, but only if you are willing to freely admit your sin." To the believer it says, "rest assured that if, as a practice and a way of life, you are freely admitting your sins when the Holy Spirit makes you aware of them, then this is a mark that you are a true child of God".
Friday, September 6, 2019
Wednesday, August 28, 2019
APPROACHING EIGHTY
In less than three years I am scheduled to have an eightieth birthday. Someone who is ninety-nine looks at me as quite young. Most people see me as . . . well, you know. Ten years ago I was working on the exterior of a log house and a guy in his twenties, who was also working at that location, was asked by his dad, "who is staining the log siding on that house?" He answered, "some old guy". I was sixty-seven at the time. It turns out his dad was a friend of mine and when he found out who his son was talking about he got a big laugh and couldn't wait to tell me. In nearly every respect I am better physically than I was at that time. In some ways you could truthfully say that I have gotten "younger".
I never intend to "retire". When I left Mansfield Christian after many years there I "moved on to something else". Nine years ago I was invited to be a part time member of a church staff as primarily a Bible teacher. From time to time I do some interior decorating (painting) not just because I "must" work but because I enjoy it. My business card and billing form says, "Bringing the fine touch to fine homes since 1957". I know of no one else who has been doing it that long, and I have no intention of stopping.
With the start of Genesis Academy at Ashland in 2015 I was invited to resume teaching Bible at the high school level. I look forward to beginning the fifth year with 28 students scheduled (so far) for my Wednesday and Friday classes. Genesis Academy is gradually transitioning from a home school co-op to a high school structure. So, God is pleased to have me ministering His word to people from ages 13 to . . . you name it. I am teaching the Word to groups large and small in Mansfield at least three times a week in addition to Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings at Ashland.
Is there a history of longevity in my family? My parents lived to ages 91 and 92 and with some better choices could easily have lived longer. But, my grandparents were all gone by age 71. Without modern medical care I would have been gone by now. Likewise would Susan. The two important biblical words "but God" are what really matters here. One can have the best diet and best medical care and still not live "long". Our choices in life DO MATTER. "But God" still has the final word.
Another question, which many are afraid to ask, "can someone my age connect with younger people?" I cannot speak for others but people my age have been "connecting" with younger people for centuries and I intend to keep doing it. A person may "get old" but one does not have to "think old". Younger people who have any sense at all know that someone like me has seen a lot happen and can give them a perspective on life that can prove priceless. I have heard in my lifetime just about every form of "Christian music" you can name and some you cannot name. I was playing piano and organ in church services when I was fourteen. I can bring a perspective to the thirty year old music controversy in churches that many do not have. I am both open minded as well as a realist. I do NOT believe that older music and older ways are NECESSARILY better. But as a realist I see that music, morals and about anything else you can name, has been on a downward trajectory for several decades, both in the world and in the church.
Part of the perspective I can give younger people is that I have lived in, literally, two worlds. I came of age in an America where all things Christian were respected and a part of all of life. Public school teachers led in prayer and read Scripture. Public high schools had prayer and recognition of God as part of every graduation and on other occasions. I grew up in a world where all girls wore skirts or dresses to school every day and no one thought of doing anything differently. Christian morality was assumed by nearly everyone. I can explain these things to younger people growing up in a world where things that were once unthinkable are now accepted norms. I can help people grasp what it means to be in a world that is upside down. Whether or not younger people want to benefit from my nearly eight decades of life experience is up to them. They will give account to God for their choice in this matter and I will give account to God for my faithfulness in being willing to help them. The ball is in their court.
I am writing this on the 56th anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I Have A Dream" speech. I watched things that King spoke of go from the very bad of the 1950's to the much better of the 1970's and now going back to the much worse. I, of all people, understand that the "good old days" were a mix of some very great good and some very dark evil. I am uniquely situated to see that the present time is indeed very dark but that some very bright shafts of light from believers in Christ are piercing the darkness. I intend to help them burn brighter, so that however far away or near the Coming of Christ again may be, the children and grandchildren of these whom I am trying to help will say, "Wow, you lived at a time when God was really moving!"
I never intend to "retire". When I left Mansfield Christian after many years there I "moved on to something else". Nine years ago I was invited to be a part time member of a church staff as primarily a Bible teacher. From time to time I do some interior decorating (painting) not just because I "must" work but because I enjoy it. My business card and billing form says, "Bringing the fine touch to fine homes since 1957". I know of no one else who has been doing it that long, and I have no intention of stopping.
With the start of Genesis Academy at Ashland in 2015 I was invited to resume teaching Bible at the high school level. I look forward to beginning the fifth year with 28 students scheduled (so far) for my Wednesday and Friday classes. Genesis Academy is gradually transitioning from a home school co-op to a high school structure. So, God is pleased to have me ministering His word to people from ages 13 to . . . you name it. I am teaching the Word to groups large and small in Mansfield at least three times a week in addition to Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings at Ashland.
Is there a history of longevity in my family? My parents lived to ages 91 and 92 and with some better choices could easily have lived longer. But, my grandparents were all gone by age 71. Without modern medical care I would have been gone by now. Likewise would Susan. The two important biblical words "but God" are what really matters here. One can have the best diet and best medical care and still not live "long". Our choices in life DO MATTER. "But God" still has the final word.
Another question, which many are afraid to ask, "can someone my age connect with younger people?" I cannot speak for others but people my age have been "connecting" with younger people for centuries and I intend to keep doing it. A person may "get old" but one does not have to "think old". Younger people who have any sense at all know that someone like me has seen a lot happen and can give them a perspective on life that can prove priceless. I have heard in my lifetime just about every form of "Christian music" you can name and some you cannot name. I was playing piano and organ in church services when I was fourteen. I can bring a perspective to the thirty year old music controversy in churches that many do not have. I am both open minded as well as a realist. I do NOT believe that older music and older ways are NECESSARILY better. But as a realist I see that music, morals and about anything else you can name, has been on a downward trajectory for several decades, both in the world and in the church.
Part of the perspective I can give younger people is that I have lived in, literally, two worlds. I came of age in an America where all things Christian were respected and a part of all of life. Public school teachers led in prayer and read Scripture. Public high schools had prayer and recognition of God as part of every graduation and on other occasions. I grew up in a world where all girls wore skirts or dresses to school every day and no one thought of doing anything differently. Christian morality was assumed by nearly everyone. I can explain these things to younger people growing up in a world where things that were once unthinkable are now accepted norms. I can help people grasp what it means to be in a world that is upside down. Whether or not younger people want to benefit from my nearly eight decades of life experience is up to them. They will give account to God for their choice in this matter and I will give account to God for my faithfulness in being willing to help them. The ball is in their court.
I am writing this on the 56th anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I Have A Dream" speech. I watched things that King spoke of go from the very bad of the 1950's to the much better of the 1970's and now going back to the much worse. I, of all people, understand that the "good old days" were a mix of some very great good and some very dark evil. I am uniquely situated to see that the present time is indeed very dark but that some very bright shafts of light from believers in Christ are piercing the darkness. I intend to help them burn brighter, so that however far away or near the Coming of Christ again may be, the children and grandchildren of these whom I am trying to help will say, "Wow, you lived at a time when God was really moving!"
Wednesday, March 27, 2019
McDonalds as a Religion???
The McDonald brothers opened their drive in restaurant in San Bernardino , California in 1940 complete with car hops. The more they promoted their barbecue the more their customers asked for hamburgers. So, they closed their doors, remodeled, fired the 20 car hops and reopened with the format that we associate with McDonalds today. They struggled for awhile but things eventually took off and they opened at other locations. By 1954 a milk shake machine salesman named Ray Kroc was so impressed with their success that he secured from the brothers the rights to franchise their name and business nationwide. Ray opened the first "Golden Arches" in Illinois in 1955. By 1961 he was rich enough to buy out the McDonald brothers' interest in the business and it was all his.
The first one that I ever recall eating at was on the north edge of Ft. Wayne, Indiana on U.S. 30. It was on our way to and from college at Winona Lake, Indiana. There were no tables or chairs, just a small area to walk in and order at a window and then go back to your car. The burgers were, as I recall, 15 cents. We had no idea at that time that this would become the largest restaurant chain in the world! The next step in this journey for us was a magazine article in the late 70's or possibly the early 80's.
The magazine was "Natural History" (an unlikely place to find an article about McDonalds). The title of the article was something like "McDonalds As A Religion". Before you dismiss this as preposterous consider the following. In the days before "fast food" places like McDonalds, Burger King (started about the same time as McDonalds), and Wendys (1969), selecting a place to eat, especially when you were traveling, could be a very risky "roll of the dice". Would you get a good meal or would you get ptomaine poisoning? Was the kitchen clean or . . . ?
On the other hand, when you were traveling and you wanted to attend church on a Sunday morning, you would go to a church of the denomination to which you belonged. If you were, for example, Lutheran you would go to a Lutheran Church knowing there would be no surprises. You knew exactly what the liturgy (order and form of service) would be. Thus, the Golden Arches, when they appeared on the landscape, told you "no surprises here; you know exactly what you will be getting and what it will cost". Anyone coming of age on this side of the advent of McDonalds cannot appreciate what it was like for the first time to have a restaurant chain available just about anywhere you traveled that would be as predictable and free of unpleasant surprises as the liturgy in your church denomination.
Fast forward to the present and the continued growth of McDonalds as a food service giant is still largely due to being predictable and free of unpleasant surprises. There is perhaps another way in which McDonalds resembles a religion. People crave what is often called "fellowship". On any given morning what do you see at many McDonalds? You see a "gathering of geezers" having fellowship! Retired men, and often women also, gather at McDonalds for "fellowship". And just as good churches "feed" you healthy spiritual food the menu at McD's is decidedly more healthy than just the "burger, shakes and fries" offered in the early days.
The Golden Arches are like a church in some other ways also. Most churches gladly welcome a large group of traveling visitors to drop in on a Sunday service. So, if you are traveling with a bus full of young people you don't have to think twice. Stop at McDonalds and you know you will, with rare exceptions, be welcome. One other observation: it seems to me that more and more McDonalds restaurants have ceased to be "fast food" places. Now it's "take a number and wait for your food". That may or may not make McD's like a church but it is not necessarily bad. I have been part of men's Bible studies that met in a back corner of the dining room of McD's. If we are anything less than supremely grateful to God for the abundant, affordable food and clean restrooms available to us at this moment of history then we are . . . well you know.
The first one that I ever recall eating at was on the north edge of Ft. Wayne, Indiana on U.S. 30. It was on our way to and from college at Winona Lake, Indiana. There were no tables or chairs, just a small area to walk in and order at a window and then go back to your car. The burgers were, as I recall, 15 cents. We had no idea at that time that this would become the largest restaurant chain in the world! The next step in this journey for us was a magazine article in the late 70's or possibly the early 80's.
The magazine was "Natural History" (an unlikely place to find an article about McDonalds). The title of the article was something like "McDonalds As A Religion". Before you dismiss this as preposterous consider the following. In the days before "fast food" places like McDonalds, Burger King (started about the same time as McDonalds), and Wendys (1969), selecting a place to eat, especially when you were traveling, could be a very risky "roll of the dice". Would you get a good meal or would you get ptomaine poisoning? Was the kitchen clean or . . . ?
On the other hand, when you were traveling and you wanted to attend church on a Sunday morning, you would go to a church of the denomination to which you belonged. If you were, for example, Lutheran you would go to a Lutheran Church knowing there would be no surprises. You knew exactly what the liturgy (order and form of service) would be. Thus, the Golden Arches, when they appeared on the landscape, told you "no surprises here; you know exactly what you will be getting and what it will cost". Anyone coming of age on this side of the advent of McDonalds cannot appreciate what it was like for the first time to have a restaurant chain available just about anywhere you traveled that would be as predictable and free of unpleasant surprises as the liturgy in your church denomination.
Fast forward to the present and the continued growth of McDonalds as a food service giant is still largely due to being predictable and free of unpleasant surprises. There is perhaps another way in which McDonalds resembles a religion. People crave what is often called "fellowship". On any given morning what do you see at many McDonalds? You see a "gathering of geezers" having fellowship! Retired men, and often women also, gather at McDonalds for "fellowship". And just as good churches "feed" you healthy spiritual food the menu at McD's is decidedly more healthy than just the "burger, shakes and fries" offered in the early days.
The Golden Arches are like a church in some other ways also. Most churches gladly welcome a large group of traveling visitors to drop in on a Sunday service. So, if you are traveling with a bus full of young people you don't have to think twice. Stop at McDonalds and you know you will, with rare exceptions, be welcome. One other observation: it seems to me that more and more McDonalds restaurants have ceased to be "fast food" places. Now it's "take a number and wait for your food". That may or may not make McD's like a church but it is not necessarily bad. I have been part of men's Bible studies that met in a back corner of the dining room of McD's. If we are anything less than supremely grateful to God for the abundant, affordable food and clean restrooms available to us at this moment of history then we are . . . well you know.
Thursday, March 7, 2019
BIBLE TRANSLATIONS: A BRIEF HISTORY AND SUMMARY
The Father of English Bible translation was William Tyndale. He was executed in 1536 for the "crime" of putting the Bible into the language of ordinary people. Ninety per cent of his words were retained in the KJV of 1611 and 75% were retained in the RSV of 1952. Following his work came the Geneva Bible, the one that the Puritans brought to America with them. The Authorized ("King James") Version of 1611 only slowly replaced the Geneva Bible. The King James Version holds a place of great importance in the history of English speaking people. I memorized extensive portions of it and still quote it often. But, the claims of some people that it is "more accurate" or based on a "better Greek text" are utterly false and misleading.
I sympathize with those who want to use the KJV because of familiarity with it or appreciation for its history. But, I strongly recommend that they use the best edition of the KJV that was ever printed. That was the New Scofield Reference Bible of 1967. It was essentially the KJV but with two very great improvements. Archaic (no longer used) words like "kine" (cattle) were updated. Second, the most egregious mistranslations were corrected. "Vile bodies" in Philippians 3:21 was corrected to "lowly bodies". The 1967 Scofield is no longer in print but copies are easily obtained on EBay.
I have no respect at all for the New King James Version. It is one of the most unnecessary versions ever done. If you substantially change the KJV you no longer have the KJV and it dishonest to call it the "New" KJV. It is simply a modern speech version based on the LEAST accurate texts that we have. If you like the KJV by all means use the Scofield Reference Bible of 1967. Also, its footnotes are a huge improvement over the original Scofield of 1909. The notes on Genesis chapter 1 are excellent.
The New International Version of 1978 involved more qualified scholars than any version in the history of the English language (105 as compared to 30-40 on all the others). It involved multiple cross checking and final reviews more than any other version. The translators followed the method of translation that missionaries had been using with other languages for many years. It was well on its way to becoming the standard Bible of English speaking people . . . until . . . the committee that controls the text began to "tinker" with it. First in 1984 and again in 2011 they changed the text. The 1984 edition is OK but unnecessary and the 2011 edition got into "gender inclusive" language. I use the original 1978 and WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO AS LONG AS I LIVE. All changes in the NIV should have been totally in the footnotes and the text should have been left alone!
The same mistake is being made with the English Standard Version. It is reported that they are going to tinker with the text. The ESV, to understand it, is nothing but a revision of the Revised Standard Version of 1952. The RSV, while generally accurate, was never accepted by many evangelicals because of obvious liberal bias in several passages. The ESV is probably the best translation currently IN PRINT but it is no improvement at all over the original NIV of 1978. If someone needs a Bible I urge them to go to EBay and get a like new 1978 NIV.
I will not discuss other translations currently available, not because they do not have value, but because nearly all of them are "gender inclusive" translations to suit the feminist agenda by eliminating, as much as possible, the words "man" and "men" and male pronouns. I do not speak against them, I just do not recommend them. If someone wants to read a paraphrase of the New Testament there is none more refreshing than the Phillips New Testament in Modern English (1958). .
I sympathize with those who want to use the KJV because of familiarity with it or appreciation for its history. But, I strongly recommend that they use the best edition of the KJV that was ever printed. That was the New Scofield Reference Bible of 1967. It was essentially the KJV but with two very great improvements. Archaic (no longer used) words like "kine" (cattle) were updated. Second, the most egregious mistranslations were corrected. "Vile bodies" in Philippians 3:21 was corrected to "lowly bodies". The 1967 Scofield is no longer in print but copies are easily obtained on EBay.
I have no respect at all for the New King James Version. It is one of the most unnecessary versions ever done. If you substantially change the KJV you no longer have the KJV and it dishonest to call it the "New" KJV. It is simply a modern speech version based on the LEAST accurate texts that we have. If you like the KJV by all means use the Scofield Reference Bible of 1967. Also, its footnotes are a huge improvement over the original Scofield of 1909. The notes on Genesis chapter 1 are excellent.
The first alternative to the KJV for Americans was the American Standard Version of 1901. It was replaced in 1971 by the New American Standard Bible. That version is accurate and trustworthy but it has two main faults: 1) following the Hebrew and Greek word order makes for clumsy English sentences; and 2) making every verse a separate paragraph was a huge mistake. It affects the way the reader understands the text. This was also a main fault of nearly all editions of the KJV. The NASB would be 100% improved if its text were put into normal paragraphs.
The Revised Standard Version came out in 1952 but it was not accepted by most conservative, evangelical Christians. That is discussed further down in this blog.
The New International Version of 1978 involved more qualified scholars than any version in the history of the English language (105 as compared to 30-40 on all the others). It involved multiple cross checking and final reviews more than any other version. The translators followed the method of translation that missionaries had been using with other languages for many years. It was well on its way to becoming the standard Bible of English speaking people . . . until . . . the committee that controls the text began to "tinker" with it. First in 1984 and again in 2011 they changed the text. The 1984 edition is OK but unnecessary and the 2011 edition got into "gender inclusive" language. I use the original 1978 and WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO AS LONG AS I LIVE. All changes in the NIV should have been totally in the footnotes and the text should have been left alone!
The same mistake is being made with the English Standard Version. It is reported that they are going to tinker with the text. The ESV, to understand it, is nothing but a revision of the Revised Standard Version of 1952. The RSV, while generally accurate, was never accepted by many evangelicals because of obvious liberal bias in several passages. The ESV is probably the best translation currently IN PRINT but it is no improvement at all over the original NIV of 1978. If someone needs a Bible I urge them to go to EBay and get a like new 1978 NIV.
I will not discuss other translations currently available, not because they do not have value, but because nearly all of them are "gender inclusive" translations to suit the feminist agenda by eliminating, as much as possible, the words "man" and "men" and male pronouns. I do not speak against them, I just do not recommend them. If someone wants to read a paraphrase of the New Testament there is none more refreshing than the Phillips New Testament in Modern English (1958). .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)