New Word Magazine: Review: Dan Wallace on Preservation.Part 3 (9.18.13)

I recorded and posted another edition of Word Magazine today.  This is part 3 of my review of Dan Wallace's article, Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Criticism.

 

The review touched on a number of issues, including Wallace's suggestion that the modern critical reconstruction of the "original" text of Scripture is anticipated by Josiah's finding of "the book of the law" in the temple.  In the episode, I mentioned a series of messages I preached in September 2012 at CRBC on Old Testament texts relating to the doctrine of preservation.  One of those messages was titled When the Bible was lost from 2 Kings 22--23. At the close of that message I made the following applications:
 

This passage is a testimony and a witness to the fact that God preserves his Word.  Perhaps wicked men had been able to destroy every copy of God’s Word, but some faithful priest had hidden one copy of the Word and it lay hidden till the time of its providential discovery.  God will preserve his Word.

Is this an argument for the modern reconstruction of a so-called critical text?

Some might argue that this text justifies the modern text critical reconstruction aimed at “purifying” the traditional text of Scripture, since it posits a time when Scripture was lost and then restored.

We reject this scheme.  Why?

1.      The setting in 2 Kings 22-23 is of a time when the Bible was still progressively developing.  It was at this time that the portion of Scripture as yet revealed was completely lost for a period of time.  The modern text critical construal claims that God’s word was not completely lost but partially corrupted, and this happened after the canon had been completed.

2.     The setting in 2 Kings 22-23 is of a time when either all the Scriptures then revealed (Genesis-Deuteronomy) or a large portion (Deuteronomy) was completely lost for a significant period of time.  It addresses a period of the absence of the true word.  The modern construal claims not that the Word was taken away but that non-scriptural material was added (like the ending of Mark, the woman taken in adultery, etc.) and that they (the scholars, the experts) need to purify our texts by removing these accretions.

3.     The Biblical account describes a time of the Word’s absence that was of a relatively short duration. Saul, the first king came to the throne c. 1000 BC.  Josiah came to the throne c. 640 BC.  If the Word was lost near the end of the time of the Judges this would have been a period of c. 350 years.  If suppressed in the days of wicked Manasseh it would have been sometime after he took the throne c. 687 BC (so for only c. 40 years).  The modern text critical construal claims the Word of God was lost in the second century A. D. and only restored by modern scholars in the last nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.  So, according to this view, the pure Word was lost for some 1,500-1,700 years!  Would the Lord have left his people without the Word for the majority of the time in which the New Testament church was in existence?

Text and Translation Note: Malachi 2:16a

A recent post on the Reformed Baptist officers’ Yahoo list asked about the translation of Malachi 2:16a in the ESV.

The issue:

The ESV reads:  “For the man who does not love his wife but divorces her, says the LORD, the God of Israel….”  The online text of the ESV includes a footnote for the verse reading:  “Hebrew who hates and divorces,” acknowledging that the ESV departs from the Hebrew text to follow a conjectural rendering.

 

The vast majority of English translations, however, follow some variation of translating the traditional Hebrew Masoretic Text which reads:  ki saneh shalach amar Yahweh eloheh yisrael.  The verb saneh is qal perfect 3^rd person singular.  This is reflected in the KJV and NKJV translation which offer the most literal rendering of the Hebrew MT:

KJV:  Malachi 2:16 For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away….

 

NKJ Malachi 2:16 "For the LORD God of Israel says That He hates divorce…”

 

Other modern translations also follow the Hebrew text, but they choose to change the verb from third person to first person.  Examples:

NIV Malachi 2:16 "I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel….”

NASB Malachi 2:16 "For I hate divorce," says the LORD, the God of Israel….”

This change apparently reflects the suggestions of the critical text of the OT in the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia where a footnote at senah suggests the reading should probably be in the first person (p. 1084).

Even the RSV (the base for the ESV translation) and the NRSV (like the ESV, a revision of the RSV) follow the Hebrew text:

RSV and NRSV Malachi 2:16  For I hate divorce says the LORD, the God of Israel….

 

There are several interesting things about the ESV rendering of this verse, but I'll break it down into two categories:  text and translation philosophy:

Text:

 

First:  Regarding text, the ESV follows the LXX which reads:  alla misesas [aorist participle from miseo, to hate] exaposteiles [aorist active subjunctive verb, second person singular, from exapostello, to send away] legei kurios ho theos tou Israel.  A literal rendering of the LXX would be:  “But hating you might send away, says the Lord God of Israel.”  This is also the reading of the Latin Vulgate.

 

A footnote in the print edition of the ESV reads:  “Probable meaning (compare Septuagint and Deuteronomy 24:1-4); or For the LORD, the God of Israel, says that he hates divorce, and him who covers”.

The ESV Study Bible provides an extended commentary on the translation of Malachi 2:16, beginning, “The Hebrew text of this verse is one of the most difficult passages in the OT to translate, with the result that the two main alternatives proposed for this verse are strongly disputed….” (see pp. 1776-1777).

Oddly enough the Geneva Bible follows the LXX as well and, thus, is closer to the ESV than to the KJV (a rarity).  Calvin’s commentary on Malachi also takes the Latin Vulgate reading as its base.

Second:  Regarding translation, I find it interesting that the ESV of Malachi 2:16a apparently reflects a dynamic equivalent rendering of the LXX which it follows.  It makes the participle from miseo a third person finite verb and the second person verb from exapostello into a third person verb.  It also adds the noun “wife” as the object of the verb exapostello though no such noun appears in the LXX.

It is also interesting to note that the ESV was apparently revised at some point.  The original (2001) ESV of Malachi 2:16a reads, "For the man who hates and divorces...." while, again, the current ESV reading is, "For the man who does not love his wife, but divorces her...."  Thus, the current ESV changed its predecessor’s more literal rendering of the verb “to hate” (miseo) to the negative (and softer?) “not love.”

This raises the issue of the ESV translation philosophy which has more dynamic equivalent renderings than one might expect in a version so heavily promoted as "essentially literal” (though this example is admittedly odd given that we are talking about the ESV’s rendering of a Greek translation of the OT and not the Hebrew original).   For another example of dynamic equivalence in the ESV of Jeremiah look here.

Analysis:

What is the significance of the textual and translation philosophy choices of the ESV?

 

First, for a long time, most of the battles over text seem to have been in the field of the NT with even most modern translations accepting the Hebrew MT for the OT, but now it seems that the translators are increasingly choosing to follow a reconstructed modern critical text of the Hebrew Bible.  The ESV (even more boldly than the RSV or NRSV) seems to be leading the way in preferring readings that have little or no Hebrew textual basis but are based on conjectural emendations like this one from the LXX.  Here are comments on a few other examples of this which I ran across when preaching through 1-2 Samuel:  1 Samuel 6:19; 1 Samuel 13:5; 1 Samuel 13:15; 1 Samuel 17; 2 Samuel 6:3; 21:8.  Another example would be Psalm 145:13 where the ESV includes a half verse found only in one Hebrew manuscript but supported by the LXX and the Syriac.

Second, one might ask how these decisions relate to the confessional perspective on Scripture reflected in the Westminster Confession and Second London Confession which stress the immediate inspiration of the OT in Hebrew and the NT in Greek (which would, of course, exclude the Greek of the LXX as authoritative).  Admittedly, this could also prove troublesome for supporters of the TR (like me) if it could be proven that some TR readings (like "book of life" in Rev 22:19) did not rest on some preserved Hebrew or Greek witness.

 

Third, it is also interesting that the ESV is so willing to offer such conjectures in the OT without any Hebrew textual basis given the disdain of most evangelical modern critical advocates for the Comma Johanneum of 1 John 5:7-8 which is, at least, supported by a handful of Greek witnesses (up to 9 now, I think).

 

Fourth, though the ESV Study Bible notes on the passage assure its readers that translations based on either the LXX or Hebrew MT of Malachi 2:16a equally affirm divine displeasure regarding divorce one wonders if there are not potential divergences in interpretation and application based on the translation one reads.  Is the point of Malachi 2:16a that the one who does not love (hates) his wife and divorces her covers himself in destruction (as in the ESV) or is it that the Lord hates divorce (as in the other English translations)?  Might this have some impact on one’s understanding of the Scriptural teaching on divorce?  

The Vision (9.12.13): Living with Boldness for Christ

In last Sunday’s sermon Fear not, little flock from Luke 12:32-40, I suggested that in this passage Jesus offered three challenges to his disciples:  (1) live with assurance; (2) live with boldness; and (3) live with expectant readiness.  Here are some of my notes on the challenge to live with boldness (from vv. 33-34):

Jesus begins, “Sell that ye have and give alms” (v. 33a).  The command here is much like that which Jesus will give to the rich young ruler when he asks Jesus what he needs to do to inherit eternal life:

 

Luke 18:22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

 

And you might recall that Luke records the man went away “very sorrowful, for he was very rich” (18:23).

 

Here in Luke 12:33, however, Jesus offers this as a command for all his disciples.  Is this to be taken literally?  Are we in sin if we hang onto any possessions at all?  Are Christians to be homeless and wandering vagabonds who have given all they have to the poor? 

 

If you read a bit further I think you will see that while Jesus is speaking metaphorically here (he does not expect every Christian to sell all his possessions at all times) he is also saying concretely to his disciples that they are not to make an idol of their possessions.  They are not to be like the rich fool, building bigger barns, and planning to take their ease, to eat, drink, and be merry with not a thought of thankfulness to God and stewardship of all they possess.

 

The fact that he is speaking metaphorically becomes clear in the continuation:  “provide yourselves bags [ballantion, purse of container] which wax not old….” (v. 33).  Now, I have found that it often makes sense to buy something of good quality that will last a long time, rather than to buy something of cheap quality that will only last a short time.  When I got back from Hungary in 1992 I bought a leather belt that I still wear.  I’ve used it for 20 years (though admittedly I’ve had to let it out a bit over the years) and just the other day one of the threads on it began to break.  Still, it lasted 20 years.  But Jesus speaks here of a purse that will never wear out.  Obviously, he is not speaking about a material object.  He is saying:  Do not invest your main interest and vigor and strength in the attainment and retention of merely material things.  Give these things away and dedicate them to the service of your neighbor.  Invest in that which will not wear out.

 

He further describes it as “a treasure [thesauros, treasure box, storeroom; the root for the English word “thesaurus” which is a treasury of words] in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth” (v. 33b).

 

We sometimes hear someone warn that we should not be so heavenly minded that we are no earthly good.  But here Jesus says we should not be so earthly minded as to be no heavenly good.

 

I remember the very first trip I ever took out of the country just after my freshman year in college.  It was a mission trip to Haiti with a group of Christian men.  Just the week before we arrived the missionaries we were working with had their home broken into and many cherished possessions stolen.  I’ll never forget what this humble and godly missionary said:  “but I have a treasure in heaven that no thief can break through and steal.”

 

Jesus cinches his point in v. 34:  “for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”  The questions you must ask yourself are these:  To what end am I living?  Am I living with boldness for Christ?  Is he the treasure I pursue above all and for which I would gladly cast away all?

 

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

E. J. Young on "What is Meant by Mosaic Authorship?"

Image:  Edward Joseph Young (1907-1968)

 

 

Note:  As I teach a "Survey of the Old Testament" class this semester, I have been reading Edward J. Young's An Introduction to the Old Testament (Eerdmans, Revised Ed. 1960). In this work, Young offers the following nuanced defense of the traditional Mosiac authorship of the Pentateuch under the heading "What is Meant by Mosaic Authorship?":

 

 

When we affirm that Moses wrote, or that he was the author of, the Pentateuch, we do not mean that he himself necessarily wrote every word.  To insist upon this would be unreasonable.  Hammurabi was the author of his famous code, but he certainly did not engrave it himself upon the stele.  Our Lord was the author of the Sermon on the Mount, but he did not write it.  Milton was the author of Paradise Lost, but he did not write it all out by hand.

The witness of sacred Scripture leads us to believe that Moses was the fundamental or real author of the Pentateuch.  In composing it, he may indeed, as Astruc suggested, have employed parts of previously existing written documents.  Also, under divine inspiration, there may have been later minor additions and even revisions.  Substantially and essentially, however, it is the product of Moses.  The position which conservatives contend has been well expressed by Wilson:  ‘That the Pentateuch as it stands is historical from the time of Moses; and that Moses was its real author, though it may be revised and edited by later redactors, the additions being just as much inspired and as true as the rest.’

New Word Magazine (9.10.13): Review: Dan Wallace on Preservation.Part 2

I recorded and posted another Word Magazine today, continuing my review and response to Dan Wallace's article Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual Criticism.

 

In this episode I take issue with several provocative and bold statements made by Wallace in the article like this one:  "Furthermore, for the letters of Paul, there is no majority text manuscript before the ninth century."

 

With regard to this statement I raised the following challenges:

 

1.  I asked what evidence Wallace had to prove this assertion, noting that the statement is made with no footnote to supporting evidence.

 

2.  I noted that there was probably less difference between the traditional text of the Pauline epistles and the texts used in the reconstruction of the modern critical text and a comparison of these same textual traditions in the Gospels where more major issues (e.g., Mark 16:9-20; John 7:53--8:11) typically exist.

 

3.  I noted that just because there are many manuscripts from the ninth and later centuries which support the traditional text, this does not mean that the traditional text only began at that time.  Rather, we might well assume that these later manuscripts were based on much earlier manuscript traditions which they copied.

 

4.  I noted that there seems to be directly contradictory evidence to the assertion that "there is no majority text manuscript [of the Pauline epistles] before the ninth century."

 

I pointed to two pieces of evidence:

 

First, in the introduction to the Nestle-Aland 27th ed. the editors list the "constant witnesses" for the Pauline epistles.  Among these is listed the uncial manuscript C (for all the 13 Pauline epistles except for 2 Thessalonians).

 

Second, in Bruce Metzger's The Text of the New Testament, Second Edition (Oxford University Press, 1968), he offers a description of C, also known as Codex Ephraemi (pp. 48-49).  Metzger dates C to the 5th century A.D.  He offers the following description of the text of C:  "Though the document dates from the fifth century, its text is of less importance than one might have assumed from its age.  It seems to be compounded from all the major text-types, agreeing frequently with the later Koine or Byzantine type, which most scholars regard as the least valuable type of New Testament text" (p. 49).  Metzger's obviously biased description of the Byzantine tradition aside, his assessment is that C dates to the 5th century and it provides a witness to the Byzantine text of the NT (including the Pauline epistles).

 

Conclusion:  Wallace's statement that there are no manuscripts that support the traditional text of the Pauline epistles until the 9th century is misleading, and, in the case of C, in particular, it is proven outright to be mistaken.

Recommended: The Confessing Baptist Podcast

 

I spent most of the day Saturday working in my yard, digging up and replanting Azaleas and trimming Japanese Holly bushes.  While working I listened to several editions of The Confessing Baptist podcast, including interviews with French-Canadian RB Pastor-theologian Pascal Denault on covenant theology (episodes 2 and 3) and Richard Barcellos [who will be in Charlottesville for the Keach Conference September 27-28] on creation (episodes 4 and 5).

The Confessing Baptist podcast is a ministry of three young lay brothers in Texas and is sort of a modest RB version of The Reformed Forum.  I'm not crazy about some of the transitional music, the voice-overs, and the avalanche of links and recommendations [I guess I subscribe to the Regulative Principle on podcasts] but the interviews are worth a listen and I commend these brother for their labors.

 

JTR 

The Vision (9/5/13): A Life of Total Dependence Upon the Lord

Image:  Scene from Lunch Fellowship on a recent Lord's Day at CRBC

Note:  Below are my notes from the closing application from last Sunday’s sermon from Luke 12:22-31.

Luke 12:22:  “And he said to his disciples, Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life….”

The main thrust of Jesus’ teaching is that his disciples are not to be so overcome with worry over their physical and material needs that they neglect kingdom pursuits and kingdom life.

As we noted last week, Jesus is not saying that the Christian life is some kind of Bohemian existence where one does not care at all about the practical needs of living in the real world.  Christians are to live with prudential wisdom. We are to live in such a way as to care for ourselves and those under our dominion so as not to become a burden unnecessarily to others. Galatians 6:5:  “For every man shall bear his own burden.”

Leon Morris observes:  “The believer may take reasonable forethought for his needs, but he is not to worry about food or clothing.  Life is bigger than such things…” (Luke, p. 213).

In his commentary on our text, the old Puritan Matthew Poole wrote:  “the thoughtfulness here forbidden is not moderate, prudent thoughtfulness, or care but….”:

·        Distrustful thoughtfulness;

·        Distracting or dividing cares, such as make a man live in suspense, and to be wavering as a meteor…

·        A thoughtfulness that … keeps the mind of man from rest, in a continual motion and fluctuation.

·        Any such thoughtfulness as is inconsistent with our seeking first the kingdom of God.

What Jesus denounces is the tendency for care over such things to become such an overwhelming point of concern and worry that we neglect properly knowing and fully serving the Lord.  Does worry over the material provisions of life keep us from study and reading of the word?  Does it keep us from prayer?  Does it keep us from the corporate disciplines of worship and fellowship?  Does it keep us from exercising the ministry and service to which we have been called?

Is there, in the end, not a hair’s breath’s difference between the way we live as Christians and what we worry about and the way unregenerate worldlings live and what they worry about?

The simplest way to put it is that Jesus demands that we live a life of total dependence upon the Lord.  Not only are we to understand that our salvation is all of the Lord and our perseverance in faith is all of the Lord, but even our physical sustenance is all of the Lord.  The food we eat, the clothing we wear all comes from him.  If he has provided it in the past will he not provide it in the future?  If he has provided for his people in ages past will he not provide for his people in the present age? If he cares for every living thing in the created order (from ravens to wildflowers), will he not take care of you?

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

New Word Magazine (9.3.13): Review: Dan Wallace on Preservation

I recorded a new Word Magazine yesterday.  This episode begins a review of Dan Wallace's 1992 article (published on bible.org in 2004) Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual Criticism.  You can also listen to or download an audio reading of the article here.

 

In the episode I noted that Wallace approaches the study of the text of the NT as a broad evangelical and not from a Reformed confessional perspective.  Along those lines, I offered this quote from Wallace's contribution to Perspectives on the Ending of Mark, Ed. David Alan Black (B & H Academic, 2008) [see my longer review of this work in the January 2012 ATI (pp. 133-138) here]:

 

"If, however, the doctrine of preservation is not part of your credo, you would be more open to all the textual options.  I, for one, do not think that the real ending to Mark was lost, but I have no theological agenda in this matter I don't hold to the doctrine of preservation.  That doctrine, first formulated in the Westminster Confession (1646), has a poor Biblical basis.  I do not think that the doctrine is defensible--either exegetically or empirically [in a footnote here he cites the 1992 article under discussion].  As Bruce Metzger was fond of saying, it's neither wise nor safe to hold to doctrines that are not taught in Scripture.  I may be wrong in my view of preservation, but this presupposition at least keeps an open door for me for all the options in Mark 16" (p. 7). 

The Vision (8.29.13): What is "Total Depravity?"

Note:  The article below begins an occasional five part series on the doctrines of grace (or “the five points of Calvinism”).  I abbreviated this material from a previously written discipleship booklet, and Bonnie Beach is helping me format it into a tract that we can copy and distribute when we minister this Saturday at the Fluvanna Correctional Center.

 

The Biblical doctrines of grace are sometimes referred to by the acronym:  TULIP.  Each letter in TULIP stands for one foundational doctrine in the doctrines of grace.  The “T” in TULIP stands for “Total Depravity” (or “radical depravity”).

Total Depravity maintains that the extent of the impact of sin since the fall (Gen 3) is so devastating as to make any human being’s salvation completely dependent on the work of God alone. 

This doctrine takes seriously the hideous nature of human sin.  Those who are not believers generally hold an optimistic view of human nature.  They believe that people are basically good and only are corrupted due to culture or environment.  The Biblical teaches, however, that men are sinners who reject God.

In Romans 3:11 Paul said, “There is none that understandeth; there is none that seeketh after God.”  He was describing the plight of unregenerate (unconverted) human beings.  The Bible holds out the scandalous truth that the only way a sinner becomes a seeker of the one true God is when God sovereignly opens his heart to believe the gospel (see the model conversion of Lydia in Acts 16:15:  “whose heart the Lord opened”).

A firm understanding of the sinful human condition is required for the gospel rightly to be understood.  We must hear the “bad news” of God’s wrath, before we can understand the “good news” of his love, mercy, and grace.

Seven reflections on Total Depravity:

1.      Total Depravity does not mean we are as bad as we possibly can be.

Total depravity is often misinterpreted as saying that mankind is somehow sub-human. Total depravity, however, is not absolute depravity.  We are not all Hitlers!   Even as sinners, we are still God’s image bearers (see Gen 9:6; Psalm 8; James 3:9).  Still, we are completely dependent upon God alone for salvation.

2.     Sin’s impact is total in that it touches the totality of our being.

This is where the term “radical depravity” is perhaps more helpful.  The English word “radical” comes from the Latin word radix meaning root or foundation.  Sin reaches to our roots.  It is basic to our present condition.  Sin is radical in that it impacts every aspect of life:  physically, emotionally, rationally, intellectually, personally, politically, and spiritually.  In Romans 7:18 Paul confessed:  “I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing.”

3.     Sin is universal (impacting all human beings).

In Romans 3:23, Paul said, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.”  In the days of Noah the Lord looked at mankind and saw that “every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Gen 6:5).  The prophet Jeremiah lamented:  “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? (Jeremiah 17:9).  It has well been said that, “the best of men are men at best.”

4.     We are sinners from birth.

The Bible teaches that we inherit a sin nature at birth from our first parents, Adam and Eve (cf. Rom 5:17; 1 Cor 15:21-22).  This is sometimes called “original sin.”  In Psalm 51:5 David says, “I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me” (cf. Ps 58:3).  As one has put it, “We are not sinners because we sin; we sin because we are sinners.”

5.      In addition to our inherited sin nature we also commit actual sins.

Every human being not only has an inclination to sin, but when given time and opportunity he willfully breaks God’s commands.  In Isaiah 53:6 we read, “All we like sheep have gone astray.”    John notes, “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1:8).  Sin is not merely theoretical but actual in our lives.

6.     Apart from regeneration (a change of heart), no sinner willingly chooses God.

Jesus told Nicodemus, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3).  A new birth experience (regeneration) is required before a person can willingly turn to Christ!

Paul describes the spiritual dullness of the unconverted:   “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor 2:14).  In 2 Corinthians 4:3, he describes unbelievers as “blinded” to the truth.

In light of this condition we must talk about human inability.  The unregenerate do not welcome the light of Christ (see John 3:18).  They do not seek God (Rom 3:11).

Apart from regeneration, repentance, and faith in Christ, we remain “children of wrath” who deserve a holy God’s righteous judgment (see Eph 2:1-3).

It is painful to come to grips with this reality.  The flesh will revolt against the Bible’s condemnation of what we falsely believe to be our innate spiritual goodness.  The unsaved usually have a “But I’m a good person!” mentality.  We must be honest, however, about what the Bible teaches and humble in understanding our condition.

7.      Total Depravity accentuates the gap between the holiness of God and the sinfulness of mankind.

Psalm 5:5 declares, “thou hatest all workers of iniquity.”  Psalm 7:11 adds that “God is angry with the wicked every day.”  His eyes are too pure to look upon unrighteousness (see Hab 1:13).  God not only hates sin, but he hates sinners.  The Puritan minister Ralph Venning wrote:  “God hates man for sin.”

The truth of Scripture is that Christ saves us from experiencing the wrath of God for our sin.  John 3:36 declares, “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.”  Likewise, in Romans 5:9, Paul declares that “being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him [Jesus].”  Until we understand the magnitude of human sin we will not perceive the magnitude of salvation.

Conclusion:

Sin is not a minor hurdle we must overcome with merely a little bit of God's help.  It is an insurmountable obstacle that will only be overcome by God setting down to set us over it.

An honest and sober reckoning of unregenerate man's plight in sin is a necessary starting point to understand properly the solution offered by God's grace in Christ. 

Copyright 2013 Jeffrey T. Riddle.  Copies of this article may be reproduced in whole or in part for non-profit use, including personal and corporate Bible study.  For information on ordering print copies, email info.crbc@gmail.com

I wish it were a joke...

Someone shared this video on the RB pastors' list.  I wish it were a joke, but apparently it is not.

New Word Magazine (8.27.13): Review: Mark Driscoll on Text and Translation

I just posted a new edition of Word Magazine.  In this edition, I offer a review of a recent blog post by Mark Driscoll on Where did the Bible come from? and find that Driscoll repeats many of the notions typical for evangelicals (including the YRR crowd) who embrace the modern critical text and translations (the ESV, in particular).

I make reference to my 2008 review:  Mark Driscoll and the Emerging Church.

And to a previous blogpost on the ESV and dynamic equivalence.

At the end, I also make an unrelated reference to this post on the Common Core curriculum.

Freedom Watch: Common Core

In the Fall 2013 edition of The Virginia Home Educator (the news magazine of the Home Educators Association of Virginia) there is an article worth reading under "Freedom Watch" on the Common Core curriculum which is now being promoted by our federal government and which has already been adapted by 46 of 50 states.  

The article suggests that this program is an overreach by the federal government into education which has typically been the domain of the states.  It has been implemented without study, pilot programs, public meetings or voter accountability.

According to the article, Common Core will include building a database and tracking students from preschool to when they enter the workforce.  It will accumulate information such as "student attitudes, disabilities, religious affiliation, medical information, family income and hundreds of other academic and social markers."  In the future standardized tests like the SAT and GED will be made to conform to CC standards.

As one who has opted out of the government education system for his children and simply as a citizen with concerns about personal privacy and religious liberty, the article gave me concern about Common Core.  I encourage you to read the article and consider the suggestions offered for making your voice heard. 

Letis on the "Majority Text" as restorationist rather than preservationist

Here’s another interesting excerpt from T. P. Letis’ The Ecclesiastical Text (pp. 81-82, n. 16) in which he addresses the proponents of the “Majority Text” position (once prominent among the faculty of Dallas Seminary which were instrumental in producing the NKJV).  Letis argues that this approach is, in the end, still restorationist as opposed to preservationist:

Theoretically there is absolutely no difference between Warfield’s project and that of the so-called “Majority Text Society.”  Both were/are still in a quest to restore a text that has been lost; both work(ed) from a primitive, restorationist principle, rather than a catholic preservationist principle; and neither has, or had, an ecclesiology that can (or could) account for the role the Church has played in configuring as well as canonizing and transmitting the text of Scripture.  The Dallas fundamentalists rallying around the Byzantine text do so because it is the “majority” text without ever engaging the reason why it is such, i.e., because it was actually the text used in catholic ecclesiastical practice.  Hence, one can only make sense of its majority status by acknowledging its Ecclesiastical status, which explains why it is in the majority.

The Vision (8/22/13): Dabney on the Three Stages of Preaching

R. L. Dabney (1820-1898) was a staunch Presbyterian minister who boldly preached the doctrines of grace.  As a young minister, Dabney served Tinkling Springs Presbyterian Church in Fishersville, Virginia.  As a mature minister he taught theology at Union Seminary when it used to be located in Farmville.  Among other things, Dabney wrote a series of lectures on preaching which was printed under the title Evangelical Eloquence (reprinted by Banner of Truth).

In the opening lecture Dabney offers a historical survey of preaching, noting “there are three stages through which preaching has repeatedly passed with the same results” (p. 27).

The first stage is when “scriptural truth is faithfully presented in scriptural garb—that is to say, not only are all doctrines asserted which truly belong to the revealed system of redemption, but they are presented in that dress and connection in which the Holy Spirit has presented them, without seeking any other human science.”  He refers to this stage as “the golden age.”

The second stage is “the transition stage.”  In this stage “the doctrines taught are still those of the Scriptures, but their relations are molded into conformity with the prevalent human dialectics.” In other words, Biblical truths are still taught, but preachers attempt to make the message more relevant by conveying them in contemporary thought forms and ideas.

Finally, in the third stage, “not only are the methods and explanations conformed to the philosophy of the day, but the doctrines themselves contradict the truth of the Word” (p. 28).

Dabney traces this pattern from the preaching of the apostles in the primitive church (stage one), to the “scholasticism” of those who later allegorized the Scriptures (stage two), to the dark ages (stage three).

Then he notes how the cycle was repeated from the Reformation (stage one), to the revivalism of the Great Awakening (stage two), to the age of Rationalism (stage three).

Dabney’s three stages reminded me of the old adage that the first generation discovers the gospel, the second assumes it, and the third compromises it.

He closes by calling his hearers not to wrap “the body of God’s truth” in “the drapery of human philosophy,” urging:  “May we ever be content to exhibit Bible doctrine in its own Bible dress!” (p. 29).

Sounds like some wise counsel.  May we strive to remain “stage one” in our preaching.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

Letis on Warfield, Infallibility, and Innerancy

Image:  B. B. Warfield (1851-1921)

Here are a few more gleanings from Theodore Letis’ The Ecclesiastical Text (1997):

Theodore Letis lays much of the blame for the contemporary abandonment of the received text of Scripture in favor of the modern critical text at the feet of the Princeton lion B. B. Warfield.  According to Letis, it was under Warfield’s influence that conservative Reformed and evangelical Christians began to speak of the “inerrancy” of the Bible rather than the “infallibility” of the Bible.  Warfield did this in an effort to defend the Bible from its modern critics, but, Letis contends, the unintended result was a compromise of the traditional, confessional, “catholic” view of the authority of the Bible.  He observes:

Warfield attempted to retain the old orthodoxy but by also making a major, largely unacknowledged concession to modernity, by abandoning a sacred text of the Church for a future scientific reconstruction of the Academy (p. 81).

By turning the focus away from the preservation of the Bible in its received form (i.e., in the copies or apographa) in favor of the “scientific” text critical search for the elusive original text (i.e., the autographa), Letis contends that Warfield “made the Church a bondservant of criticism” (p. 72).

Here are some of Letis’ thoughts on the shift of terminology from “infallibility” (the word used in the Westminster Confession and London Baptist Confession, article one, to describe Scripture) to “inerrancy” (originally an astronomical term to refer to “fixed stars” that was not applied to the Bible until the nineteenth century):

The change of one landmark word in the theological terrain can alter the entire landscape!  Such is what happened with the substitution of the non-confessional word “inerrancy” for the catholic term infallible.  Because “inerrancy” always and only has as its referent, the “original autographs,” it always invites the quest for the historical text, which in turn always culminates in the quest for the historical Jesus.  The change of but one word has resulted in the complete destruction of the classic Protestant view of Scripture and yet its would-be Reformation advocates continue to bow to the political pressures of non-Reformation “evangelical” communities (p. 79).

Thus, Letis argues:  “A reclamation act is in order” (p. 80).