Rejoinder to Jamin Hubner: Part 3

Note to readers: I have added the label "Jamin Hubner"at the end of this and the other rejoinders in this series. If you click on the "Jamin Hubner" button, you can read all the rejoinders in this series.



This is the third part of a rejoinder to Jamin Hubner’s series of responses to my blog article, “Three Basic Challenges to the ESV.”

This part three rejoinder corresponds to and flows Hubner’s part three response.

After quoting my article’s introduction to the second challenge to the ESV, Hubner opens with another “straw man” argument: “Obviously, Riddles [sic] believes that all of the Reformed and Reformed Baptist endorsers (here) are unaware of this claim, or, that they are aware of it but don't see it as significant. That's quite an assertion.” In truth, my article never offered any statement, speculation, or "assertion" as to how other Reformed Baptists understand the roots of the ESV.

Hubner then states that he does not understand my contention that the claims made in the ESV regarding this translation’s pedigree are “awkward.” He states: “It is unclear what is meant by ‘awkward stance.’ What is awkward?”

Let me try to explain further what I mean. The purported stance of the ESV, as presented in its printed preface, is “awkward” in my view in that, on one hand, it claims to “grow out of the Tyndale-King James legacy, but, on the other hand, it acknowledges its roots in the English Revised Version of 1881 (via its daughter the RSV). This is “awkward” in that these two traditions are in direct contradiction with one another. The one (English Revised Version of 1881) was presented as an alternative to and in order to usurp or dethrone the other (the KJV). Perhaps most significant, they are translation traditions based on completely different texts (the KJV on the traditional or received text and the Revised Version on the modern critical text). This is why I said that the claims of the ESV preface are “awkward.” In fact, I think I stated this quite clearly in my article when I wrote: “On one hand, the ESV wants to claim a place in the tradition of the classic English translations of the Protestant Reformation, but, on the other, it must admit that its roots are actually in later Protestant liberalism.” I maintain that this claim is justified and hope this clarifies my point.

Hubner next seems to challenge the notion that the RSV translators held liberal bias that is reflected in the RSV (e.g., its infamous rendering of Isaiah 7:14). For evidence here, I would again cite Oswald T. Allis’ critique of the RSV, Revision or New Translation? (P & R, 1948).

He then challenges questions raised by Macgregor concerning the RSV/ESV rendering of Micah 5:2, noting that “Macgregor is simply wrong.” NB: This is just one of nine such examples of theological questions with RSV/ESV renderings cited by Macgregor (see Three Modern Versions, pp. 55-58).

Why is Micah 5:2 important? Like Isaiah 7:14 it is a messianic prediction. It is important, because it offers a prophecy about the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem. It is a Christologically significant verse. The KJV rendering reflects a high Christological view in that it affirms the eternality of the Son as being “from everlasting.” The question is whether or not the RSV rendering of “from ancient days” might subtly undermine orthodox Christology. I am not implying that the evangelicals behind the ESV desire to undermine orthodox Christology, but I do believe that they could have unintentionally perpetuated the work of RSV translators who well may have had this intent.

Hubner, and no doubt the RSV/ESV translators, would argue that this is a more “literal” translation. But is this the case? After citing the Hebrew and LXX text of the phrase in question, Hubner makes the following grammatical observation: “The specific preposition that makes the text render "day" (min) is used, which is why the RSV, ESV, and NASB are generally more ‘literal’ or ‘word for word’ than the KJV at this point.” Though I will readily admit that I am not an expert in Hebrew, I find Hubner’s comment here to be curious. Yes, the preposition min is present in the text but so is the plural for the word “day” (yom)! It is not the preposition—as Hubner states— that might lead a translator to use “day” but the word “days” itself! The KJV translators apparently took the phrase mime ‘olam, that might well have been woodenly rendered “from the days everlasting,” as an idiom best rendered simply as “from everlasting.” The real question with theological bearing is how to translate the word olam. I would conclude that the KJV rendering is best in that it affirms orthodox Christology. The Puritan Matthew Poole, in his commentary on this verse, acknowledges in a marginal note that the Hebrew might be taken as “the days of eternity” but then explains the doctrinal significance of the translation “from everlasting” in his commentary: “whose generation, as he is the Son of God equal with his Father is eternal: this asserts the eternity of his Divine nature.”

Hubner also takes issue with my use of the word “change” to describe the RSV/ESV divergence from the KJV here (i.e., my statement: “The doctrinal issue here has to do with the change of “from everlasting” to “from ancient days”). Why, however, would the word “change” be inappropriate? First, the KJV is an older translation. It predates the RSV/ESV. It is also generally considered to be the normative or standard English translation against which later English translations are typically compared. As we have already noted, the ESV itself claims to follow in “the Tyndale-King James legacy” (though I have challenged this point). Therefore, to speak of the RSV/ESV “changing” the KJV translation is highly appropriate. I stand by it.

Hubner next offers two (colorful!) graphs showing statistics regarding the ESV renderings of the Hebrew word olam. I do not find this argument from “statistical analysis” to be germane, however, since the question here is not about general translation of this word in the Old Testament but the specific theological ramifications of the correct English translation for olam in this particular verse.

Oddly enough, after arguing that questions about the Christological significance of the RSV/ESV translation of Micah 5:2 are merely speculative, Hubner notes that Jehovah’s Witnesses (who deny the deity and eternal Sonship of Jesus) in their New World Translation render the disputed phrase in Micah 5:2 much as the RSV/ESV does. I was unaware of this fact, but I thank Mr. Hubner for raising it, since it clearly reinforces my point.

Let me add one more comment on this topic. Hubner seems to imply that anyone who has concerns about the theological implications of how translations read or how the theological presuppositions or bias of the translators affect the translation must hold to some kind of irrational “conspiracy theory.” This is not the case, however. I, for one, do not believe that the supporters of the ESV translation, for example, have a desire to undermine the doctrine of Christ’s deity. Macgregor’s comments are likewise charitable. However, I think one would have to be very naïve to think that the liberal translators of the RSV did not have a tendency to undermine orthodox views of Christology. The question is whether or not there are traces of this in the RSV that have been retained in the ESV. This is certainly a valid concern, and is at the core of the second objection lodged in my article: The ESV is not a new translation, but a mild revision of a notoriously liberal one!

Hubner next cites the ESV Study Bible notes on Micah 5:2. Far from allaying my misgivings about the RSV/ESV translation of this verse, however, this citation clearly indicates that the author of these notes realizes that Christological questions and objections might be raised about how this verse is rendered in the ESV. Hubner has already conceded that JWs, for example, will not take the RSV/ESV translation as an affirmation of the Christ’s “ancient (Davidic) lineage” but as a denial of his eternality. This is why the RSV/ESV rendering is potentially spiritually dangerous.

One would not expect an apologist to say that concerns about Christological implications of how a verse in Scripture is translated are “irrelevant,” but this is what Hubner says (“Thus, Macgregor and Riddle’s argument … is irrelevant.”). He declares that this text only discusses Christ’s physical lineage and not his eternality, so we should not worry about how the RSV/ESV renders it. Such a conclusion, however, is far from clear. Should we not be diligent in examining how a translation reflects upon the orthodox doctrine of Christ?

Hubner next throws out another aside defense of using “multiple translations.” Again, I have never advocated using only one translation, so this is again a “straw man” argument (see the same argument made in part one).

Hubner then responds to questions about gender neutrality in the ESV as cited by Macgregor. I continue to maintain that the examples speak for themselves. Despite Hubner’s protestations to the contrary, these changes do not add to the “accuracy” of the translation but reflect a gender inclusive impulse. Though the ESV did not alter Christologically questionable renderings from the RSV (like Micah 5:2) it did make changes to the RSV in places to insure gender neutrality (see again the clear examples cited by Macgregor in Romans 2:28; 3:4; 3:28).

Finally, Hubner correspondingly defends the ESV’s claims to be an “essentially literal” translation in the face of Macgregor’s citation of the above gender neutral renderings (which depart from the literal text) and other “dynamic equivalent” examples from the ESV. Granted, the ESV, thankfully, is not the NIV, much less The Message. The point is that the ESV’s claim to be a superior “literal” or “essentially literal” translation is open to challenge. Hubner claims that I and Macgregor commit “a fallacy of composition” by citing specific examples of problems with the ESV translation and assuming that this is true of the whole. He thus argues that the problems cited are “exceptional” and not the rule for the whole. Is this not, however, the very question under discussion? Are these examples exceptional or typical of the whole? I must conclude that it is not fallacious but highly appropriate to raise specific examples of non-literal renderings in order to investigate whether or not the ESV’s claim to be “essentially literal” is accurate.

In conclusion: The second challenge to the ESV stands as a legitimate concern. The ESV is an evangelical revision of the RSV. In places it has made improvement (e.g., Isaiah 7:14) on the RSV, but in other places questionable readings from the RSV have been maintained. Those rushing to embrace the ESV as their translation of choice should be aware of this concern.

JTR

The Vision (3/24/11): Good company quickens

Image:  Worship at Providence Reformed Baptist Church of the Black Hills in South Dakota

This week I finished up reading Thomas Watson’s book Heaven Taken By Storm (original 1669). The premise of the book is an extended meditation on Matthew 11:12: “The kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.” Watson takes the passage to mean that believers are to be “violent” (passionate, dedicated, active, aggressive) in living out the Christian life. This includes a “violent” pursuit of Christian community. Watson writes:

If you would be violent for the kingdom, keep company with such as are violent. When we wanted fire, we used to go to our neighbor’s hearth and fetch fire. Often be among the godly, and so you shall fetch some heat and quickening from them. Psalm 119:63: “I am a companion of all them that fear Thee.” Good company quickens. The holy discourse and example of one saint whets and sharpens another. The saints never go so fast to heaven as when they go in company. One Christian helps another forward. In other races that are run, many times one hinders another; but in this race to heaven, one Christian helps forward another. 1 Thessalonians 5:11: “Edify one another, even as also ye do.” Oh, let not this article of our creed be forgotten: “The communion of the saints.”

When I read this passage I thought of the sermon and text from last Lord’s Day morning at CRBC (Not forsaking the assembling [Hebrews 10:23-25]). Indeed, we need to be committed to “keep company” with the saints, if we are to progress in godliness.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

Book Note: Thomas Watson's "Heaven Taken By Storm"

Thomas Watson, Heaven Taken By Storm (first published 1669; Northampton Press edition, 2007): 143 pp.

I just finished reading this attractively formatted reprint of Watson’s Heaven Taken By Storm which bears the alternate title of “The Holy Violence a Christian Is to Put Forth in the Pursuit After Glory.” The premise of the book is an extended meditation on Matthew 11:12: “The kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.” Watson takes the passage to mean that believers are to be “violent” (passionate, dedicated, active, aggressive) in living out the Christian life.

This “holy violence” will include “violence to ourselves” though the mortification of sin. It will also include the “violent” pursuit of the ordinary means of grace. Indeed, the heart of the book is Watson’s urging the basic spiritual disciplines of reading and hearing the Word, prayer and meditation, self-examination, sanctifying the Lord’s Day and holy conversation. Watson observes, “Some think free grace will save them; but it must be in the use of means” (p. 61).

Watson also advocates what we might call spiritual warfare in active opposition to Satan. He further calls for zeal in the pursuit of heaven. “Moderation has made many lose heaven” (p. 63). The book includes many valuable resources to stir spiritual life including a list of questions for spiritual self-examination and responses to objections against piety, as well as a listing of typical hindrances and directions for overcoming them. The book closes with an appendix titled “The Happiness of Drawing Near to God.”

As always with Watson there is a treasure trove of pithy sayings and turns of phrase along with practical illustrations of the sort that led Spurgeon to describe Watson as a “racy” writer. Here is a sampling of but a very few:

“There is a sea of sin in us” (p. 28).

“There cannot be so much sweetness in sin as there is sting” (p. 31).

“Many truths are lost because ministers pour their wine into sieves, either into leaking memories or feathery minds” (p. 34).

“The eye can see everything but itself. It is easy to spy the faults of others, but hard to find out our own” (p. 37).

“In suiting his temptations to the complexion and temperament of the body, Satan studies facial features and expressions and lays suitable baits” (p. 50).

“Industry in one’s calling (when excessive) is covetousness” (p. 51).

“The world never kisses us except with an intent to betray us” (p. 53).

“A true saint is crucified to the affections of the world (Galatians 6:14). He is dead to the honors and pleasures of it. What delight does a dead man take in pictures or music?” (p. 54).

“Our salvation cost Christ blood; it will cost us sweat” (p. 61).

For those who put off piety to old age: “No man says, ‘I will learn my trade when I am old’” (p. 77).

“Do we pray in the morning as if we were to die at night?” (p. 80).

“Would it be a good plea for a servant to say to his master that he was so drunk that he could not work? Truly, ‘tis much like you saying that you were so drunk with the cares of the world that you could not be violent for the kingdom” (p. 90).

“This holy violence will not hinder men in their secular employments. Violence for the kingdom and diligence in a calling are not inconsistent. Christians, you may work for heaven, yet work in a trade” (pp. 103-104).

What some will say on their deathbeds: “Oh, that I had a Bible in my hand when I had a deck of cards!” (p. 112).

On the mystery of election: “Do not therefore perplex your thoughts about election; this book is sealed, and no angel can unclasp it. The rule Christians are to go by is God’s revealed will, not His secret will” (p. 115).

“Use the world as your servant, but do not follow it as your master” (p. 117).

“Be serious, but cheerful” (p. 118).

“The flesh is a bad counselor” (p. 120).

When friends attempt to dissuade you from this violence, remember: “‘Tis better to go to heaven with their hatred than to hell with their love” (p. 121).

“If you would be violent for heaven, get under lively preaching… The Word is a fire to thaw a frozen heart…. It is as good almost to be without preaching as to be under such preaching as will not warm us” (p. 123).

“The heart is a virgin God himself is suitor to” (p. 137).

JTR

Rejoinder to Jamin Hubner: Part 2

Note to readers: I have added the label "Jamin Hubner"at the end of this and the other rejoinders in this series. If you click on the "Jamin Hubner" button, you can read all the rejoinders in this series.


This is the second part of my rejoinder to a recent series of blog posts by Jamin Hubner in response to my article, “Three Basic Challenges to the ESV" (blog version; sermon audio pdf). This post corresponds to his part two response:

Hubner begins this discussion with reference to the introductory paragraph in my article in which I briefly discuss (just three sentences in the sermon audio version of my article!) the marketing of the ESV by Crossway. He takes exception with my use of quotation marks around the phrase “various leaders.” In truth, the quotations are there because I was quoting the words of Justin Taylor in his blog introducing a promotional video for the ESV. You can read this blog post here, along with the full line I partially quoted in my article: “Here’s a new video from Crossway from various leaders explaining why they trust and appreciate this translation.”

Hubner also claims to be confused by my reference to “the young, restless, and reformed.” He writes: “It's not clear what is meant by this or who these restless young people are.” In my article, however, I clearly attribute the term “young, restless, and reformed” to Colin Hansen (I wrote: “The ESV is, without doubt, the translation of choice among those whom Colin Hansen has described as ‘the young, restless, and reformed.’”). I assumed that informed readers would be familiar with Hansen’s influential and popular book, Young, Restless, and Reformed: A Journalist’s Journey with the New Calvinists (Crossway, 2008), describing the contemporary resurgence of Calvinism in the younger generation.

He then cites a long list of well known evangelicals who have endorsed the ESV. I am sure Hubner would agree that the merits of the ESV should not be determined based merely on who offers endorsements of it. The point is that this is a bandwagon marketing technique, very effectively used by Crossway. You should eat Wheaties, because the famous athlete does. You should use the ESV, because the famous preacher does.

In the blog version of the article, which is a wee bit longer than the sermon audio version, I added this line: “Questions about the ESV are rarely heard in the neo-evangelical Calvinistic movement which Daryl Hart has described as possessing ‘an extremely chummy atmosphere’ (see his article here).”

Next, Hubner moves on to the first of the three challenges to the ESV, the issue of its National Council of Churches (NCC) copyright.

His first point is essentially that this question does not matter. It is irrelevant. I disagree. I do not want to support directly or indirectly the NCC. I want to know why the NCC copyright appears in the ESV and what it means.

His next point is essentially a reductio ad absurdum argument, saying that if we ask any questions about the NCC copyright in the ESV we will eventually have “to empty entire church libraries.”

Finally, he refers to a statement by Wayne Grudem in response to an email query on this same issue. Hubner assumes I was familiar with this. In fact, I was not. I find Grudem’s response increases rather than diminishes the mystery. What private party supplied funds for Crossway to pay the NCC? How much did they pay? What other contractual agreements were stipulated? Why is the NCC copyright still retained in the ESV? Has Crossway ever made a public statement on this issue? If not, why?

The central issue this question raises is that of discernment and “separation.” No matter how much this concept might have been abused in some fundamentalistic circles, it is still a Biblical concept (2 Corinthians 6:14-18; 1 Peter 1:15-16). The question of the ESV’s NCC copyright, therefore, is neither unimportant nor irrelevant.

JTR

Rejoinder to Jamin Hubner: Part 1

Note to readers: I have added the label "Jamin Hubner"at the end of this and the other rejoinders in this series. If you click on the "Jamin Hubner" button, you can read all the rejoinders in this series.



It recently came to my attention that Jamin Hubner is writing a series of responses to a blog post I wrote last year titled, “Three Basic Challenges to the ESV.” I also posted a slightly revised audio version and pdf of this article to sermonaudio.com. Hubner’s responses are being posted on his website (realapologetics.org) and also at apologist James White’s blog (aomin.org). My original ESV article only contained c. 1,600 words and in his first two posts Hubner has already written over 2,000 words in response!

This part one rejoinder corresponds to his part one response and attempts to flow Hubner’s remarks:

Hubner first notes my references in the ESV article to Alan J. Macgregor’s Three Modern Versions (The Bible League, 2004) and cites my recent favorable review of this book in the January-March, 2011 issue of The Reformed Baptist Trumpet. I would say the ESV article in question uses this book as a source, however, rather than saying it is a “condensed version” of Macgregor’s work.

One initial observation regarding Hubner’s response is that he sometimes seems to be offering a critique of the extended quotes in my article (and book review) from Macgregor rather than the content of my article itself. It also seems that Hubner has not yet read Macgregor’s book. Maybe he would be willing to tell us if I am on target here in a future response. Indeed, Three Modern Versions is likely little known or available outside the rather narrow circle of Bible League Trust supporters and Bible League Quarterly readers in the UK. Part of the purpose of my Trumpet review was to attempt to expose it to more readers. I would encourage Hubner (and anyone else interested in this topic, for that matter) to obtain and read Macgregor directly. It is one of the few resources I have seen that offers a thorough, charitable, yet convincingly disapproving review of the ESV.

I am thankful that Hubner acknowledges up front that my “general concerns about the ESV are legitimate.” Of course, I am less convinced by his suggestion that my arguments and conclusions are “misleading and in need of truth and clarity.” Let’s see if this is so.

Hubner next makes some comments about there being no definitive English translation and the need to use more than one more translation in study. I am generally in agreement with both those points (though probably in not the same manner as he). The main thing is that my article did not really address either of those points (read it for yourself). To use classical logic terms, this is a “straw man” argument.

Hubner next offers two extended quotes from Macgregor that begins, “Even as the AV now stands…” (p. 18 in The Reformed Baptist Trumpet and pp. 99, 100 in Macgregor). Again, it gets a little confusing at times in the post as to whether Hubner is offering a critique of my ESV article, my review of Three Modern Versions in the RBT, or of Macgregor (or all three!).

In these quotes, Hubner hones in on Macgregor’s reference to the help of the Holy Spirit for the believer properly to understand the Scriptures. Again, his point here is really not with my ESV article but with the Macgregor quote. Still, I will try to defend what I think Macgregor was saying, because I believe Hubner essentially misconstrues it. He takes Macgregor to mean that the Holy Spirit will give the KJV reader insight to understand archaic words, and he conveniently includes a list of these that is meant to bring embarrassment to the AV. I think Hubner, in fact, misreads Macgregor’s point. His mention of the Holy Spirit helping the believer is simply a reference to the basic Protestant belief in the necessity of divine illumination as reflected, for example, in the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (I.VI):

Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word, and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.

Macgregor’s point stands no matter what translation or language of the Bible one might be reading.

As to the specific matter of archaic vocabulary in the AV, Macgregor himself acknowledges that the AV might well have used a sympathetic updating of spelling and vocabulary as was last done by Blayney in 1769 and laments that such an effort was thwarted by Westcott and Hort in place of a radical departure (see Three Modern Versions pp. 97-98 ).

As a side note, I might add in regard to the archaic and unfamiliar words that Hubner cites, that the supposed difficulty of reading the AV is doubtless exaggerated, especially if one has a word list like that supplied by the Trinitarian Bible Society or a resource like the KJV Study Bible (Thomas Nelson, 1988) [BTW: “churl”: mean, miserly person; “cieled” (sic; rather “ceiled”): paneled, overlaid; “cotes”: sheepfolds; “blains”: boils; “froward”: perverse, contrary, self-willed; “glede”: kite, vulture; “crookbakt”: hump-backed; “sackbut”: pipe or lyre of elderwood]. Any legitimate English translation of any intelligence will have its fair share of vocabulary and phrases that the unconverted, the slow reader, the city-slicker, or the novice will not readily understand (cf., e. g., in the ESV: “rock badger” and “chews the cud” [Lev 11:5]; “one who eases the yoke on their jaws” [Hosea 11:4]; “propitiation” [Rom 3:25]; etc.).

Hubner closes with an analogy that is forced. He claims that when Macgregor (and I?) are saying that the reader ought to “accommodate” (i.e., learn how to read a translation like the AV) we might as well be asking readers to learn Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek and then read the Bible in the original languages. Asking someone to read the AV, however, is hardly equivalent to learning a Biblical language. Just ask anyone who’s had seminary Hebrew or Greek! He concludes, “The whole purpose of a translation is so that its readers don't have the [sic] learn a language they aren't familiar with.” I don’t think this is quite right. Rather, the purpose of a translation is to help the reader have access in a “vulgar language” to the Scriptures from the “immediately inspired” original languages. Again, compare The Second London Baptist Confession (I.VIII):

The Old Testament in Hebrew which was the native language of the people of God of old, and the New Testament in Greek which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations, being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope.

The point of my ESV article was to raise the question (challenge) as to whether the ESV is the best translation to achieve that goal.

Let me close this initial rejoinder with a point of agreement. I affirm the closing lines in which Hubner notes the following: “It's about translating meaning and ensuring that sound doctrine is not being sacrificed with each new revision and updated translation. This is a cause that we can all agree on; we all want the truth.” Amen.

JTR

Poh Boon Sing: "Should Christians Use the Word 'Allah'?"

Malaysian Reformed Baptist Pastor Poh Boon Sing has an interesting discussion in his online Gospel Highway Magazine concerning whether or not Christians in Malaysia and Indonesia should use the name "Allah" for God, given its predominant use by Muslims.

He first addressed the issue with a 2008 article ("Should Christians Use 'Allah'?") in which he questioned the use of "Allah" for God among Malay and Indonesian believers, including in the Alkitab (the Malay/Indonesian Bible), as confusing the God of Christianity with the God of Islam.  The article begins:

Who is “Allah”? Is he not the god of the Muslims? Or is He the God of the Christians as well? Are Christians and Muslims worshipping the same God when they use the same name, “Allah”? Or are they worshipping two different gods using the same name? Should Christians use “Allah” as the name of the true and living God? Have not the Christians in Arab countries been using “Allah” to refer to God long before the rise of Islam?

He then posted a follow-up article in 2010:  "The Use of 'Allah':  What Next?"

There seem to be a number of issues. One is the theological significance of the terms used for God by believers. Another is the difference between Indonesian believers who are apparently less bothered by the use of "Allah" for God and Malaysian believers (like Poh) who are more bothered by it. Another is a civil rights issue in that Christians in these places have had to contend with Muslim influenced governments for the right to use the word "Allah." Why should they abandon gains?

The second article concludes:

The current use of the words “Allah” as a translation for “God” and “Tuhan” for “Lord” is linguistically and theologically incorrect. Instead of those words, “Tuhan” and “Yamtuan” are proposed as ideal replacements for “God” and “Lord”, respectively.

The task of promoting the use of these replacement words in a revised version of the Alkitab among Christians will not be smooth and easy. We foresee opposition from various quarters arising from fear of change, insistence on the legal right to continue using “Allah”, and unworthy personal considerations in certain church leaders. As I send forth this article, I crave the prayer support of friends and fellow servants of God who see the crying need for a usable version of the Alkitab.

These articles provide insights into the general issues of translating Biblical terms into contemporary languages and the specific problems that believers face in Muslim dominated nations.  The least we can do is heed Pastor Poh's call for prayer for spiritual leaders in these nations and for the provision of an accurate translation of the Scriptures in their language.

JTR  

Sermon of the Week: Timothy J. Worrell on "The Old Paths"

I've been listening to a sermon series on "The Old Paths" by Timothy J. Worrell of the Presbyterian Reformed Church of Charlotte, NC.  Worrell notes that just as Luther called the medieval Catholicism of his day a second Babylonian Captivity of the church, we could say that the church is now entering a third Babylonian Captivity.  The formula for faithfulness:  return to the "old paths."

Here's a link to the opening message in the series:  "The Old Paths # 1."

JTR

Book Note: S. M. Houghton, "My Life and Books"

I just finished reading My Life and Books: Reminiscences of S. M. Houghton (Banner of Truth, 1988): 173 pp. The book has three parts: (1) Houghton’s autobiographical reflections (pp. -139; these ten chapters originally appeared as articles in the Banner of Truth magazine); (2) reflections on Houghton by Iain Murray (pp. 140-162); and (3) a description of Houghton’s final days and death by his pastor at the time, Richard Chester (pp. 163-165).

Who was S. M. Houghton (1899-1987)? Houghton was one of those men who served quietly and mostly behind the scenes in kingdom work, but who had a significant and lasting impact. By profession he was a history teacher and librarian in a Welsh Grammar School. Raised in a Methodist home and even pursuing the Methodist ministry, he did not hear and believe the gospel till he was a young adult through the witness of Strict Baptists (best chapter title: chapter two: “The Early End of Ministerial Career in Methodism”). Houghton was a bibliophile and collector of Puritan works who amassed a personal library that numbered in the tens of thousands of volumes (c. 30,000). At one point he had to store part of his library in two chicken sheds in his yard! When he retired from teaching in 1960 he began work as an editor and proofreader for the Banner of Truth Trust. Among the many Banner works that Houghton helped prepare for publication and (re)introduce to evangelical circles: Merle d’Aubigne’s The Reformation in England, C. H. Spurgeon’s Autobiography, Arnold Dallimore’s Life of George Whitefield, John Calvin’s Sermons on Ephesians, and D. M. Lloyd-Jones’ Romans commentaries. Houghton also served as editor of the Bible League Quarterly from 1963-1986 and helped re-organize the Bible League Trust in the early 1980s. He was a staunch defender of the Authorized Version of the Bible.

Here are three spiritual gleanings from this work:

1. The power and allure of good books. Houghton was the consummate bibliophile. He worked to collect and preserve the literary labors of some of the great men of the past. Among the best parts of this work are his descriptions of finding rare Puritan works everywhere from second hand bookshops to garbage piles and his reverential descriptions of the personal impact of these books. This memoir shows the power of the written word.

2. The wise use of retirement. In some ways Houghton’s most significant kingdom contributions came in the last 27 years of his life, post-retirement.

3. The influence of thankless “behind the scenes” labor. Houghton did a lot of the grunt work that resulted in the contemporary revival of interest in Puritanism. He did not choose the titles Banner reprinted. He did the detailed work of editing, proofreading, and fact checking these books. He did not speak in large conference and was, by all accounts, a quiet, reserved, and private man. Stop and think, however, of the long time impact of his labors. How many read those books and discovered Reformed theology (the Biblical gospel)? How many pastors, for example, have consulted Lloyd-Jones while preaching through Romans?

JTR

The Vision (3/17/11): God's Sovereignty: From Judas to Japan

In our mid-week Bible Study in the Gospel of John this week, we reached the end of John 6 (which we have dubbed “the bread chapter” for the “bread” imagery throughout, from the loaves in the feeding of the five thousand to Jesus’ declaration in v. 35, “I am the bread of life”).

After Christ’s teaching on God’s sovereignty in salvation in v. 65 (cf. vv. 37, 44), we read in v. 66: “From that time many of his disciples went back and walked with Him no more.” Jesus then asks the twelve, “Do you also want to go away?” (v. 67). Simon Peter answers, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life” (v. 68). Peter continues, “Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (v. 69; cf. Matthew 16:16; Mark 8:29).

Of interest is what come next. Jesus answers, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?” (v. 70). The apostle John explains in the next verse: “He spoke of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, for it was he who would betray Him, being one of the twelve’ (v. 71).

The question raised in our discussion was why Jesus chose Judas to be among the disciples. Clearly, Jesus shared in the divine omniscience. He knew that Judas would betray him: “For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him” (v. 64). Again, why then did he allow Judas to be among the twelve?

This touches upon a basic theological issue that is sometimes called “theodicy,” the justification of God’s ways in the face of the reality of the existence of suffering and evil. The questions pile up:

Why did Jesus allow Judas to be among the disciples?

Why did God allow the earthquake and tsunami in Japan?

Why does he allow diseases like cancer, diabetes, and m.s.?

Why does he allow wicked men to gain the upper hand in some temporal circumstances?

In the end, our answer must rest in the affirmation of God’s sovereignty. Why did Jesus choose Judas? Because the role of Judas in betraying Jesus fit the perfect plan of God for the redemption of man. As Peter declared at Pentecost, the cross of Christ was “according to the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23).

Nothing takes the Lord by surprise or is outside his control. He is bending all things to his own glory and the good of his saints (Romans 8:28). The prophet Amos long ago declared, “If there is calamity in a city, will not the LORD have done it?” (Amos 3:6). Joseph says to the brothers who sold him into slavery: “you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good” (Genesis 50:21). Martin Luther said that even the devil is God’s devil. He does not do anything that the Lord does not permit him to do.

This is the thing we should remember when we see divine permission of suffering and evil, from Judas to Japan. As the hymn writer put it, “What’er My God Ordains is Right.”

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

Not the slightest idea

Image:  William Wilberforce

An illustration from a recent message on Romans 8:5-11:

The story is told that William Wilberforce once took his unconverted friend William Pitt to hear the well-known preacher William Cecil. Cecil preached so powerfully that Wilberforce was sure that Pitt must have been moved, but as they left the gathering Pitt turned to his friend and said, “You know, Wilberforce, I have not the slightest idea what that man has been talking about” (as cited by Boice, Romans, Volume 2, p. 809).

“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God” (1 Corinthians 2:14).

“Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his” (Romans 8:9b).

JTR

Book Review: W. Gary Crampton's "From Paedobaptism to Credobaptism"

I have posted an audio reading of the book review I did for Gary Crampton's From Paedobaptism to Credobaptism and a pdf of the review to sermonaudio.com.

JTR

A Rob Bell Post

I've had a couple folk email and ask if I planned to weigh in with a blog post on recent controversy surrounding "emerging" megachurch Pastor Rob Bell's new book Love Wins in which he apparently revives the heresy of Origen by holding that all men will eventually be saved (i.e., universalism).  I have no plans to read or review the book (for those who have, you can look at these posts by Justin Taylor and Al Mohler), but I did run across a link at sermonaudio.com to this interview with Bell conducted by journalist Martin Bashir.  Bashir dismantles Bell's premise in short order:

2011 Keach Conference Coming!

We invite you to mark your calendars now for the 2011 Keach Conference, the annual theology and ministry conference hosted by the Reformed Baptist Fellowship of Virginia. This will be our 10th annual meeting.

When will the conference meet? Friday-Saturday, September 30-October 1, 2011. Session I will be held on Friday evening at 6:30 pm. Session II will be held on Saturday morning at 9:30 am. Following the morning session there will be a dialogue (question and answer time) with the speakers and then lunch.

Where will the conference be held? This year’s meeting will be hosted by the Covenant Reformed Baptist Church in Warrenton, Virginia. The church is located at 7336 Riley Road, Warrenton, VA 20187. Host Pastor will be Steve Clevenger.

What will be this year’s theme? We are continuing our series through the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689). This year’s theme is chapter five, “Of Divine Providence.” We are also celebrating the 400th anniversary of the Authorized (King Jame’s) Version of the Bible (1611-2011).

Who will be speaking? We have been blessed over the years to have excellent speakers for our conferences. This year is no exception. Our speakers will be Dr. Joel Beeke, President of Puritan Theological Seminary in Grand Rapids, Michigan and Pastor Malcolm Watts of Emmanuel Reformed Church in Salisbury, England.

Dr. Beeke is one of the most prolific evangelical authors of our day. He is a walking library of knowledge about the Puritans and is in high demand as a speaker in Reformed churches and conferences.

Pastor Watts serves as Chairman of the General Committee of the Trinitarian Bible Society, a ministry that has promoted the circulation of “Protestant or uncorrupted versions of the Word of God” since 1831.

What are the topics? Here is our preliminary schedule:

Friday (September 30, 6:30 pm):

Dr. Beeke: How to Respond Christianly to Providential Afflictions

Pastor Watts: The Providential Preservation of the Scriptures: Part 1

Saturday (October 1, 9:30 am):

Pastor Watts: The Providential Preservation of the Scriptures: Part 2

Dr. Beeke: Job’s Submission to Providence

How can I help? There are several things you can do to help: (1) Join us in prayer for the conference, the speakers, and the fellowship. (2) Make plans now to attend and spread the word to others. Think about bringing a group from your church. (3) Send a financial gift to help defray the conference costs. Gifts can be sent to Covenant RBC (see address above) and marked for “Keach Conference.” Send a personal gift and ask your church to send a gift also. Help us continue to be able to invite speakers of international caliber and host a world-class, God glorifying and man edifying conference.

JTR

The Reformed Baptist Trumpet.January-March.2011

I just sent out the January-March 2011 issue of The Reformed Baptist Trumpet, the quarterly e-newsletter and journal of the Reformed Baptist Fellowship of Virginia.  You can read the entire issue here on Googledocs or here at the RBF-VA site.

The issue includes an announcement for the 2011 Keach Conference with Dr. Joel Beeke and Pastor Malcolm Watts scheduled for Friday-Saturday, September 30-October 1, 2011 (pp. 1-2).

An article by Dr. David Murray, "The Quest for the Historical Adam" (pp. 3-12).

Book reviews of Gary Crampton's From Paedobaptism to Credobaptism and Alan J. Macgregor's Three Modern Versions (pp. 13-19).

A Paradosis sermon by Andrew Fuller, "Pastors Required to Feed the Flock of God" (pp. 20-21).

JTR

John Owen as a Companion for Romans 8

I have found the reading of John Owen to be a tremendous spiritual companion and complement to preaching through Romans 8.

Sunday before last I preached on Romans 8:5-11 (Spiritually Minded) and last week I did some reading in Spiritual-Mindedness, the R. J. K. Law abridgement of Owen’s “The Grace and Duty of Being Spiritually Minded” (1681) in the Banner of Truth Puritan paperbacks series. The book is an extended meditation on Romans 8:6: “For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.”

The opening line, “In these words [Romans 8:6], we have two states. One leads to eternal blessedness and the other to eternal ruin.”

He later adds, “Every one of us lives in one of these two states. There is no middle state.”

And, “Spiritual-mindedness cannot flourish and grow if the heart is immersed in the evil swamps of worldliness.”

Last Sunday I preached on Romans 12-17 (Joint-Heirs with Christ) and also started re-reading Richard Rushing’s Puritan Paperback abridgement of Owen’s “The Mortification of Sin” (1656). This classic work is a meditation on Romans 8:13: “For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die; but if ye though the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.”

Owen defines his thesis:

“The choicest of believers, who are assuredly freed from the condemning power of sin, should also make it their business all of their days to mortify the indwelling power of sin.”

He asks, “Do you mortify? Do you make it your daily work? You must always be at it while you live; do not take a day off from this work; always be killing sin or it will be killing you.” Elsewhere he adds, “When sin let us alone, we may let sin alone….” And, “We will not be making progress in holiness without walking over the bellies of our lusts” (p. 10).

JTR

The Vision (3/10/11): What does the Holy Spirit do?

Many of you know that Daniel Houseworth and I are attending a theology conference this week in Greenville, South Carolina at Greenville Presbyterian Seminary. The theme for the conference is “The Person and Work of the Holy Spirit.” Many of the messages we have heard this week have reminded me of our recent studies in Romans 8 (vv. 1-11).

What does the Spirit do?

1. The Spirit helps us to walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit (Rom 8:1).

2. The Spirit frees us from the law of sin and death (v. 2).

3. The Spirit changes our minds from thinking the things of the flesh to thinking the things of the Spirit (v. 5).

4. The Spirit gives us life and peace (v. 6; cf. John 3:16; Romans 5:1).

5. The Spirit enables us to please God (v. 8).

6. The Spirit of God dwells in believers (v. 9). Thus, the believer has within not only indwelling sin (Romans 7:17, 20), but also the indwelling Spirit which wars against the flesh (Galatians 5:17) and will eventually overcome it.

7. The indwelling Spirit provides incontrovertible evidence that we belong to Christ. Likewise, the absence of the Spirit shows that a man is not saved: “Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his” (v. 9b; 1 Corinthians 2:14).

8. The Spirit makes us become dead to sin and alive to Christ (v. 10).

9. The Spirit that indwells the believer is the same as that which raised Jesus from the dead and will one day, likewise, transform our mortal bodies (v. 11).

For all these benefits, we praise the God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

Greenville Conference Trip: Day Three

Image:  Scene from 2011 GPTS Spring Conference.

Last day at the GPTS conference.

The first morning session was Dr. John Carrick of GPTS on "Spirit and Revival."  He traced the First Great Awakening and contrasted it with the weaknesses of The Second Great Awakening (Finney-ism, "new measures," etc.).

The second and final session was Dr. Pipa on "Spirit and Preaching."  He defined preaching as "the verbal proclamation of the Word of God by the man that has been set apart for that purpose, the ordained minister of God."  Focused then on two aspects of preaching:

1.  Preparation.  He reminded us that sermons are not research papers.  Preachers must pray over their exegesis, pray over their sermon crafting, pray for the message, and pray for the people.

2.  Proclamation.  Here he stressed the unction in preaching given by the Spirit.  Quoted Marcel:  "If the Spirit is absent, there may be a sermon but not a preaching."  Another Marcel remark was that if the minister feels he must stick to his notes or manuscript he makes two prisoners:  the preacher and the Spirit.  No matter what he takes into the pulpit (notes, outline, manuscript, memorized text) the preacher must be free to depart from it as the Spirit leads.

He closed with practical effects:  (1) preaching must be plain, hiding human wisdom; (2) preaching must be with fervent passion that is consistent with the preacher personally.

Conference ended at lunchtime.  Very encouraging and inspiring.  Can "old school" Baptists do what the "old school' Southern Presbyterians at GPTS have done? 

JTR

Greenville Conference Trip: Day Two

Image:  Wednesday evening session at the GPTS conference

We were back at the Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church for the second day of the GPTS conference today.

The first morning session was Bill Shishko of the OPC, Franklin Square, Long Island, NY on "The Witness and Seal of the Spirit."  Noteworthy was his critique of D. M. Lloyd Jones' view of the Spirit's sealing in his Ephesians Commentary.  Shishko said that Lloyd-Jones took a "Pentecostal" view of sealing as something subsequent to rather than concurrent with believing.  He also noted the "blessed density" of John Owen.

The second morning session was Ryan McGraw, pastor of Grace PCA in Conway, SC with "John Owen on the Spirit."  He gave a strong message with three points on Owen's views on the Spirit:

1.  The Holy Spirit and the Trinity.

2.  The Holy Spirit and the humanity of Jesus Christ.

3.  The Holy Spirit and the believer.

After lunch on site and more book table browsing, the afternoon session was Dr. George Knight, III, OPC minister and adjunct NT professor at GPTS on "Cessation of the Extraordinary Gifts."  He reviewed four passages in Acts relating to baptism in the Spirit (Apostles in Acts 2; Samaritans in Acts 8; Cornelius in Acts 10; disciples of John in Acts 19) and concluded that these were references to Spirit baptism at conversion and not a later event.

We enjoyed most excellent hospitality and supper with a Woodruff Road family (friends of Daniel and Casey) and a table full of other guests at the conference.

The evening session was Ian Hamilton again on "Sanctification."  Solid message on sanctification as "the all absorbing focus of the Spirit's present ministry."  We also thunderously sang Psalm 98, and I thought Daniel might have a mystical experience.

Other pics:

Image:  Ian Hamilton in after-meeting conversation.

Image:  Posing with Steve Lee of Sermonaudio (and his daughter).

Image:  Posing with Dr. Pipa, GPTS President.



Greenville Conference Trip: Day One (Part Two)

Image:  Sign in front of the host church announcing the conference.

The Greenville Presbyterian Seminary is an "old school" Presbyterian Seminary.  We are here for their annual Spring Theology Conference, hosted at Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church.  This is my first year to attend.  This year's theme is "The Person and Work of the Holy Spirit."

The first afternoon session was by veteran theologian Dr. Morton Smith of GPTS on "The Person of the Holy Spirit."  Smith offered an extensive survey of key passages from the Old and New Testaments on the Holy Spirit.  Nice to see older men leading and speaking.  It seems too many evangelical conferences feature young men with little life or church experience.

The second session was by Dr. Joe Morecraft III of Chalcedon Presbyterian Church, near Atlanta.  His message was on "The Westminster Standards and the Spirit."

After Q & A, we had a tremendous catered supper of barbecue, ribs, baked beans, banana pudding, and real Southern sweet tea!  Got to talk to Dr. Pipa, president of GPTS, who spoke at the Keach Conference (aka, Evangelical Forum) in Charlottesville a few years back.

Then it was on to the book tables.  Reformation Heritage is doing the books.  There are great books at low prices.  My picks: John Trapp's A Commentary on the New Testament and Benjamin Keach's The Marrow of True Justification (guess it was an all-around Keach day; see Part One).

We also got to meet Steve Lee of sermonaudio.com.  BTW, he featured my reading of Andrew Fuller's sermon, The Obedience of Pastors to their Churches Explained and Enforced yesterday (3/7/11) and it got nearly 400 downloads.  He also gave me and Daniel free seromonaudio t-shirts!

The evening session was Ian Hamilton of Cambridge Presbyterian Church in Cambridge, England (Daniel's former pastor) on "Regeneration and Conversion" from John 3:1-15.  He focused on four questions:

1.  What is regeneration?

2.  Why is it necessary?

3.  How does God regenerate?

4.  How does regeneration evidence itself?

A few more pics:

Image:  Books!  Lots of them.  Puritan, Reformed, Theology!

Images Below:  Reformed Conferences makes for interesting bumper stickers in the parking lot:

Greenville Conference Trip: Day One (Part One)

Image:  Daniel and Kerry in front of the BJU Seminary

Daniel H. and I are here in Greenville, SC to attend the Spring Theology Conference at Greenville Presbyterian Seminary.

This morning we went over to Bob Jones University to meet Kerry M., brother of CRBC's Greg and a grad student in the seminary and pulpit speech instructor at BJU.  Kerry took us on a tour of the school including a stop at the library where they have a reproduction of the "Jerusalem Chamber" (place where the AV was translated).

We then sat in on a homiletics lecture at the seminary by Dr. Mark Mennick.  Mennick's lecture was on the Puritans and preaching.  It was excellent.  He noted that the greatness of the Puritans centers on four factors:

1.  They were scholars.

2. They were preachers.

3.  They were persecuted.

4.  They were writers.

At the beginning of the lecture, Minnick passed out copies of some Puritan books from his personal library for the students to see.  They included John Owen's exposition of Psalm 130, a sermon by Jeremiah Burroughs, and Benjamin Keach's A Golden Mine Opened or The Glory of God's Rich Grace (1694).  At the back of this book there is a personal account of a former owner recording his impressions of hearing George Whitefield preach!

After class we headed over to the 11 am BJU Chapel, compulsory for all students, faculty, and staff.  The auditorium was filled with c. 5,000 people.  Pastor Minnick happened to be the speaker for chapel also.  He preached a solid message on Hebrews 3:12:  "Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God."

We had lunch with Kerry, then it was over to register for the conference and make the first session at 1:00 pm.

More photos:

Image:  Plaque for BJU's "Jerusalem Chamber" reproduction.

Image:  View in the BJU "Jerusalem Chamber."

Image:  Dr. Minnick lectures in a BJU seminary class on Puritan preaching.

Image:  Original edition of Benjamin Keach's "A Golden Mine Opened."

Image:  Kerry's wife joined us for chapel.