King James and the English Standard Version

On one of my favorite Internet sites, a post was placed in response to the claim that the ESV is as faithful a text as the King James Version of the Bible. I felt that this responce from my dear brother was worthy of note.

Greetings:

I applaud the tone of GreenBaggins’ post. The topic of textual traditions tends to get heated at times, and I am not one who has been exempt from such discussions, and, so, I beiieve that Mr. Baggins (if I may fondly refer to him as such) presents a true Christian attitude toward this explosive subject. Blessings to him!

However, despite the genteel manner, it seems that he is fundamentally wrong on a few matters. Especially to one who has studied out this matter over the past few decades.

First, it might be wise for Mr. Baggins to differentiate between the KJV/ESV and the Textus Receptus/Criticial Text. The KJV/ESV are translations whereas the TR/CT are collations of the Greek MSS. If we are talking about translations, then both the KJV and the ESV are flawed. If we are talking about the Greek Text, then we must look at the “Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word, in our hearts,” the teachings of Scripture, and Reformed Orthodoxy in order to come to a reasonable conclusion concerning the Greek Text of the New Testament. To confuse the translations with the Greek Text does not seem helpful to me.

Second, Mr. Baggins’ statement, “Both positions can be well within the boundaries of confessional orthodoxy,” (I take it he means Reformed confessional orthodoxy), is not really substantiated. Though there are principles within the Westcott-Hort/Reasoned Eclecticism (RE) theory that have Scriptural basis – the overall theory is contrary to confessional orthodoxy. For proof of this I will refer Mr. Baggins to John Burgon’s excellent work, The Traditional Text. As far as I know Burgon’s book has never been adequately answered by RE theorists – maybe Mr. Baggins will be the first?

Third, Mr. Baggins contradicts the statement in #2 above by saying, “Critical text advocates err outside of orthodoxy when they enthrone human judgment as king.” But, is not this the very heart of the RE theory? That using reason and the scientific method one can come to the original autographs? The major scholarly advocates of the postiion, Lachman, Tregelles, Tischendorf, and Griesbach have never acknowledged WCF 1:5 as foundational to their theory. Wesstcott and Hort paid it no mind. And the major catch-phrase which runs through the theory (stated also by Warfield) is that the Holy Scriptures are to be treated like any other human writings from a text-critical perspective.

Fourth, though there are orthodox men (such as Warfield) who have embraced the RE theory – such does not mean that the theory itself is orthodox. Godly men have erred in the past. And, this kind of reasoning is similar to saying that the Federal Vision is orthodox because the Federal Visionists hold to the 5 points. Orthodox men do not make Orthodoxy orthodox. Mr. Baggins, and those who hold to his views, must prove the whole of the RE theory to be orthodox – if they are going to advocate the Critical Text as consistent with Reformed confessional orthodoxy. Why? Because those who crafted the CT used the RE theory in order to come to the various readings of the text.

Fifth, Mr. Baggins’ appeal here, “Come on, folks! Don’t you realize how small the differences are between the two manuscript traditions?!” contains a truth within it. However, one would then ask “Why a new Greek Text?” If the differences are so slight, then there is no reason for there to be a new Greek Text produced during the 19th Century. If this is a true sentiment of the CT advocates, then I would ask my brothers to abandon the CT and return to the TR out of brotherly love and the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

I would imagine that my CT brothers may counter by sayng that their text is closer to the autographs because they rely on MSS that are older than the Byzantine family. Such is a 19th century thought. As more texts are being uncovered unique Byzantine readings have been found to be older than the 4th Century. The Magdalen Papyrus, for example, (dated by liberal scholars at 200 AD) contain readings in Matthew that are unique to the Byzantine family, and are, at least, 160 years older than the oldest CT manuscript. Thus, the argument that the CT contains readings that are older has been substantially undermined.

Sixthly, When Jesus says that “not one jot or tittle will pass from the law until all be fulfilled,” He is not simply saying that the teachings of Scripture will be preserved, but that the words themselves (verbal) and all of the words (plenary) of Scripture shall be preserved. The Holy Spriit inspired the Words of Scripture and not simply the teachings. The Westminster Confession of Faith says this openly:

WCF 1:8 reads: 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 authentical; so as, in all controversies of Religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have 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, Mt 5:18; Is 8:20 Acts 15:15; John 5:39,46; 1 Cor 14:6,9,11,12,24,27-28; Col 3:16; Rom 15:4.

One could ask the question: Which Greek Text is the WCF referring to? The Byzantine copies represented by the Textus Receptus of their time? or, the Alexandrian varients represented by the Critical Text?

Seventhly, Confessional orthodoxy, as noted above in WCF 1:8, states that the Autographs of the New Testament have been preserved through all ages in the copies we have today. When we investigate which copies the Church has always relied upon for the autographs the answer is the Byzantine MSS. We know that during the 4th century the Church knew about the Alexandrian varients (through Codex Alexandrinus), but these variations in the Scripture were never re-copied by the Church. This is why the vast amount of mss we have today are Byzantine in natue (5401 of 5683 extant mss). The Church copied those manuscripts which she believed were pure, and rejected those Alexandrian varients which she considered farther from the autographs. Thus, what came into the hands of Erassmus and the Reformers were the pure copies of the autographs which they collated and made the Textus Receptus.

How the Alexandrian varients can be made to fit into this textual history is beyond me. Even Erasmus rejected the Codex Vaticanus (B) as corrupt. See here: W. Willker Codex Vaticanus 1209, B/03: A textcritical complaint

Eightly, if doctrine was only at stake here, then I may agree with Mr. Baggins when he writes, “Don’t you realize that precisely zero doctrines hang in the balance on this issue?!” If, however, Verbal Plenary Inspiration is a doctrine of the Bible, then either the Byzantine mss or the Alexandrian mss are in violation of such a doctrine. One might think that the Spirit of God is grieved because a passage has been omitted that He directly inspired, or, that a passage is included which He never spoke.

Finally, I will agree with Mr. Baggins that a person’s salvation is not dependent upon which translation he/she reads. I will point out, though, that God will honor and sanctify His elect child on a greater basis when that child adheres to the whole counsel of God.

Blessings to you my brother Mr. Baggins!

-Rob

For I Reckon – Part 2

The other evening I was looking at the bright prairie moon. And as I did I was amazed at its size and especially its brightness. It was a clear evening, and the moon was directly overhead, and it lit up the ground like a night light. How bright it was, how beautiful. “The heaven declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth his handiwork”, I thought. The next morning I awoke, and as I stepped outside the moon was still in the sky, but this time it was not bright and luminescent, but faded and pale. It was the day moon. Same moon, same sky. But the night before it was reflecting the radiance of the sun against the blackness of the night, and oh, how bright it looked against the darkness. So it is with our present sufferings. Oh, that this might be true for you today. That the radiance of Christ’s reflected glory, against the black night of sufferings would cause His light to shine all the more. Paul says that there is no comparison of the dark night of the soul with the glory that will one day be found in us. While on this earth, your sufferings in Christ,  are brightest against the dark pains of providence. They are not “worthy” says Paul, “not comparable”, “not equal in the same”, to be compared with the other. Even now you know how hard the trials and sufferings of this life are to you. They look like mountains, high peaks, one after another in an endless range. And you may very well say within yourself, “Lord it is too much. Thou hast laid Thy hand upon me, and I am in the dust.” But Oh, dear one, if you are in Christ, these earthly mountains, are but mole hills when they are placed beside the giants of God’s forgiving mercy, His endless patience, His eternal love, His transcendent grace. Why? Why is this? Don’t you know, have you not learned, are you not learning now, that the sufferings of this world while real, and painful, and often hard to bear, are only for a moment. The Psalmist says, “As for man, his days are as grass: as a flower of the field, so he flourisheth” (Psa 103:15).

I was in Scotland a few years back, and I went to the tip of the north to the Isle of Harris. And on that island we came across a white beach that stretched as far as the eye could see. And the sand was so fine, so soft. I picked up some sand and it fell through my hand, and at the end was only a residue of a few grains. And I was reminded as I looked at one grain, so small, so insignificant, how short life is and how long eternity will be. The text of Psa 90:12 came to mind, “So teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom”.

And what of you today who still do not know Christ? You who will face this eternity with eternal sufferings. What can be said of you? Simply this; when a million-million lifetimes have passed, and you examine your time in torment, it will be only as a single grain on the shores of an eternal ocean. Hear what I say to you, your sufferings will also be compared, yes compared. And all the pain of this life, and the sorrows you have felt, and the grief you have experienced, will be nothing compared to the eternal wrath of God. Unconverted one, you too, like the believer, will make an eternal comparison. For you will long for the pain of this earthly life compared to the next. These days will seem but a dream, while you still had time, still heard of mercy, still knew the one escape. For you, compounded with the pain of wrath, will be the pain of no hope. It is for you to do what is impossible in ourselves, to repent and believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. For the removal of wrath. Listen to Octavius Winslow:

Sinner! fly to Christ! Escape for your life. Flee from the wrath to come. There is but one Way by which you may come to God–but one Refuge in which you may hide–but one Door by which you may enter heaven–but one Name by which you must be saved–it is JESUS. “His name shall be called JESUS, for He shall SAVE!” O precious truth! O joyous announcement! O faithful saying, worthy, my reader, of your personal believing, and immediate acceptance, that Jesus receives and saves sinners; and will receive and save even YOU. “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved.”

For I Reckon- Part 1

Rom 8:18 “For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.”

Sufferings are the plight of every human being on earth, for the lost as well as the redeemed. Yet there is a difference between the two. For the ungodly, sufferings are, as it were, the rope of the executioner around the condemned prisoner. But to the saint, they are the tender bandages of a physician. And tell me dear friends, what is the Word of God if it is not a comfort to the afflicted? What is this Book we call, “The Holy Scriptures”, if it is not a letter from the Lord, that He is ever near? Perhaps many of you today are heart-sick. Some of you are in great physical need, some are in despair at the loss of something very precious, your health, your wellbeing, your livelihood. Some are persecuted for righteousness sake in the work place, others almost crushed by the circumstances in your life at present, some under the burden and conviction of sin. But dear reader, we have One who knows our afflictions and sorrows. There is one who knows, not the theory, but the stark reality of your pain. As has been said so many times before, “God has only one Son without sin, but none without sorrow.” It should lay heavy on our hearts when someone suffers. Don’t you know, that when one part of the body suffers, we all suffer? Oh I wish for you to know that as a suffering son or daughter today, you are not unnoticed by our Lord. He is ever present in out troubles, and takes mindful care of our sufferings. Paul knew something of this truth. He knew what it was to be in sorrow, and to suffer. He knew well that the cross of our LORD, at times, lay heavy upon the Christian. Are you sick today? Are you under sorrow and pain? Paul here speaks, not as a Super Apostle, but as a fragile man when he says, “For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.” It is to this text I wish to spend a bit of time to encourage you, that if Christ is your portion, if He is your all in all, if he is the fairest among ten thousand, He knows your pain, and your sorrow, and your sufferings.

The Believer’s Sufferings

In this verse, Paul begins with the phrase, “For I reckon”. What does this mean? To reckon means to take account, or to take stock of a situation. One day, when Christ returns, he will summon all of history before him, and he will judge the world, and everyone in it according to their deeds. Now the believer will have Christ the advocate, standing beside him, and He will have clothed the saint in everlasting righteousness, so that judgment will pass over them, like the angel of death at the first Passover, and they will be welcomed into everlasting life. But for the reprobate, for those who are yet dead in trespasses and sins, they will have the books opened, and every thought, word, and deed will be exposed to the righteous standard of the Holy Law of God. This has been called by many, the day of reckoning. The day when a spiritual inventory, a holy accounting, will be taken and judgment rendered and wages paid. Are you ready for that reckoning? Will you stand before the Lord on the day of account, and be able to say, I am clothed in the righteousness of Another, I am clothed in the gospel?

Paul says, “For I reckon”. That is to say, “I’ve taken an inventory of the sufferings of this life, and I have concluded, that what I suffer on this earth in my flesh, is not worthy to be compared to the glory which shall be revealed in me, on that day.” “For I reckon”. What did Paul do? He took an account. Of what? Was it not all the sufferings he had in his life to this point? Rom 8:35 says, “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?” All of these mentioned Paul suffered in his flesh. These things were not theory to him, but vivid reality. And Paul says that as he takes an account of all the pain of his life, they were not to be compared to the glory, and eternal love of God.

What are our sufferings? If I could sit down with you today, and listen of the great trials of your faith, what would I have heard? Some of you might have said, “It is too much”. Others, “I can’t bear it”. Others, “I feel like an empty vessel”. Sufferings are a part of the plight of all mankind. There is not a single soul that ever walked this earth, that will not suffer. Believer and unbeliever alike. And to the unbeliever, the sufferings of this life are like a bitter herb, a hardening tool to their hearts. They have no hope, no true joy, no consolation or comfort. Life is hard, and short, and eternity is a never ending night of wage-paying. But for the believer, sufferings are given to us to prove and work our sanctification. Sufferings, are given to us by the hand of Providence, to strip us of every string and tie that would cleave our hearts to this mortal globe. They are for the trial and test of our faith, given to us to carve out cisterns, deep wells able to receive the grace of God. This is what the Scriptures say, “For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death” (2Co 7:10). It also says in that same book, “For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory.” (2Co 4:17). And some have deeper wells being dug than others. Even in the life of those claiming to be Christ’s, some kick against the pricks, and do not submit to the heavy hand of affliction. There is a book I would commend to you called, “The Mute Christian under the Rod”. In it, Thomas Brooks speaks of submitting to the sufferings of providence as unto the Lord. For by our sufferings, we are being ripened for eternity. Ready for heaven. Tell me, what are your sufferings today? What burdens your heart and life? Paul says, “For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.” Oh, that the blackness of your sufferings this day, would be placed up against the white radiance of the glory to come. And you would say, “I will bear it gladly, because there is no comparison between the two at all”. Have you been able to say to the Lord, Thou doest all things well”?

Christian Modesty in Dress – What does the Bible Teach?

Christian Modesty in Dress- Rev. D. Silversides

Ministerial Fidelity and Prudence, by Wm. B. Sprague (1834)

Fidelity requires that the most humbling, and to the carnal mind, the most offensive doctrines of the Gospel, should be held up by every minister with great distinctness and prominence. I may specify particularly, the malignant nature of sin, the entire depravity of the unrenewed heart, and the absolute dependence of every sinner for salvation, on sovereign grace, through the atoning blood of Christ, and the sanctifying operations of the Holy Spirit. These truths are at war with the natural feelings of every unrenewed man. Men do not wish to be disturbed in their pleasures by having the danger of their condition set before them, or to be wounded in their pride, by being told of their inability to accomplish their own salvation; and hence, when these great truths have been presented even with the utmost affection, they have often been met with a spirit of malignant opposition; and the preacher has been publicly denounced, and his motives assailed with an unhallowed and bitter asperity. Nay, so deep is the enmity of the heart against these peculiar truths, that it has not unfrequently happened, that those who have exhibited a strong attachment to their minister during the season of their carelessness, have, under the influence of an awakened conscience, become so sensitive to the truths he has preached, that they have openly become his enemies, and in some instances, have even taken the lead in an attempt, not only to neutralize his influence, but to ruin his character. All this proves beyond debate, that while the minister who preaches faithfully, wields a weapon of tremendous power, it is one which will sometimes be mightily resisted, and will provoke a shower of reproaches upon himself. But no matter how high the spirit of opposition may rise—though it should mount up even to a malignant phrenzy—these offensive doctrines must be preached, and in the proportion in which they are exhibited in the word of God; and whoever substitutes any thing else in the place of them, is guilty of dealing deceitfully with his Master’s message, and must expect to bring upon himself the blood of souls.

But if you would be found faithful in preaching the Gospel, you must not only bring out its offensive truths, but you must do it with great plainness and simplicity. There is a way of mixing up the truth of God iwth the wisdom, or shall I say folly,–of man; of neutralizing the effect of the doctrines of the Bible, by burying them up amidst the speculations of human philosophy. In opposition to this, you are to hold up the truth just as it is, and to trust to that alone in the hands of God’s Spirit to do the work, unaided by any reasonings or speculations that are of mere human origin. What you have to do is to wield the naked sword of the Spirit; and if you attempt to improve it by any devices of your own, you will inevitably blunt its edge and prevent its efficacy.

Some ministers who preach the truth, fail nevertheless in fidelity, for the want of an honest and pungent application. Here again, you are to be on your guard. You are never to consider your work done when you have merely stated the truth; but you are distinctly to trace its relations to your hearers, to show them its bearings upon their characters and prospects, and to endeavor, if possible, to waken their consciences into lively exercise, so that they shall recognize it as the sword of the Spirit. When you spread before them the utterly ruined condition of the sinner, and the fearful scenes which must open upon him in the next world, if he enters that world unconcerned, you are to endeavour to carry home to them the conviction that they are the sinners described, and if they are in any degree awakened, instead of lulling them to sleep by mere general representations, you are still to hold up their true character as guilty rebels, and to show them that there is no way of escape except by the blood of the everlasting covenant. It is only in proportion as the preaching of the Gospel is discriminating, and is brought to bear directly upon the consciences and personal interests of men, that we have a right to calculate upon its legitimate effect: anything else will never be the fire and the hammer to break the flinty rock in pieces.

But along with fidelity in preaching the Gospel, you are also to exercise prudence. You will have occasion for this in the selection of your topics, with reference to the peculiar circumstances and needs of your congregation; for what at one time may be fitted to produce the most happy effect upon an audience, may, under different circumstances, be worse than a mere dead letter. While fidelity requires that you should preach the whole counsel of God, it is the dictate of prudence that you should rightly divide the word of truth; and that in selecting your subjects of discourse, you should give careful heed to the indications of divine Providence. On the same ground you should endeavour to avoid a tedious uniformity in your discourses, both as it respects the subjects and your manner of treating them; for unless the mind is relieved by some degree of variety in these particulars, it will inevitably, contract a habit of listlessness.

Again: While fidelity requires that the Gospel should be preached in its most offensive doctrines, with great plainness and simplicity, and honest application to the conscience, prudence forbids all offensive personalities, coarse allusions, and attacks on private character. Indeed, whoever commits these errors is more than imprudent: he sins against the dignity of his office, and exposes himself to the pity of the church, and the contempt of the world. You are indeed at liberty, nay, you are solemnly bound, to take off the covering from the carnal heart, and show it in the light of day, festering in its own depravity ; and you are to endeavour to make every unconcerned sinner feel that this is precisely his own case; but this is widely different from designedly holding an individual up to popular odium, and especially in the spirit of anger or retaliation. Cases may occur in which a minister may know facts in respect to individuals in his congregation, which have gained little or no publicity; and it may be his duty to select some topic of discourse which shall bring out a word in season for them; and there may be other cases in which he may be called upon publicly to testify against particular sins, in consequence of an individual having fallen into them, lest his silence should seem to indicate a wish to screen the offender; but the moment he makes a personal attack from the pulpit, especially on one of his hearers, he lets go the sheet anchor of prudence, and not only defeats the end he has in view, if it be a good end, but not improbably plunges into a sea of troubles, from which, to say the least, he is not soon extricated. Many a minister has, by one incautious attack, even by a single expression, fitted to give unnecessary provocation to an individual, thrown a cloud over his prospects of usefulness, and originated a spirit of division and turmoil which has spread through an extensive community.

R.C Sproul on The Seeker Sensitive Church, or Post-Modern Church

Lewis and Clark (Just wanted to say that!) On White

Dr, James White has challenged Dr. R.Scott Clark to defend his remarks that baptists cannot be considered “reformed” in his recent blog entry. Dr. Clark does not need my help in doing so. I will leave that to him as a very capable theologian. However, while reading Dr. White’s post, my mind was drawn to our Form For the Administration of The Lord’s Supper, where it states, among other things, the grievous sins for which one ought to withhold one self from Holy Supper. The list includes, but is not limited to “all despisers of God, and of his Word, and of the holy sacraments”.

Now before we get all upset and say that it is unfair to apply these words to baptists (yes, even those that hold to the First or Second London Confessions), lets take a step back and see if the clothes make the man. If they do, then we need to let the objective Word of God speak. Let us also remember, that many of our baptist brethren, in holding the to the conviction of their own understanding of the Word, would withhold Holy Supper from any who had not been baptized. Consistent baptists would recognize that if their system of thought is true, and baptism means immersion, then to have been sprinkled (thus not immersed), would mean not baptism has actually taken place. And if baptism is a requirement of Communion, then only immersed persons will be admitted. Further, if baptism is to be applied only to those who have made a credible profession of faith, then persons who were baptized as infants were not the proper recipients of the right, and therefor, again, are not truly baptized. Many, if not most rank-and-file reformed baptist churches consistently hold this view, looking, in essence, upon those of us who hold to paedo-baptism, as “despisers of God, and of his Word, and of the holy sacraments” in our own right. We are disobedient, and in effect, rebellious. Especially those of us that understand both sides! That is why they deny us the sacrament of Holy Supper in their communion.

So let’s not get upset with the words of our form. The strict and particular baptist, as well as the reformed baptist hold us to the same standard we hold them to. It cuts both ways.

Dr. White, in his entry states this:

But I cannot tell you how often I hear my Presbyterian brethren handle this text in the exact same fashion as the Jehovah’s Witnesses handle John 14:28 (it ends up being merely “the Father is greater than I am”) or Arminians handle Matthew 23:37 (“how often I wanted to gather you but you would not”). The clear indication of tradition is seen in how Acts 2:39 is truncated in the thinking of my brothers so that it is simply “the promise is to you and to your children.” What is the promise? What is the context? Why leave off the rest of the sentence both in meaning and application? The promise is for the Jews who heard Peter, to their children, and to all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.” The promise of forgiveness upon faith and repentance, along with the promise of the Holy Spirit, is for Jew (“you and your children”) and Gentile (“to all who are far off”) based upon God’s electing grace (“as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself”). Changing this to merely a statement about “you and your children” involves an eisegetical shift in hermeneutics that my Presbyterian brethren would never allow in discussing the Trinity, justification, or the resurrection, but when it comes to this one topic, all of a sudden things change.

First, I think it is incredible that Dr. White would compare the reasoning of the vast majority of the historic Reformed faith in Acts 2, to the reasoning methods of a cult. The remark is beyond unfair, its vitriolic. If I said that Dr. White’s handling of the text was in the exact same fashion as the Christadelphians would that be a sign of fair play? But Reformed theologians do not truncate the passage, they parse it, and that properly. Even Calvin recognizes that the the words of Peter in Acts 2:39 have far reaching implications. “And we must note these three degrees, that the promise was first made to the Jews, and then to their children, and last of all, that it is also to be imparted to the Gentiles” (Calvin on Acts 2:39) . But Calvin, and the rest of the historic Reformed faith recognizes that within the 3 degrees spoken by Peter, each degree has its own meaning, and Calvin rightly points out the Abrahamic reference in the first degree. That is the focal point of the debate, the context of the first clause, not the truncating of it. There is a big difference. Dr. White simply paints with a broad brush and insists, “The promise of forgiveness upon faith and repentance, along with the promise of the Holy Spirit, is for Jew (“you and your children”) and Gentile (“to all who are far off”) based upon God’s electing grace (“as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself”).” He goes on to say, “Changing this to merely a statement about ‘you and your children’ involves an eisegetical shift in hermeneutics…”. I do not know of a single Reformed or Presbyterian commentator of any note, dead or alive, that reduces this text to “merely a statement about ‘you and your children’ ”. Perhaps Dr. White is speaking about personal experience with some Reformed folk, but we desire to remain objective and look at the passage as it is historically understood by the faith of our fathers, and the sound exegesis produced by them.

Dr. White insists that we look at the context before we rule on the meaning. We agree. Context is key.

Who was standing before Peter and the other apostles during that sermon? Well a list is given to us in Acts 2, verses 9-11, “Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judæa, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.”.

So in front of Peter on that wonderful day stood Jews and proselytes from many nations. Men and women who were devout in the religion of the Old Testament. And what was their understanding of the doctrine of the Covenant to that very moment? It was the understanding of Abraham. Genesis 17:7 “And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.” For thousands of years, this was the understanding of the Covenant; it is the seed-bed of reasoning in the mind of the hearers. All that they are listening to from the lips of Peter is filtered through this ancient understanding. The baptist would like us to believe that the broad brush anabaptistic generalization of Acts 3:39 is the right one. However, Dr. White is the one engaging in eisegetical hermenutics by truncating 2000 years of pre-Christ theological understanding, and in essence placing in Peter’s mouth, “Look, I know that your children were in the covenant 2 months ago, but surprise! They’re now out.” Never mind that Peter employs Abrahamic language in verse 39. Never mind that he does not take time to explain to the hundreds, perhaps thousands of Jews listening to him that the most basic and fundamental aspect of the covenant has now been removed; that their children were “in” a few weeks ago, but now since the resurrection, they are no longer covenant members. No explanation, no reasons given by Peter. We just assume that they are now “out” based on a completely novel anabaptistic interpretation founded on a dispensational-esque hermeneutic with no place in serious exegeisis in 1600 years of the Christian Church. I think the Jew would have looked at Peter and said, “Thank you sir, but we will keep the covenant that our children are in.” In other words, why not let the bulk of sound systematization of the doctrine of the Covenant for the past 2040 BC years stand, and 1600 years AD stand? Never mind engaging with Dr. White in all the exigetical apparati of the two sides that have been at a standstill for 450 years. That horse is beaten to death. We have books and minds, we can read the arguments on both sides. But our theological grid is everything. Context is everything, and in my mind, the deciding factor. Within our Reformed framework, the New Testament, and the New Covenant (read “renewed” and upon better promises), makes much better sense in light of Peter’s words and maintains the continuity of the covenant.

This will not change the minds of reformed baptists, but it should demonstrate why, on the subject of the sacrament of baptism, we cannot call them Reformed. Dr. Clark is right. Being Reformed IS defined by the Covenant. Baptists are wrong on the covenant. You do the math.

The Manhattan Declaration

The Manhattan Declaration
Tuesday, Nov 24, 2009

(By John MacArthur)

Here are the main reasons I am not signing the Manhattan Declaration, even though a few men whom I love and respect have already affixed their names to it:

• Although I obviously agree with the document’s opposition to same-sex marriage, abortion, and other key moral problems threatening our culture, the document falls far short of identifying the one true and ultimate remedy for all of humanity’s moral ills: the gospel. The gospel is barely mentioned in the Declaration. At one point the statement rightly acknowledges, “It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season”—and then adds an encouraging wish: “May God help us not to fail in that duty.” Yet the gospel itself is nowhere presented (much less explained) in the document or any of the accompanying literature. Indeed, that would be a practical impossibility because of the contradictory views held by the broad range of signatories regarding what the gospel teaches and what it means to be a Christian.

• This is precisely where the document fails most egregiously. It assumes from the start that all signatories are fellow Christians whose only differences have to do with the fact that they represent distinct “communities.” Points of disagreement are tacitly acknowledged but are described as “historic lines of ecclesial differences” rather than fundamental conflicts of doctrine and conviction with regard to the gospel and the question of which teachings are essential to authentic Christianity.

• Instead of acknowledging the true depth of our differences, the implicit assumption (from the start of the document until its final paragraph) is that Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant Evangelicals and others all share a common faith in and a common commitment to the gospel’s essential claims. The document repeatedly employs expressions like “we [and] our fellow believers”; “As Christians, we . . .”; and “we claim the heritage of . . . Christians.” That seriously muddles the lines of demarcation between authentic biblical Christianity and various apostate traditions.

• The Declaration therefore constitutes a formal avowal of brotherhood between Evangelical signatories and purveyors of different gospels. That is the stated intention of some of the key signatories, and it’s hard to see how secular readers could possibly view it in any other light. Thus for the sake of issuing a manifesto decrying certain moral and political issues, the Declaration obscures both the importance of the gospel and the very substance of the gospel message.

• This is neither a novel approach nor a strategic stand for evangelicals to take. It ought to be clear to all that the agenda behind the recent flurry of proclamations and moral pronouncements we’ve seen promoting ecumenical co-belligerence is the viewpoint Charles Colson has been championing for more than two decades. (It is not without significance that his name is nearly always at the head of the list of drafters when these statements are issued.) He explained his agenda in his 1994 book The Body, in which he argued that the only truly essential doctrines of authentic Christian truth are those spelled out in the Apostles’ and Nicene creeds. I responded to that argument at length in Reckless Faith. I stand by what I wrote then.

In short, support for The Manhattan Declaration would not only contradict the stance I have taken since long before the original “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” document was issued; it would also tacitly relegate the very essence of gospel truth to the level of a secondary issue. That is the wrong way—perhaps the very worst way—for evangelicals to address the moral and political crises of our time. Anything that silences, sidelines, or relegates the gospel to secondary status is antithetical to the principles we affirm when we call ourselves evangelicals.

John MacArthur

Walking in the Old Paths

Here is the topic night lecture I gave to the youth of Hamilton Free Reformed Church on October 25, 2009 titled “Walking in the Old Paths”.

When I saw this “preacher of self-reliance” on Youtube, I did not know if I should laugh or cry. So I laughed. I’ve never heard an exposition on “Row, Row, Row, Your Boat.” Give it a viewing.