Blog | Reproach of Men

Distorting the Word

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. (Proverbs 30:5-6)

. . .There is no fear of God before their eyes. (Romans 3:18)

Of the more common things assumed by people concerning the Scriptures, there are a couple that really don’t sit well with me. It’s not that I get angry or anything, it’s just distressing to consider that people do not understand certain, very important items with regard to Scripture.

First, not all Bibles are the same. For as long as the word of God has been around, men have been perverting it. This is done mainly to justify themselves and their strange, ungodly doctrines and arcane religion. Most folks, even in solid fundamental churches, do not know that the King James Bible comes from the line of Scripture that never saw Roman Catholic influence, and is of the same source text as the Bibles used by the independent, autonomous churches that were persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church, the Muslims, and various other pagan religions ever since the first church at Jerusalem. Fundamentally, the underlying text is different, and in the case of the King James Bible, the method of translation is different as well. These things cannot help but bear strongly on the doctrine contained in the Bible one chooses to read.

Second, that the Scripture belongs to the LORD God and Him alone. It is His word. It is really puzzling to me that people will scream bloody murder over plagiarism and the unauthorized alteration of someone else’s work, but don’t seem to grasp the enormity of altering the word of God, and the condemnation that brings upon them. No, it is as if they believe there is no consequence to their action. It is interesting that the translators of the King James Bible held a very strong belief that they were not free to change anything in the Scripture. Unlike a lot of folks, they believed the Scripture to be sacred and not be touched without consequence. In short, they believed the truth of the following statement:

We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (II Peter 1:19-21)

It is the understanding that the Holy Ghost caused the men who penned the Scriptures to put the words on parchment, vellum, and whatever else they used as a medium for their writing, that caused the translators to hold the Scriptures as sacred. Moreover, that the words written were not really the words of the prophets who penned them, but are the words of Almighty God, given to the prophets to write. Thus, the words are not to be tampered with, as one king in Judah found out:

And it came to pass in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah, that this word came unto Jeremiah from the LORD, saying, Take thee a roll of a book, and write therein all the words that I have spoken unto thee against Israel, and against Judah, and against all the nations, from the day I spake unto thee, from the days of Josiah, even unto this day. It may be that the house of Judah will hear all the evil which I purpose to do unto them; that they may return every man from his evil way; that I may forgive their iniquity and their sin. Then Jeremiah called Baruch the son of Neriah: and Baruch wrote from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the LORD, which he had spoken unto him, upon a roll of a book. (Jeremiah 36:1-4)

When Jeremiah was done speaking everything the LORD had given him, Baruch took the roll and read it in the temple, in the hearing of all the people. In the events that followed, the roll was taken and read before the king. The king’s response was the same disrespect for the word of God that we see so much of today:

So the king sent Jehudi to fetch the roll: and he took it out of Elishama the scribe’s chamber. And Jehudi read it in the ears of the king, and in the ears of all the princes which stood beside the king. Now the king sat in the winterhouse in the ninth month: and there was a fire on the hearth burning before him. And it came to pass, that when Jehudi had read three or four leaves, he cut it with the penknife, and cast it into the fire that was on the hearth, until all the roll was consumed in the fire that was on the hearth. Yet they were not afraid, nor rent their garments, neither the king, nor any of his servants that heard all these words. (Jeremiah 36:21-24)

Though Jehoiakim, king of Judah thought that burning the roll would be the end of the matter, he found out that the LORD God does not take kindly to someone utterly disregarding, and then destroying His word. Not only would the words be written again, but judgement was pronounced upon Jehoiakim for his insolence.

Then the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, after that the king had burned the roll, and the words which Baruch wrote at the mouth of Jeremiah, saying, Take thee again another roll, and write in it all the former words that were in the first roll, which Jehoiakim the king of Judah hath burned. And thou shalt say to Jehoiakim king of Judah, Thus saith the LORD; Thou hast burned this roll, saying, Why hast thou written therein, saying, The king of Babylon shall certainly come and destroy this land, and shall cause to cease from thence man and beast? Therefore thus saith the LORD of Jehoiakim king of Judah; He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David: and his dead body shall be cast out in the day to the heat, and in the night to the frost. (Jeremiah 36:27-30)

Now, all the above is necessary to understand what a blessing it is that we, as English speakers have in possessing the word of God in the form of the King James Bible. English history is intertwined with the Bible and fundamental Christianity. This desire for the word of God is most visible during the time of Wycliff and Tyndale, but has existed since 63 AD when the gospel reached the British Isles. However, the pinnacle of the desire for the pure word of God culminated with King James the VI & I of Scotland and England, and the translation of the King James version of the Bible.

I call attention to all this because there is a third assumption made by the vast majority of individuals concerning the word of God. It seems that we implicitly assume that every language has a right Bible like we do. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sadly, most of the languages in the world do not have a Bible with the proper underlying Greek and Hebrew text, and are not properly translated either.

The reason for this lies in the way the Scripture has been handled in those languages from the time they first received the word of God. One of those languages is German. There is no right German Bible. Either the underlying text is wrong, or the translation suffers from the doctrinal/cultural bias of the translator. One of the reasons for this is found is a German religious poem tracing back to about 830 AD. The poem is supposed to be about Jesus, the Redeemer. But this Jesus is nowhere near the Lord Jesus Christ of the Scripture:

Der Heliand

Of the other religious poems, Der Heliand (Heiland – the Redeemer) is still mentioned. A showpiece of the Germanic Stave rhyme poetry of about 6000 long lines. The epic poem was written during the Carolingian times (around 830 A.D.) in the language of old Saxony. It is assumed that Kaiser Ludwig the Pious, the son of Karls des Großen, ordered a Saxon poet to poetically germanise the Gospel. The Redeemer is a gospel harmony, or a portrayal of the life of Jesus, which the poet put together from all four of the gospels.

In this epic Christ becomes, fully corresponding to the German feeling, a German king, his disciples, followers. The setting of the plot is not the Jewish Palestine, rather the German Saxony. The German traits of loyalty, honor, courage, masculinity, and heroism are brought forth strongly. Because the Germans were unfamiliar with loving your enemies, self sacrifice, humility, loving your neighbor, and the idea of peace, Christ is portrayed, not as a poor, humble man, but rather as a courageous, powerful king of the people, a man of the sword, who dies in the battle for his people and for God’s Kingdom. The shepherds in the field, don’t tend sheep, rather brave horses, Joseph is a loyal vassal, the holy three kings are noblemen, who come to swear loyalty to their feudal lord, the marriage in Cana is a German celebration, and in the Sermon on the Mount he promulgates his teaching to his followers. A few lines in modern translation should convey to us the spirit of this wonderful cultural document:

“Then was the quick sword-warrior Peter infuriated. His wrath boiled wildly, he could not speak, for it troubled him so deeply, that they wanted to seize the Lord. Wrathfully he stepped forward, the bold warrior, to stand up for his leader. Quickly he pulled the sword from his side and hit the nearest enemy with full force, so that Malchus was reddened with the sword’s cut, on the right side, his ear cut off, his cheek split. Blood shot out, seething from the wound. As the cheek of the nearest enemy was split, the people moved back out of fear of the sword’s bite.“ ((Deutsche Kulturgeschichte, 3rd Edition, 2002, Hans-Wilhelm Kelling, McGraw-Hill, ISBN 0-07-287027-3, pp 55-56. (Translated by SuAnne Droddy) ))

Ever wonder why the gospel and fundamental Christianity never seemed to get anywhere in Germany? Perhaps it also has much to do with Luther as well, since Luther often translated the words “reprove,” “rebuke,” and “teach” as “beat and thrash” in the Bible he translated, which is fully consistent the German cultural understanding of Christ expressed in Der Heliand. Now, to be certain, Luther had the correct underlying text for his translation work. But Luther’s doctrine was also skewed, and he yielded far to much to German culture, as it is expressed in the poem above. In Luther’s mind the wonderful passage in Titus, chapter 2 concerning grace, becomes something to be avoided. When we read it in English, we equate teaching with instruction, since the word “teach” does mean exactly that — to instruct.

For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; . . .(Titus 2:11-12)

But in the Luther Bible it becomes:

For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, beating and thrashing us . . .(Titus 2:11-12)

Now, the underlying word in Greek could be translated as “beating and thrashing.” But that would be terribly inconsistent with what “grace” is, and how grace works. No, the problem is that Luther was very much influenced by the culture he lived in, and translated the Scripture accordingly. This is apparent from the fact that the particular meaning Luther chose for “teach” is not the primary meaning of the word. Instead, Luther chose a meaning that was in minority usage, and out of step with how the rest of Scripture portrays the working of grace. Teaching and instruction do not require chastening unless the person being taught won’t learn any other way. Moreover, there is specific underlying Greek word for “chastisement.” The underlying Greek word for “teaching” is given below to demonstrate the error Luther perpetuated in his translation of the Bible. Luther could have used any number of German words that mean specifically “teaching,” such as “lehren” or “unterrichten,” et al. However, Luther chose to use the word “züchtigen” which has the specific meaning “to beat or thrash,” thus not even broaching the idea of teaching, let alone any other method of teaching. Since the rest of Scripture does a very good job of defining the methods the LORD uses for teaching, Luther could have used any German word for teaching, and let the context derive the meaning. In the following definition, please note that the meaning which includes striking someone, is very much the minority usage of the word:

3811 paideuo {pahee-dyoo’-o} from 3816; TDNT – 5:596,753; v
AV – chasten 6, chastise 2, learn 2, teach 2, instruct 1;
13 GK – 4084 { πpαaι?δdεeύ?ω? }
1) to train children
1a) to be instructed or taught or learn
1b) to cause one to learn
2) to chastise
2a) to chastise or castigate with words, to correct
2a1) of those who are moulding the character of others by reproof and admonition
2b) of God
2b1) to chasten by the affliction of evils and calamities
2c) to chastise with blows, to scourge
2c1) of a father punishing his son
2c2) of a judge ordering one to be scourged ((Strong, James. The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship.))

What this demonstrates is the error of allowing culture to influence the translation of the Scripture into the vernacular of the people of a particular language. The translation is supposed to be a formal equivalence translation that is independent of the culture of the people. This is necessary as the Scripture is supposed to reform the culture. If the Scripture condemns a particular cultural ideal, then so be it. We all are, meaning everyone in this world, supposed to conform to the word of God, not the other way around. To do what Luther did (and so many others have done), is to pervert and distort the message the LORD God has in his word. To do that is certain to incur the displeasure of the LORD. Moreover, the people who are influenced by such distortion of the Scripture, will never truly understand what the LORD is doing and why He is doing it. Finally, there are some specific thoughts that we ought to keep firmly in mind concerning the situation we see with translations of the Scripture into different languages:

1. Since every word of God is pure, changing the words in the slightest is certain to make them impure, and distort the meaning, thus changing the message.

2. There is a reason the LORD gifts some men to be teachers of His word. Things that are not so clear in Scripture must be taught. Nowhere in the Scripture does it declare the Scripture to be a “do it yourself,” self-teaching book. That is not the method the LORD chose to use. Instead, He expressly chose to use individuals to minister unto other individuals and teach them the things pertaining to the LORD, and what the LORD requires of man. This necessarily includes things that are obscured by the culture the man of God is sent to. Lest we forget, it is a glory to God that an individual voluntarily follows the LORD and willingly teaches His word unto others.

3. Tampering with the word of God does great harm and hinders the acceptance of the Scripture by the people to whom the Scripture is sent. Germany never has had a right Bible, and neither have the Spanish speaking people. The primary reason for this is the hearts of the people. The LORD God responds directly to the hearts of individuals, and when the predominance of individuals in a culture will not receive the things of God, the LORD responds accordingly. For whatever reason, the people of the British Isles have loved the word of God, and the things of God. This love reached its zenith between 1500 and 1700 AD, but has been evident from time to time since 63 AD. Clearly it has much to do with how the Scripture was handled by those entrusted with it. The LORD God responded to this by giving the English speaking people a pure and right Bible. Sadly, we do not see the same desire for the true word of God in history of either the German or Spanish speaking peoples. What is worse is the fact that we do not see that desire in hardly any other culture in this world — much to their detriment.

Last of all, we must remember whose word it is that we have the privilege of looking into. The Scripture belongs to the LORD God, and he will give understanding of it to whosoever He will. Our attitude toward the word of the LORD dictates how much understanding of that word we will receive.

Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest? For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word. (Isaiah 66:1-2)

An Answer to David @ War on Guns

The following is an answer to David Codrea who runs the War on Guns blog. He disagreed with my assertion that it is wrong to lie – period. This disagreement arose over the issue of the Olmert government in Israel taking government issued guns away from settlers, and the settlers giving them up. David held that it would be fine to lie to the government. I hold that it is never right to lie, as that is a sin before God.

Please be advised, this is a much longer article than I normally publish on the blog. However, I do believe you will be blessed by it.

I know David, you think you’ve got me. That’s all right. However, my reply will not be short, as you require a decent, proper answer to your assertion.

To begin, the commandment of the LORD God is very plain:

And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. (Matthew 19:16-19)

Moreover, to lie, is to follow after the father of lies, the Devil:

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. (John 8:44)

Thus, lying is not an option as it directly disobeys the express command of God. Thus, it appears that we are left between a rock and a hard place by your scenario. However, there are some things that are beyond our limited understanding, but not beyond the understanding, scope and power of the LORD God.

Now, I will not tell you that one must blindly believe and trust the LORD God for the outcome for such situations as that would be superstition. The LORD does not operate through, nor does He acknowledge superstition. Instead, one must operate by the instrument of faith.

Thus, the instrument of faith is extremely important to understanding everything that follows. (more…)

A Wrong Heart – A Final Look

Though there are many things that can be focused on concerning the deviation from, and misuse of Scripture of Pastor Wright in his sermons, there is one last thing I would like to point out as it is largely misunderstood, and misapplied by “Christian” leaders, to the detriment of those under their influence, and to the Gospel of Christ.

In looking at this, we must first be ever reminded that the reason the Gospel exists is because man has absolutely no capacity to make himself righteous in any degree whatsoever. This will ever remain true as righteousness is an absolute quality that one either has in totality, or not at all. We must also remember that the standard of righteousness is the LORD God Himself, Who is infinitely righteous. The result of this is the utter condemnation of man as we are by nature evil, and we cannot change our nature by our own efforts. Thus the solution the LORD God offers us, is salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ and His blood that was shed for our atonement.

However, throughout man’s history on this earth, man has ever sought to find a way to make himself righteous in the sight of God outside of Christ, and in so doing, prove himself to be equal with his Creator. Typically, man does this by perverting the gospel into a system of works for salvation. However, there are systems of belief that ignore God altogether, and seek to find peace and righteousness through a means other than justification before God. Humanism is one such system.

Now, this is not to say that Humanism came into existence within the last 300 years or so. Actually, humanism has existed under one label or another for several millennia. Recently, humanism found organized expression under the label of communism. Central to the belief of humanism and communism is the idea that man can improve himself, by his own efforts. In communism, this ideal is known as the “new communist man” that is freed from the chains of religion, tradition and superstition. The communists believe, like all humanists have, that once man reaches this condition, there will be peace throughout the earth. However, there cannot be any opposition to this ideal, as that would create conditions that would drag humanity into conflict again. Hence, “peace” is preached, and war is railed against.

As I noted in previous posts, there is a definitive link between Pastor Wright, the UCC and communism. Moreover, that the “Christianity” preached by Pastor Wright and the UCC is nothing more than decorative wrapping for the socialism (communism) they advocate. Even so it is with the advocation of “peace.” The following is a partial transcript from CNN’s Anderson Cooper Blog, in which contributor Roland Martin presents a favorable view of what Wright stated on April 13, 2003:

“Wright’s scriptural focus was Luke 19:37-44 (reading from the New Revised Standard Version).
In this sermon, Wright spoke about the military rule during biblical days, led by Pontius Pilate. It was clear, through his language, such as “occupying military brigade” that he was making an analogy to the war in Iraq.
“War does not make for peace,” he said. “Fighting for peace is like raping for virginity.”
“War does not make for peace. War only makes for escalating violence and a mindset to pay the enemy back by any means necessary,” he said.” ((The G___ ____ America Sermon))

Now, I looked at Luke 9:37-44, in both the King James Version, and the New Revised Standard Version, and what the entrance of Christ into Jerusalem has to do with the rant against government (specifically the American government) that Wright engaged in is beyond me. While it is true that the Lord spoke of Jerusalem’s coming destruction, it had nothing to do with government, and everything to do with the Jews rejection of their covenant with the LORD God. As I have noted previously, this is frequently the case with those who have another agenda besides serving the LORD God and preaching the Gospel of Christ.

Nonetheless, Pastor Wright then makes the comments about “war” and how it is that war cannot solve problems, and cannot bring peace. If we understand the implication of this, we will understand that it also is a condemnation of anyone who engages in war. Anyone who has a warrior mentality, or warrior spirit about then is condemned as they will engage in war as a necessary, though unpleasant endeavor.

This is dangerous ground to walk on. Scripturally, for one to take this position, without immediately qualifying it, is to stand in opposition to the LORD God Himself. Why? Because one takes it upon themselves to rebuke the LORD:

Then sang Moses and the children of Israel this song unto the LORD, and spake, saying, I will sing unto the LORD, for he hath triumphed gloriously: the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea. The LORD is my strength and song, and he is become my salvation: he is my God, and I will prepare him an habitation; my father’s God, and I will exalt him. The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name. (Exodus 15:1-3)

Moreover, it is to rebuke the servant of the LORD, a man after God’s own heart: King David.

And Saul said unto his servants, Provide me now a man that can play well, and bring him to me. Then answered one of the servants, and said, Behold, I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, that is cunning in playing, and a mighty valiant man, and a man of war, and prudent in matters, and a comely person, and the LORD is with him. Wherefore Saul sent messengers unto Jesse, and said, Send me David thy son, which is with the sheep. (I Samuel 16:17-19)

Notice, that the Scripture plainly records the testimony of David, even before he took the throne of Israel and before he killed Goliath the Gittite: that David was a “man of war” and “the LORD is with him.” How could the LORD be pleased with David, if the LORD Himself were not a man of war as Moses testified? Plainly, He would not be.

Now, I know that many will point to the New Testament and declare that the LORD God of the Old is not the same as Christ of the New. However, I must strongly disagree with that position as the New Testament only provides confirmation of the statements made in the Old. After all, the LORD God of the Old Testament is the same LORD God in the New. In fact, quite frequently, the LORD spoken of in the Old Testament is none other that Christ Himself. Nonetheless, let’s look at what the New Testament declares:

And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS. (Revelation 19:11-16)

Plainly, the acknowledgement that the leader of Heaven’s army is called “The Word of God” positively identifies Him as none other than the Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God. Notice also that out of Christ’s mouth “goeth a sharp sword, that he should smite the nations:” which is to say that He will engage them in war, and they shall be smitten and fall by the words that proceed out of His mouth. Of course, verse 21, of the chapter does clearly state that:

And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh. (Revelation 19:21)

Now, rather than leave a skewed impression of the Lord Jesus Christ, the only ordained Savior of the world, a little context is in order. The LORD is a man of war, but He did not start this war. Nevertheless, he will end it. No, Satan, who used to be called Lucifer, started this war when he rebelled against the LORD and attempted to take the throne of God. In Isaiah, chapter 14, and Ezekiel, chapter 28, we are told of Lucifer’s rebellion in which, as a covering cherub, he decided that his high position serving God wasn’t good enough, and he determined that he ought to rule. Sadly, he deceived a third of the angelic host, and they followed him in his rebellion. The LORD’s response to this should not be unexpected – He rose to battle.

However, the LORD does not fight the way we fight, and He was not going to change His plan of creation simply because His creatures exercised their free will and rebelled. Thus, Satan brought his war against God to this earth and conquered Adam. As a result, all the race of man are embroiled in this war as well, and all wars of this world are but shadows and illustrations of the real war Satan launched against God.

Due to this, we might as well give up on man ever creating peace by his own efforts. It is pointless and futile, and only someone holding to Humanist doctrine would engage in such thinking. Which is exactly why Pastor Wright makes the claims he does about war. After all, if he supposedly knows the Bible, why doesn’t he know about the above passages? It is because his heart is in the wrong place.

The Sabbath and Sunday

I suppose it was the occasion of Easter that prompted Joe Kovacs of WorldNetDaily to author an article on the issue of Sabbath vs. Sunday. After all, I don’t really know, but it is odd that this particular subject came up in the week before Easter (posted Mar. 16^th). Nevertheless, as a subject and an issue of controversy, what I really find odd is that everyone who holds to Sabbath-keeping, also holds Arminian doctrine. Arminism is the denial of the doctrine of eternal security of the believer; which is to say that salvation, once obtained, can be lost.

Aside from the relation to Arminism, what I found striking about the article (I skimmed it, noting the names mentioned and looking for Scripture references and how they were used) was the total lack of a conclusion. Mr. Kovacs did not come down on one side or the other of the issue. I suppose he was trying to not lose readers, or bridge a gap (ecumenism) or something of that nature. However, I also noted that he also did not allow any particular view to go into any great depth to conclusively prove one way or the other. Lovely.

What I find disturbing about the article is the ammunition it gives atheists to point to the Bible and say: ‘See, it really is contradictory. Even the Christians can’t decide among themselves what the Bible says!’ as if they don’t already have enough ammunition on this point alone.

Nevertheless, the issue is answerable from the Scriptures, if we stick with what the totality of the Scriptures state. I know this as I have researched – well, you know – the Bible. No, I did not go into the history of the Sunday tradition, or the writings of the “Church Fathers” (whoever they are), or the Pope. Instead, I just used the Bible and then wrote an article on it titled “Shall we keep the sabbath?”.

Evaluate it, see what you think. But first a couple of brief rules: Use the Bible, and only the Bible when you evaluate it. Keep your Scripture in context and follow the logic that the LORD God lays down about following the law and how man is justified before God.

I thank God that the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.

Christian Philosophy?

Is there such a thing as Christian, or Biblical philosophy? Or, is the Scripture opposed to the entire idea of philosophy?

For I would that ye knew what great conflict I have for you, and for them at Laodicea, and for as many as have not seen my face in the flesh; That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ; In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
And this I say, lest any man should beguile you with enticing words.
For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ.
As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him: Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. (Colossians 2:1-8)

It all depends on how someone is defining philosophy.

Philosophy is defined in the following ways:

1. Originally, a love, or the love of wisdom and knowledge.
2. A study of the processes governing thought and conduct; theory or investigation of the principles or laws that regulate the universe and underlie all knowledge and reality; included in the study are aesthetics, ethics, logic, metaphysics, etc.
3. The general principles or laws of a field of knowledge, activity, etc.; as, the philosophy of economics.
4. (a) a particular system of principles for the conduct of life; (b) a treatise covering such a system.
5. A study of human morals, character, and behavior.
6. The mental balance believed to result from this; calmness, composure.

The Scripture is most definitely not opposed to the love of wisdom and knowledge — so long as it is put in its proper perspective

The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel; To know wisdom and instruction; to perceive the words of understanding; To receive the instruction of wisdom, justice, and judgment, and equity; To give subtilty to the simple, to the young man knowledge and discretion.
A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels: To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings.
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction. (Proverbs 1:1-7)

However, seeking knowledge outside the LORD results in the following situation:

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. (Romans 1:19-23)

Generally speaking, when people speak of philosophy, they are not referring to the first and original meaning of the word. Rather, they refer to the investigation of the human condition:

1. How did we get here?
2. How should one conduct oneself?
3. Why are we here?
4. What is the value of life?

And so on and so forth . . .

Is this Scriptural? Does the LORD approve of investigating these for the purpose of determining a philosophy? Is this, in itself, a philosophy?

For it to be a Scriptural investigation, it is not going to be a very long one, and it is going to have to be accomplished entirely by faith — if it is to be scriptural.

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. (Hebrews 11:3)

This is not going to make it much of a philosophy.

As far a the philosophical discussion of man’s condition, the Scripture is quite succinct:

Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. (Psalm 51:5)

And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake; for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. (Genesis 8:21)

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings. (Jeremiah 17:9-10)

What about the end of things?

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. (II Peter 3:3-10)

Or, they refer to that set of ideas and principles that govern, or make up the Christian ethos, or way of life.

Is there such a thing?

But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience, Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me. (II Timothy 3:10-11)

For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life: To keep thee from the evil woman, from the flattery of the tongue of a strange woman. (Proverbs 6:23-24)

He is in the way of life that keepeth instruction: but he that refuseth reproof erreth. (Proverb 10:17)

The way of life is above to the wise, that he may depart from hell beneath. (Proverb 15:24)

And unto this people thou shalt say, Thus saith the LORD; Behold, I set before you the way of life, and the way of death. (Jeremiah 21:8)

Out of the above mention in the Scripture, none of them refer to the investigation of principles and ideals could govern one’s life. Rather, the way of life in the Scripture is to follow the commandments of the LORD God.

This does not require investigation. Rather, it requires a willing and obedient heart.

Is there such thing as a “Christian” philosophy?

Just as much as there is such a thing as “Christian” fiction. Both are oxymorons.

Thus, we should understand that, unless someone is expressly speaking of loving the wisdom and knowledge the LORD gives through His word, the Scripture plainly condemns philosophy as a foolish and blind way of seeking to understand one’s life.

After all, there’s not much philosophy in being obedient to the commandment.

Forgiving Yourself?

One of the things that runs around the “Christian” world these days is the idea that one must forgive oneself before forgiving others can occur, or that one can grow spiritually. Frequently, one will hear ‘If I do not forgive myself, will God forgive me?’ or ‘If I do not forgive myself, how can God forgive me?’ The following two quotes are typical of what one sees in response to the expression ‘I can’t forgive myself.’

“I smiled, remembering my mother’s gift of honesty, and thought, I should have known. Accepting others is not next…for one simple reason. Accepting myself has to happen first. I had to accept God and his forgiveness before I could accept myself. And I must accept myself before I can move on to accepting others…” ((http://www.balconypublishing.com/TIExcerpt.htm))

“l AM NOT THE SAME as I used to be. I WOULD NOT DO the same things if I could do them over. I am more than sorry. I believe GOD HAS FORGIVEN ME and I’m going to live like it. I will SPEAK and THINK the truth about myself and God. I REJECT THE LIES of the enemy. And, I FORGIVE MYSELF. Say it louder, I FORGIVE MYSELF! Insert your name in here and say, “ _____________ I FORGIVE YOU!!” Now spend some time thanking Jesus for the new start He’s giving you.” ((But I Can’t Forgive Myself, By Melody Green))

In considering this whole idea of forgiving oneself, I have a question that ought to be seriously considered. The question arises out of this very issue, and was posed to the individual who also made the statement that he was having trouble forgiving himself for some of the things he had done. What I asked him was:

“Who made you judge and jury?”

That’s correct. I asked who it was that made him judge and jury of the action he could not forgive himself for. Why? Consider the following passage from the Book of Proverbs.

There is a generation that curseth their father, and doth not bless their mother.
There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed from their filthiness.
There is a generation, O how lofty are their eyes! and their eyelids are lifted up.
There is a generation, whose teeth are as swords, and their jaw teeth as knives, to devour the poor from off the earth, and the needy from among men. (Proverbs 30:11-14)

In the above passage from Proverbs, a generation of people arise that are utterly proud and arrogant, and think the world revolves around them. They think the world owes them a living (so to speak), and they are the determiners of what is right and what is wrong. Sound familiar? It ought to. Ever since the 1960’s in America, the vast majority of the young people have been just like the passage from Proverbs describes: proud, focused on self, disrespectful of authority particularly parental authority, and greedy to the point of destroying others for their own gain.

Now, go back and reread the quotes above. Please notice the focus of the above passages about forgiving oneself. Just what is that focus? Did you notice that it is self? No matter how much the rest of the discussion seems to talk about God and Christ, it always returns to self. Thus it is making the individual judge and jury of what is acceptable and what is not.

But, you say:

Isn’t it necessary that we reconcile in ourselves that we can be forgiven and that we will accept forgiveness, and that if we will not forgive ourselves, then Christ will not forgive us?

To which I must answer:

If you think that Christ’s forgiveness of your sins depends upon you first being able to forgive yourself, then you will never obtain forgiveness from the Lord Jesus Christ, no matter how much you are able to forgive yourself.

The reason for my answer is found in Psalm 51. What is contained in the following verse is a bit of doctrine that is essential for salvation, and for understanding our proper place before the LORD God. Before reading this we must remember that this is King David’s confession of his sins of adultery and murder. Remember, he took another man’s wife, and then had the man killed to cover up his transgression.

Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions.
Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.
For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.
Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest. (Psalm 51:1-4)

Notice what David stated in the last sentence. In speaking to the LORD God, David states: “Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight:”

Now, no matter what sins you have committed, who is the injured party. Just whose will was transgressed that it is counted as sin and iniquity? Yours? Your friend’s? Your unborn child”s? Your parents? Etc., etc. According to Scripture, no matter what sin you commit, and no matter who appears to be the injured party, you have sinned against God and God only.

Now, just what right do you have in stating that you must forgive yourself? Would not that be usurping the place of the LORD God? Was it to you that the Father committed all judgment? Moreover, if you forgive yourself, just how much weight does that carry with God?

By the way, if you think that you must forgive yourself before you can move on with being a child of God, then you obviously didn’t believe God when He said He would forgive you. Hence, you are still not forgiven as you are making your salvation contingent upon your forgiving yourself.

Faith — part 2

Since the receiving of faith is based upon whether one reads and studies the Scriptures, and has a genuine and sincere desire to know who God is and what He requires, it is plainly obvious that not everyone is going to have faith. Really, it is quite the miracle that any of us have any faith at all when we evaluate it in this light. Nevertheless, the LORD is gracious and grants those who truly want to know and understand Him, the faith necessary to do so.

Now I understand that this is a different view than the mainstream “Christian” view. The mainstream view is expressed in the following quote from an on-line Bible Study offered by a independent Baptist church:

“HOW DOES A PERSON OBTAIN FAITH?
The answer is by trusting in God’s Word. This of course requires that one hears what God has to say first. After all, you can’t trust in what you haven’t heard nor can you claim a promise that you don’t know has been given.”

Now, this would initially seem to support what I have previously stated, and what the Scripture demonstrates. However, if we note the initial sentence, we see a precondition that is nowhere in the Scripture. That precondition is “trusting in God’s word.” However, when in reading the study you would have already come across the following statement:

“Faith is TRUSTING IN GOD’S WORD. When you consider how trustworthy God’s Word is, faith becomes a very sure thing. Throughout the New Testament we find various examples demonstrating that faith means trusting in God’s Word.”

Certainly this ought to cause one to question the validity of how one can even claim to have faith at all. It reminds me of being little child and playing “Ring around the Rosie.” Utterly pointless. In short, this is circular logic that has no place in the word of God and is invalid for teaching anything about the doctrines and principles of Scripture.

What is wrong here is a presupposition that one must believe what God has to say before God will grant them faith. However, that is not at all what the LORD indicated when He stated through Isaiah:

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. (Isaiah 1:18)

Someone who is already trusting what you have to say doesn’t have to be reasoned with about what you are saying and why. Instead, they already accept what you say and don’t debate it. When one must be reasoned with, it is due to the fact that one doesn’t understand what is presented them and doesn’t accept it. Hence, they must be reasoned with concerning the information they are presented.

The error that is present in the on-line Bible study is one of misidentification of faith, and what it actually is. Instead of letting the Scriptures define faith properly, they have misidentified the properties of faith and thus misidentified faith itself.

The Scripture is very clear on the properties of faith, and actually does define what faith is. However, if we are not willing to allow the Scripture to stand, and we put our own “spin” on what is stated, we are going to have a flawed understanding at best.

In Hebrews, chapter 11, there is a treatise given on faith, why it is utterly necessary, and what the effect of having it is. In the beginning of the chapter, the following is given:

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good report. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. (Hebrews 11:1-3)

it is very interesting how the above passage it constructed. For one, hope is not what we would term ‘substantial’ in the sense of being physical, or something materially based. Rather, hope is a thing of the heart and mind. Hence, hope can be built upon an unsure foundation of ‘I think so. . .’ or it can be built upon an more sure foundation of ‘I know so . . .’ What one then hopes for, is entirely dependent upon what one perceives and understands. In the case of the first sentence in the above passage, we are told that faith is the foundation of the things that the children of God hope for, or await the coming of. Now, the sentence continues on to state also that faith is an evidence of things that are not seen. This is understandable as the things of God, and God Himself are not seen, as the Scripture states:

God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. (John 4:24)

Hence, there must be an understanding that faith then deals with the unseen — the spiritual. Faith is then further clarified by the second sentence which states:

“For by it the elders obtained a good report.”

Now, we have something that we can understand in the way of defining faith. Notice that the first few words are “For by it . . .” “It” is an interesting word as “it” is ever and always a noun, and not ever a verb. Everything in this world that has substance can be called an “it.” However, actions, which are verbs, are not and cannot be defined as an “it.” What this means is the “elders” possessed something that enabled them to obtain a good report in the sight of God. Backing up, we can see that “it” would also be a substance, and an evidence.

In continuing to the third sentence, we are given an example of what this “it” called “faith” enables us to do:

“Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, . . .”

So then, by “it” I can, or do understand that the worlds were laid out and brought into existence by what God said. What this does is define faith as a thing, rather than an action. Moreover, by using this thing, we can perceive what God is trying to show us in and through His word. However, instead of it being physical, it is strictly spiritual, and the things shown are spiritual as well.

Thus, unlike the explanation given in the Bible study above, the faith described in the Scriptures is a noun, that precedes and precipitates action. In the aforementioned Bible study, faith is described as a verb, that precipitates another action that precipitates the first action. In short, to them faith generates trust, and trust generates faith. Plainly, this is not what the Scripture states, and is illogical.

In contrast, a summary of what the LORD has stated is very simple:

If you will hear His word, be attentive to it, and you truly and sincerely want to know and understand, He will grant you the means — the instrument, whereby you can perceive what He has done, what He states, and the truth of it, so that the LORD can reason with you about the state of your soul, and what He has done to rectify its wicked state.

To be continued . . .

And there’s not a problem with this . . .? (Part 2)

Yesterday, I addressed Isaiah 1:18 in and how it appears in the Spanish Bibles when it is translated literally, as compared to the King James Version and the underlying Masoretic text. However, I addressed only a portion of the error that is contained in the verse. In yesterday’s post, I focused on the use of the Spanish word “si” which means “if” instead of “aun” which means “though” and how that changed the entire meaning of the passage. Unfortunately, that is not the only error in the passage.

In the King James Version, Isaiah 1:18 states:

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. (Isaiah 1:18)

And in the Reina-Valera 1602, it states:

Venid luego, dirá el SEÑOR, y estemos a cuenta: si vuestros pecados fueren como la grana, como la nieve serán emblanquecidos; si fueren rojos como el carmesí, serán tornados como la lana. (Isaías 1:18)

Which, literally translated, states:

The Lord will say come and let’s agree: if your sins are as scarlet, like the snow, they shall be made white; if the are red like crimson they shall be as wool.

Beside the use of the word “if” in place of “though” there is serious concern for the statement “The Lord will say come and let’s agree:” and what it means with its attendant implications for the doctrine of salvation. Now, I am certain that in the minds of many, the question will be raised: ‘What’s wrong with that statement, isn’t the Lord still seeking to call man to agree that man is a sinner?’ Yes, He is. But the problem lies not in the fact that the LORD is seeking to bring man to the understanding that each and every person is a sinner, as that is very much the case. Rather, the problem lies in the fact that this statement is placed in the future. Instead of “saith the LORD, ” which is present perfect tense. What is given in the Spanish is “The Lord will say” which is future tense.

Why is this an issue, and what real difference does it make? Well, of you are an ultra-dispensationalist, or are one that holds that salvation is different in the different periods of man’s history, I guess it doesn’t really make that much difference. However, if you believe that God has never changed, and that since the fall man has never changed, and you understand that the LORD God knew in eternity past that man would need a Savior, then it is a destructive rendering of the underlying Hebrew text, and inconsistent with the rest of the Scripture.

How so? Consider the following passages:

And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. (Revelation 13:8)

And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying, Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David; As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began: . . . (Luke 1:67-70)

But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled. (Acts 3:18)

By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh. (Hebrews 11:4)

Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last. Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together. All ye, assemble yourselves, and hear; which among them hath declared these things? The LORD hath loved him: he will do his pleasure on Babylon, and his arm shall be on the Chaldeans. I, even I, have spoken; yea, I have called him: I have brought him, and he shall make his way prosperous. Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me. (Isaiah 48:12-16)

Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. (Hebrews 12:8)

For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. (Hebrews 9:24-26)

Now, I won’t quote all of Isaiah, chapter 59 as it is lengthy, but well worth reading as it details the condition of man. However, the last part of the chapter states:

Yea, truth faileth; and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey: and the LORD saw it, and it displeased him that there was no judgment. And he saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor: therefore his arm brought salvation unto him; and his righteousness, it sustained him. For he put on righteousness as a breastplate, and an helmet of salvation upon his head; and he put on the garments of vengeance for clothing, and was clad with zeal as a cloke. (Isaiah 59:15-17)

Just when did the LORD see the condition of man? In Revelation, chapter 13 quoted above, it plainly states that the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world. Please note this places the sacrifice of Christ to have occurred before the creation of man. Clearly, the Scripture details that the LORD created man on the sixth day, which is after the foundation of the world. So then, the LORD saw the fallen state of man before He made the heavens and the earth, and before man was ever created.

But, it is argued, how could the Lord Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, be slain on the cross before the world was ever made, and long before the Gospels detail His crucifixion? Isn’t that a contradiction, and doesn’t that cause problems in the Scripture?

Only if one’s understanding of God is incomplete or flawed. Consider the following passage and its implications as touching what the LORD tells us in Scripture:

Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. (Romans 4:16-17)

When God “calleth those things which be not as though they were.” what He is telling us is the following: He sees all time all at once and differentiates every point in time from every other point in time. Hence, in eternity past, when the LORD God made a covenant with Himself for the salvation of man, the outcome of Christ’s earthly ministry was never in doubt. The fact that the Word would become flesh, live perfectly before the Father, and go to the cross to pay for our sins, was a sure and certain thing: it was impossible for the Lord Jesus Christ to fail.

Hence, the gospel, and means of salvation for man, throughout the entire history of man from the fall has NEVER changed. In Ephesians, chapter 2 it is expressly stated:

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. (Ephesians 2:8)

And just so men know that grace and works for salvation don’t mix, we are told in Romans:

And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. (Romans 11:6)

So then, when it states in Hebrews, chapter 11 that “by faith Abel” and in Genesis, chapter 6 “But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.” (Genesis 6:8) we know that both Abel and Noah believed in Christ to come and were justified in the sight of God based upon that belief and trust in God’s promise of a Savior. (Of course, one could read Job 19:23-27 or Hebrews 3:15-4:2) Thus, the gospel has always been the same.

Therefore, it is reasonable to pose the question: Is it “the Lord will say . . .” concerning our sin, or is it far more accurate to understand that it has always been “ . . .saith the LORD” in addressing the wicked and sinful condition of man?

Plainly, the LORD God has always stated, and continues to state that we, individually are sinners in need of salvation. He has made it clear that there exists no other means of salvation outside the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, who being the Word, long before the world ever was chose to take on the form of a man and become our next of kin so that He would pay the price of our sin.

The statement and declaration of God is present perfect, not future tense. It is not ‘He will say.’ He has said and continues to say what He knew in eternity past. Thus instead of:

To be accurate it must state:

Venid ahora, y razonamos dice el SEÑOR: aun vuestros pecados son como la grana, como la nieve serán emblanquecidos; aun son rojos como el carmesí, serán como la lana. (Isaías 1:18)

And there’s not a problem with this . . . ?

And there’s not a problem with this . . .? (Part 1)

When I witness to someone concerning their need for salvation, there is a verse that I like to use as it is very applicable to rational Westerners (which we in America are). That verse is Isaiah 1:18, which states:

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. (Isaiah 1:18)

The verse contains much in the way of doctrine. Primarily, I’d like to point out that the LORD God does desire to reason with every one of us. I want the person I am witnessing to, to understand that believing in Christ Jesus for one’s salvation is not an issue of superstition or blind belief. Rather, the Lord is not pleased by those methods of believing in either the Father or the Son. No, the LORD God desires that we are fully persuaded by reason. To be certain, this reasoning is not reasoning with the mind, although that does occur in the process. Instead, it is a reasoning with the soul. The reasoning primarily focuses on the state of that person’s soul as God sees it. The reasoning is about God’s righteousness versus man’s ability to become righteous by his own effort. And further, this reasoning also brings the person to consider who Christ is, why He died on the cross, and why Christ is qualified to pay the price for that individual’s sin, and that individual is not.

In all this reasoning that the Holy Ghost does with the individual, there is not an agreement between them, until that person yields on each particular point. Rather, it is an adversarial process that can take months or years with the person denying the truth of their state, and/or the truth of who God is, and how and why Christ came, along with who Christ actually is.

This last point is a very critical point that must be thoroughly understood and agreed to willingly before the LORD will accept the profession of that person. Why? Because the LORD is not pleased by blind belief, nor is He pleased by superstition as they who engage in such practices have no sure knowledge of who and what they are trusting. Instead, the LORD God desires that everyone come to know, not guess, but know Him personally, and know and fully understand that they can indeed trust Him and the provision he has made for us in Christ Jesus. This is what glorifies God. Whereas, blind belief doesn’t glorify at all. However, to persuade an individual and have them come to the knowledge of their Creator, and His love for them, and for that individual to be sure and certain of it, is indeed a glory and honor to God. After all, that soul turned to the truth willingly, and became obedient to the truth willingly; and all because the Holy Ghost persuaded them in their heart. Any fool will believe blindly and without proof, and that is no glory to God.

Thus, there is extreme importance attached to the phrase in Isaiah 1:18 which states “Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD:” However, that phrase suffers when we decide to use the Spanish Bible. Now, for those who are not familiar with this issue, we in the English-speaking world are not the only ones to suffer from a proliferation of Bible versions. However, we at least do have a right Bible that we can turn to as the need arises. Unfortunately, that is not the case in the Spanish world.

I wish I could state differently, but based upon dealing with translating English into Spanish over the last two years, I cannot. I work with a translator that is qualified to translate, and normally does medical interpretation and translation. She, along with a brother in my home church, have translated the Reproach of Men site into Spanish. In so doing, the Statement of Faith was also translated (and I currently have to update the Spanish version) in which each and every supporting verse of each article was checked to see that it properly supported the statement made. The variation of the Spanish verses from the English is simply astounding. Now, to be sure, the Spanish Bible used was not the RV 1960, rather the Bible used was the Reina-Valera 1602, which is supposed to be the most like the KJV.

However, considering all that was discussed above about the LORD God reasoning with individuals (through the instrument of Faith) and what God requires of them in the way of belief, what is one to make of the following rendering of Isaiah 1:18:

Venid luego, dirá el SEÑOR, y estemos a cuenta: si vuestros pecados fueren como la grana, como la nieve serán emblanquecidos; si fueren rojos como el carmesí, serán tornados como la lana.

And now, the literal translation of that passage:

The Lord will say come and let’s agree: if your sins are as scarlet, like the snow, they shall be made white; if the are red like crimson they shall be as wool.

I don’t know about you, but I do not like what I read in the translation above. If, . . .? If . . . ? If your sins are as scarlet. . .

Uh . . . no, — I don’t think so. Our sins are, . . . not if, but are, as scarlet. The price of our sin is blood, and the shedding of it to cover them. Moreover, (and I asked specifically about this) since when is the snow, scarlet? No, that cannot be right either. It must mean that some punctuation is incorrect.

The Lord will say come and let’s agree: if your sins are as scarlet; like the snow, they shall be made white;

Which, with the replacing of the comma with a semicolon, is better, but it still does not resolve the first clause and all the attendant problems of using the word “if” rather than the Spanish equivalent of the word “though.” In Spanish, the word for “if” is “si” and the word for “though” is “aun.” Thus it is not a “mistake” in the sense of a typographical error. Rather, the word “si” was deliberately chosen when the word “aun” was a clear and unambiguous rendering of the underlying Hebrew (at least in the Masoretic). Moreover, the word “aun” would give the Spanish reader the plain sense and understanding that they are sinners in need of salvation. As this passage stands, the reader is given to option of questioning the validity of the LORD’s charge laid against them.

Of course, the error was repeated in the last phrase as well. Again, the question “if” our sins are red. No, sorry, they are red like crimson.

By the way, this is not the only passage in the Spanish Bible(s) that are flawed in this way. In the Statement of Faith, many verses from the 1602 (it’s worse in the 1960 RV) had to modified to match what is stated in the King James Version. And, yes, this verse was rewritten to match the KJV:

Venid ahora, y razonamos dice el SEÑOR: aun vuestros pecados son como la grana, como la nieve serán emblanquecidos; aun son rojos como el carmesí, serán como la lana. (Isaías 1:18)

Is it any wonder that the Bible seems to have no significant impact upon the Hispanic world?

Appealing to Authorities

Perhaps there is no greater dispute among those who name themselves (or who are called) Baptists than the issue of Calvinism. I have seen and heard many arguments over this issue that range from intelligent treatises to nothing more than eloquent name-calling and name-dropping. The really sad part of this is that some believe that appealing to authorities other than the Scripture nets them some sort of superior argument. I have to wonder, who do they think they need to please: God or man? Appealing to authorities other than the Scripture to prove one’s argument may look good and persuade men, but it doesn’t mean spit in the eyes of God. No, there is one, and only one text that has the respect of the LORD God: His own Holy Word. In this He is very express:

I will praise thee with my whole heart: before the gods will I sing praise unto thee. I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. (Psalm 138:1-2)

Hence, I have to wonder just who those who are arguing about this doctrine think they are pleasing? Moreover, I wonder if they argue about this based upon the call of God in their lives, or is it simply a desire of the flesh to be seen and heard, and in some way justify what they believe? In any case, this constant citation of what men have said proves nothing. Men, no matter how good they think they are, are not God, and they do not say or write what equates to the word of God. We have a complete Bible, and it is fully authoritative and needs no help from man.

However, it is not usually the case in the writings I see on the issue of Calvinism (also known as “Sovereign Grace”). Rather, what I see is a preponderance of quotes from other men who have held the same doctrinal position. Moreover, in some cases there is a total absence of Scripture. Thus, I have to ask: Just what does this prove? Aren’t we told in the Scripture that we are to “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” (I Thessalonians 5:21)? And, isn’t the standard of proof Scripture?

Thus, if we cannot prove the doctrine by rightly dividing the Scripture, what good are the words of other like-minded men? No matter how much they may agree, it still doesn’t prove the doctrine. Everyone on earth could suddenly agree that God has no authority over us; would that agreement make it true? Certainly not. If everyone on earth, and all the angels along with them decided that God didn’t exist, would that make it true? No, for the Scripture is express:

It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him: If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us: If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself. (II Timothy 2:11-13)

END OF STORY

It doesn’t matter what you or I believe and who agrees with us. What matters is “What does the LORD God say in His word?” if we do not agree with what God states, then we are wrong. End of story.

Now, pertaining to the false doctrine of Calvinism, perhaps those holding the doctrine could explain the wording and construction of the following passage, particularly the use of personal pronouns? Oh, and don’t shortcut and divert and say that I do not understand the sovereignty of God. I certainly do, and you can find the evidence in the article “God’s Box.”

You know, for Calvinism to be true, the pronoun “his” would have to be changed and the wording of the passage changed significantly, would it not?