Atheists’ Memes Refuted: All-Loving

It’s been awhile since I’ve posted to our series “Atheists’ Memes Refuted.” I don’t know how long this post had been saved on my computer. I opened it by “accident” – though I don’t believe in accidents or coincidences – realized it was done, and decided to post it. May God be glorified.

This is a ‘straw man’ because nowhere in the Bible is God described as “all loving.” 1 John 4:8 and 16 both say that “God is love,” meaning that is the essential quality of His nature. But that does not override or negate the rest of His attributes like holiness, goodness, faithfulness, justice, mercy, kindness, and also wrath. To say that God is all-loving is to exalt love above the rest of His attributes when instead they all work harmoniously together. [1] All of God’s attributes do in fact work together in His Person and to exalt one above another is blasphemous and idolatrous. Blasphemous because it describes God in a contrary fashion to how He reveals Himself, and idolatrous because one creates an image of God in their own mind that is not the God of Scripture.

Since the meme’s opening “if” statement is fallacious, the question that follows is also thereby fallacious, and both concluding statements are also invalid. They all fail logically and Biblically. We just demonstrated how they fail logically. They fall Biblically because one does not obtain forgiveness without asking. [2] According to Scripture, we are only forgiven through repentance from our sin and faith in Jesus. Does this mean that God is unforgiving? God forbid! He is willing and ready to forgive. What it means is that He is holy and just and cannot allow sin to go unpunished. It also means that we should believe in and worship Him, first, because He is worthy to receive it and, secondly, because the penalty for not doing so is eternity in hell.

Logic is a wonderful tool given to us by God. But when discussing God and His attributes, we must give God’s Self-revelation in Scripture the priority. Yes, God is infinite in all of His attributes, but we need to look at how His character is revealed to us through Scripture to see how His love is expressed. Scripture supersedes logic, but it is never illogical. As it is written, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isaiah 55:8-9)

[1] We saw, for example, in a previous post, how God’s attributes of wrath and mercy work together at the Cross of Jesus Christ. 

[2] See Proverbs 28:13 and 1 John 1:9

Why America Needs the PA

Image: Ivory pyxis from Egypt (c. 5-6 century), depicting the woman taken in adultery. National Museum, Paris.

Theories abound regarding the authenticity of the account of the Woman Caught in Adultery (Pericope Adulterae, or PA) recorded in John 7:53-8:11. Some believe it to be a “floating tradition,” others claim it’s “spurious” yet (somehow) “true.” Many are likely unaware of any controversy whatsoever regarding the passage, and a seeming minority accepts it as genuine, authentic and original to the text. Arguments are varied and can be technical, but that goes beyond the scope of this piece. My goal is to not give text critical arguments for its authenticity, but to explain why our society needs this story.

One pastor described this account as “perhaps the best loved, and the most controversial, and the most misinterpreted account in the Gospel of John.” Whether one takes a position on its authenticity or not, this passage presents interpretive difficulties and incites questions like:

• Did Jesus “break the Law for love”? [1] After all, the Law commanded that she be stoned, but Jesus does not condemn her. Why?
• Did He believe she shouldn’t be judged (i.e. “judge not”)?
• Should I never judge sin in anyone else because I am not without sin?
• Did He wash her feet (i.e. “He gets us”)?
• Is He preaching licentiousness, as if her sin doesn’t matter?

If you answered the previous questions in the affirmative, then you demonstrate a misunderstanding of God’s love.

These are, however, worthy questions to ponder. I repeat: ways to misinterpret this passage are legion. But what is the true message of this passage? Why is it loved and cherished by many? And why do I believe our culture needs it?

At first glance, the Pharisees appear to be right in stating that the Law commanded such women to be stoned to death. And they were (See Leviticus 20:10). [2] Jesus, the Word Incarnate, obviously knew this, so why doesn’t He uphold the Law’s directives? I believe the answer can be found in the character of God. First of all, God is holy and just. Sin cannot dwell in His presence and He must punish it. But God is also gracious, merciful and compassionate. These are not contradictory, but complimentary. Holiness, more than a mere attribute of God, is an “attribute of attributes” [3]; it is the luster by which the rest of His attributes shine. So God cannot compromise His holiness in demonstrating His mercy. This is where the Cross of Christ comes in. Jesus could look at that woman, and tell her “Neither do I condemn thee,” because He was going to take the death penalty and suffer the wrath of God for her sin on the Cross. So for her, “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus…” (Romans 8:1a). But this does not excuse her sin, nor give her license to continue in it. He says to her, “Go, and sin no more.” Being forgiven, she was now a changed woman, and should “walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit” (Romans 8:1b).

Notice that Jesus calls her actions “sin.” He doesn’t sugarcoat it, He doesn’t water it down. Nor does He compromise; but He calls adultery what it is: sin. But what is His response to her sin? Does He withdraw from her? Does He act “holier than thou”? Does He cross over to the other side of the street shouting, “Unclean!!!”? If anyone had the right to act that way, it was Jesus, the Holy One of God. But this account displays Jesus’ heart for sinners who come to Him. And that is a heart of compassion, not snobbishness. About a chapter earlier, John records Jesus saying, “him (or, in this case, her) that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out” (John 6:37). All that’s required is that we come to Him.

The message of the PA is that of a Jesus Who saves, forgives, cleanses, transforms, restores, heals, delivers and redeems us. [4] This is the Jesus that America (and the world) needs, and the One the Church needs to proclaim. The way to combat misteachings about the love and grace of God is not to preach His wrath, but to preach His love accurately. [5] And in my opinion, no other Gospel account captures Jesus’ character as well as His heart like this one. [6] 

But just because America needs this message, doesn’t mean they’ll want to hear it.

God help us.

Footnotes

[1] I have no idea if Furtick was attempting to exegete this passage or if he was even referring to it, but someone of his level of theological acumen would attempt to make that case.

[2] The same verse called for the man to be put to death as well.

[3] J. Howe, 1670. Quoted in Pink, The Attributes of God

[4] In this teaching, I examine four characteristics of God’s love from Hosea chapter 3.

[5] I highly recommend The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God by D.A. Carson.

[6] Perhaps the woman at the well, or the woman with the issue of blood. All of these, indeed every Gospel account, reveal Jesus’ disposition toward sinners.

The Lord From Heaven Came Down

This Christmas Eve, let us take time and meditate on the true meaning of Christmas, the “why” we celebrate this holiday. It’s because of “Who” was born. Jesus, the Eternally Begotten Son of the Father, took on flesh and was born of the Virgin Mary.

Give thanks to the Lord for His good will toward men
The Lord from heaven came down

From His throne on high
The Lord from heaven came down

To a manger in Bethlehem
The Lord from heaven came down

Foretold by the prophets in the days of old
The Lord from heaven came down

And in the fullness of time God sent forth His Son
The Lord from heaven came down

Let this mind be in us which was also in Christ Jesus
The Lord from heaven came down

Who made Himself of no reputation
The Lord from heaven came down

And took upon him the form of a servant
The Lord from heaven came down

And was made in the likeness of men
The Lord from heaven came down

Born of a virgin, therefore not stained with sin
The Lord from heaven came down

To do the will of God the Father
The Lord from heaven came down

For us and for our salvation
The Lord from heaven came down

To deliver us from our enemies
The Lord from heaven came down

And to deliver us into the Kingdom of His Dear Son
The Lord from heaven came down

In His great wisdom He foreordained it
The Lord from heaven came down

His mighty power brought it to pass
The Lord from heaven came down

As a testimony of His faithfulness
The Lord from heaven came down

And to demonstrate His goodness
The Lord from heaven came down

For His great love wherewith He loved us
The Lord from heaven came down

And to the praise of the glory of His grace
The Lord from heaven came down

Though He was rich
The Lord from heaven came down

Yet for our sakes He became poor
The Lord from heaven came down

That we through His poverty might become rich
The Lord from heaven came down

Out of His abundance He gave us His Son
The Lord from heaven came down

And freely gives us all things in Christ
The Lord from heaven came down

When the blood of bulls and goats could not take away our sin
The Lord from heaven came down

A body was prepared for us
The Lord from heaven came down

The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us
The Lord from heaven came down

The One Who descended is the One Who ascended
The Lord from heaven came down

Far above all principalities, powers and rulers
The Lord from heaven came down

That He might fill all things
The Lord from heaven came down

And He shall come again in like manner as He ascended
The Lord from heaven came down

Glory to God in the highest
The Lord from heaven came down

Why I Preach from the Received Text

Introduction 

“I was raised on the King James (Version).” I expressed those words some time during my teen years during a discussion one Sunday after church on what version of the Bible we used. It was true. I had used the KJV in church, in private Christian school, and in my personal reading for my entire life up to that point, and after roaming through the NIV, NASB and NLT in my twenties, it’s the version I read, study, and teach from to this day.

When I articulated those words as a teenager, I couldn’t have told you why I read the KJV. (I wasn’t even saved!) It was mere tradition for me at the time, though I am grateful for it. Over the years, however, I now understand some of the underlying differences between the various English Bible versions and have come to uphold the superiority of the KJV over all other English Bibles. ¹
I read the above pictured book, which, as the subtitle says, is a collection of essays written by twenty-five different contributors explaining their reasoning for using the Textus Receptus (TR) and the primary English version of the Bible derived from it, the King James. The following is my attempt at the same. May the Living God be glorified as I offer this “blog post by a Reformed Bible teacher and blogger.”

Why I Use the Received Text

So why do I use the TR/KJV? Primarily, I would say because the “logic of faith” demands it. What is this logic of faith? In short, this line of thinking believes what Scripture says about itself. It is a believing presupposition based on two foundational principles: the verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture and its providential preservation.

The Logic of Faith: Inspiration and Preservation 

All orthodox Christians affirm the Bible is inspired by God the Holy Spirit. ² What if I told you that the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture is meaningless without its preservation? What if I also told you that the inspiration of Scripture assumes its preservation? The well-known passage regarding inspiration, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, says, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” For the Word of God to be “profitable” to mature the “man of God,” we have to know what God’s Word is. Everyone acknowledges the original inspired writings, known as the autographs, are gone. For a multitude of reasons, we no longer have them. All we have now are copies, or apographs, and translations from them.  Readers must trust the copy/translation they hold in their hands. As readers who draw Divine hope and instruction from God’s Word, we must trust we have what it claims to be, the very words of God. Inversely, if we can’t have certainty about its identity, then it can’t be profitable. Therefore, if the Word of God is going to profit me, then the copy/translation I have in my hand must be equal to the autographs.³ To the degree it isn’t equal, it isn’t profitable.

The same applies to 2 Peter 1:21: “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.” Peter assumes the apographs in his day were equivalent to the inspired original autographs. So we see that both the inspiration of every word of Scripture and its providential preservation by God are intertwined. This briefly explains the preservationist model provided by the logic of faith.

Modern Textual Criticism Opposed to Scripture 

Rather than the faithful logic of the preservationist approach, Modern Biblical Textual Criticism (MBTC) follows a reconstructionist approach, in which newly discovered manuscripts are used in an attempt to reconstruct the original autographs of Scripture (which no currently living person has seen). ⁴ This model assumes the originals have been corrupted and/or lost and need to be restored/recovered. ⁵ To put it plainly, it assumes the words of God have been lost and need to be found again. This is contrary to Psalm 12:6-7:

“The words of the LORD are pure words: As silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, Thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”

Also, Isaiah 59:21 adds:

"As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever."

Our Lord Himself speaks of the Word in Matthew 5:18:

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." 

Jesus speaks again in Matthew 24:35:

"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

Many other verses could be cited which would contradict MBTC.

To summarize, MBTC presumes the Word of God has failed, and it is up to the textual critic to restore the lost words of God. The folly of this should be evident.

Other Faulty Premises of MBTC

Its primary problem is that its basis is on evidence rather than sound exegesis, Biblical theology, and distinctly Christian presuppositions.

The shaky foundation of the restorationist method of MBTC is not only demonstrated in its opposition to the promise of God – as if that weren’t enough – but also by the subjective and arbitrary nature of the principles and axioms utilized by its practitioners. Some of these are as follows: 

• Manuscripts are to be weighed and not simply counted;
• Older manuscripts are necessarily better;
• The shorter reading is preferred;
• The more difficult reading is preferred;
• Textual variants don’t affect any major doctrine ⁶

Much can be, and has been, written exposing the flaws in these premises. To do so goes beyond the scope of this piece. Perhaps we will do so at a later date.

Another inconsistency of the MBTC position is its view of Scripture. As I previously wrote, those who hold to MBTC will acknowledge the Bible’s inspiration. However, it appears they experience a bit of cognitive dissonance when practicing their discipline, because they end up treating Scripture like any other historical document. Is the Bible a historical document? Yes, but it is not merely a historical document. Being Spirit-inspired, it is in a different category than any other document or piece of literature from antiquity. No other document is breathed out and superintended by the Spirit of God, guaranteeing its accuracy in transmission through the generations. In the words of Chapter 1.8 of the 1689 London Baptist Confession, “The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic…” ⁷ As noted earlier, Scripture’s inspiration and preservation are inextricably linked, and modern textual critics affirm the inspiration of Scripture while in practice denying its preservation. If every word of Scripture was inspired, wouldn’t it also follow that every word was preserved? Would God inspire His Word but take no care in preserving it?

Conclusion 

Much more could be, and has been, said regarding this topic. We could discuss philosophies of translation and manuscripts; we could dig deeper into the doctrine of inspiration, but those are peripheral to the foundational discussion. The crux of the debate is, has God preserved His Word? If so, how? In the mass of newly discovered manuscripts, or “in all ages” using His people the Church?

The analogy of faith teaches us that Scripture interprets Scripture. If that’s true, then we must let Scripture speak for itself and believe what it says. What does Scripture say about itself? Does it say it would be lost to time and restored by scholars? Or does God promise to preserve His Word through every generation? Once these questions are answered, each of us can then individually deal with the final question: do we believe it? 

To me, the choice is clear. The logic of faith is the more faithful, logical model. In accordance with the prayer of Jesus in John 17:8, ⁸ the Word of God is something to be received, not criticized. This is why I use the TR/KJV. I pray the majority of the American, English speaking Church will do the same.

Footnotes 

¹ I reject Ruckmanism. It is unorthodox, nonconfessional and factious. My desire is to unify the Church.

² 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:21

³ Only the autographs are inspired. Once again, I reject Ruckmanism. But inspiration can, in a derivative sense, apply to translations. Translations from the apographa are derivatively inspired and doctrinally authoritative.

⁴ Modern textual critics are now beginning to admit they can’t reconstruct the original text; however this was the initial goal of this approach.

⁵ “In A History of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (1899) Marvin R. Vincent defined the goal of text criticism at the end of the nineteenth century as follows:

 ‘Text Criticism is that process by which it is sought to determine the original text of a document or of a collection of documents, and to exhibit it, freed from all those errors, corruptions and variations which it may have accumulated in the course of its transmission by successive copyings (p. 1).'”

The assumption is Scripture has been corrupted and it is up to the text critic to restore it. False teachers absolutely sought to tamper with and corrupt the Scriptures (ex. 2 Thess. 2:2). But the logic of faith assumes the preservation of Scripture by God despite these attempts, not that they were doctored to the extent they were lost and now must be restored.

⁶ This common claim is unsubstantiated exegetically or theologically. It is also presumptuous, arbitrary, and untrue.

⁷ Section 1.8 of the 1647 Westminster Confession reads nearly identically for my Presbyterian friends. 🙂

⁸ “For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.”

Today’s Christian & The Church’s Bible: A Time to Return to the Authorized Version by Dr. Theodore Letis, A Review

I was provided with a free copy of this booklet in order to review it. It’s currently available for pre-order here.

Update: The book is now available! Please see this video trailer from Kept Pure in All Ages.

“Return to the Authorized Version (AV)? But we’ve discovered older and better manuscripts since the King James Version (KJV) was written! And the old English makes it so hard to understand!” These are the most commonly used objections to using the KJV. Dr. Letis ably answers these, and more, in this short book.

After comparing all of the English Bibles from Tyndale’s in 1525, to the first edition of the NIV in 1978 [1], he concluded the KJV “should be retained in the churches, in Bible studies, and in the classroom, because of the superiority of its Greek text, translation, and English usage; and because it is a link with our past as well as a unifying factor for the present.” [2] This is the thesis he sets out to prove in this work.

Chapter 1 – The Scrolls and the Parchments
Letis responds to the most common objection first, that of the “older and better” manuscripts, specifically Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Readings from these two codices are often adopted in modern Bible versions contrary to the majority of manuscripts in many places. Prevailing scholarship accepts these two without question despite the fact they contradict one another more than 3,000 times in the Gospels alone!

Regarding their antiquity, Letis provides a quote from scholar and dean of Chichester Cathedral John W. Burgon, who personally examined the codices. Burgon offers a different perspective on their age. “We suspect that these two Manuscripts are indebted for their preservation, solely to their ascertained evil character… Had [Vaticanus and Sinaiticus] been copies of average purity, they must long since have shared the inevitable fate of books which are freely used and highly prized; namely, they would have fallen into decadence and disappeared from sight. But in the meantime, behold, their very Antiquity has come to be reckoned to their advantage.” [3]

According to Letis, the difference between these two and the majority of manuscripts can be summed up by the word “omissions,” though there are other revisions. Wilbur Pickering, pastor and author in the late 20th century, counts approximately 5,000 fewer words than in the majority. Despite the claim that these variants don’t affect any major doctrine, Letis offers 1 Timothy 3:16, Colossians 1:14, and Luke 2:33 as evidence to the contrary. [4]

Dr. Letis points out the Bible bears human and Divine qualities, and its Divinity must never be minimized. Alterations to Scripture should never be too hastily accepted, and learning about translators B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort provides a cautionary tale.

Chapter 2 – The Revised Version of 1881-1883
Chapter 2 is short and describes a revision committee in 1879 led by Westcott and Hort tasked with updating the English of and correcting any obvious errors in the KJV. What they did, however, was present a modified text changed to meet the “standard” of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. After another astute quote from Burgon, Letis ends the chapter on the hopeful note of scholars, including himself, examining the work of Westcott and Hort, resulting in “some scholars… return[ing] to the type of Greek text on which the AV was based.” [5]

Chapter 3 – Biblical English
Chapters 3 and 4 deal with the other common objection to the KJV: its “archaic” English. A strange phenomenon has occurred with the King James Version: it has been both praised for the beauty of its language, and scorned for its archaisms. Letis counters this by arguing the English of the KJV is not the English of the 17th century, but a “Biblical English” [6] hardly spoken by anyone. Its beauty is owed to its faithful translation of the original Greek and Hebrew. [7]

Dr. Letis also answers the misconception of modern Bible versions being easier to understand. He compares the word usage in the KJV to the New English Bible and actually finds the KJV more readable!

Chapter 4 – Thees and Thous
Also regarding the “antiquated” language of the KJV, Dr. Letis offers a defense of the second person pronouns “thee” and “thou,” while also offering an alternative to the KJV if someone genuinely struggles with the English of the KJV: The 21st Century King James Version. It is “an exact reproduction of the AV with accurate, modern equivalents for all the several archaisms found throughout its last revision.” [8] The “thees and thous,” however, are retained in the KJV21, because those pronouns make it easier to distinguish between “you singular” and “you plural.” Thee, thou, thy and thine are singular, while ye, you and your are plural.

Chapter 5 – The “Language of the People”?
Through surveying many twentieth century English Bibles, he demonstrated the fallacy of producing Bibles with updated language. Of the translations he examined, all publishers stated, among other purposes, their desire to make the Bible understandable to the average reader. Two related factors gave rise to this. The first is “a low regard for Scripture as a sacred text.” [9] The Bible is regarded as mere literature rather than the inspired Word of God. This caused a second factor- thanks to free enterprise and the love of money capturing various Bible publishers, multiple versions abound today. After all, there is a lot of money to be made in Bible printing/publishing.

Chapter 6 – Historical Ethos: The Forgotten Factor
What is this “forgotten factor”? For Dr. Letis, it is both the academic and spiritual accomplishments of just a few of the men who were responsible for translating the KJV. As scholarship was at its height in the 17th century, he takes this chapter to illustrate the scholarship and theological competence of a few of the KJV committee translators. These men were not infallible, neither was their final product perfect. However, Letis posits that modern translators, despite recent archaeological discoveries and technological advances, contain no special insight over the translation committee of the KJV. Modernity does not necessarily give us an advantage over the past. “Modern does not always equal better.” [10]

Chapter 7 – The Modern Approach to Translation (Utilitarian)
This chapter details the shift in translation philosophy from a word-for-word approach (formal equivalence) to a thought-for-thought approach (dynamic equivalence), and some of the theological problems which can, and often do, result from the latter approach. Though arguments for dynamic equivalence today are reasonable, a question translators must consider when translating into another language is, which methodology is paramount? Is the right route to communicate the ideas into the culture and form of the receptor language, or to translate the words as the Spirit inspired them?

Chapter 8 – The Renaissance/Reformation Approach to Translation (Theological)
As an example of translating into a receptor language, Letis provides Martin Luther’s German Bible in 1534. Luther did such a masterful job of giving the German people a Bible they could understand AND maintaining faithfulness to the original Hebrew and Greek in doing so, that it influenced the German language. Moreover, it molded it! Luther’s Bible is generally seen as the birth of German literature, giving rise to German as a literary language and is used to this day. The King James Version has done the same for the English language. It molded the language and set the standard for future English versions. This seems to settle the question of if Bible versions should be reduced to the culture. Scripture should convert the culture! Someone once said, Christians should be thermostats, not thermometers. In other words, we should set the moral tone in our contexts, not conform to the influences around us. The same could be applied to Bible translations. If translators are faithful to the Spirit-inspired words of God, He will bless their work. So history testifies to the superiority of the formal equivalence method over dynamic equivalence.

Chapter 9 – Historical Cycles and the Modern Situation
In this last (and longest) chapter, Dr. Letis observes what he sees today as a watered down version of Christianity. He reminds us of the well-known quote from Tertullian, “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church.” The KJV is the last vestige of an era of western Christianity under persecution. Being a product of the Reformation and William Tyndale (whose work makes up about 90% of the KJV), it is certainly a “blood-stained book” to use the author’s term. The KJV serves as our link to our Christian heritage and brings linguistic unity to the present English-speaking world. This quote from Dr. Letis is too good to not include: “…if given the choice to embrace the type of Christianity historically produced by the AV (if I may be allowed to speak in such terms), or the type that has been produced since the arrival of ‘the Bible in the language of the people,’ I feel constrained to embrace the former, archaisms and all.” [11]

On unity, he concludes with a discussion of the value of each person having a Bible version of their choice. Rather than producing unity, it often leads to confusion and, in the worst case scenario, schism. The footnotes in many modern versions also often fail to bring clarity to the reader. He then closes his work with an analysis of the textual variants in John 1:18 and Mark 16:9-20 to illustrate his point.

My Conclusion
Today’s Christian & The Church’s Bible does contain some outdated information regarding Bible versions and statistics. To note, he wrote the Gideons exclusively use the KJV for their Bible distribution, but this is no longer the case. They have also started distributing the NKJV and, several years ago, a Textus Receptus version of the ESV, along with the KJV. But such things are to be expected for a booklet originally published in 1978, then re-published in 1997. Dr. Letis died in 2005.

With that said, I heartily recommend this work by Dr. Theodore Letis. There is much more I could have elaborated on, despite the brevity of this book, but I wanted to keep this review somewhat short. If the reader has additional questions or desires more information, he likely addresses them either in Today’s Christian, or in his more detailed exposition, The Ecclesiastical Text: Textual Criticism, Biblical Authority and the Popular Mind, [12] where he devotes an entire chapter to John 1:18.

Perhaps the best thing I can say about Today’s Christian & The Church’s Bible is it leaves the reader wanting more. At least it did for me. Dr. Letis presents the reader with enough information to make his case, but inquisitive and truth-seeking minds will desire to dig deeper. I pray the reader of the booklet and of this review does so. And may God, through His Holy Spirit Who inspired the Bible, unify His Church around, through, and by it.

Footnotes

1 The year the book was originally published
2 From the Introduction
3 Italics in Letis’ original, p. 2. Quote taken from John W. Burgon, The Revision Revised, 2nd ed. (London: John Murray, 1885), p. 319
4 To this list I would add John 1:18 and 1 Corinthians 15:47
5 p. 10
6 Citing E.F. Hills
7 More on translation philosophy later
8 p .22
9 p. 31
10 p. 40
11 p. 61, parentheses in original
12 Which I am also currently reading

Gorr Was Right… And Wrong

“The only ones who gods care about is themselves. So this is my vow: all gods will die.”

No, this is not one of those “Gorr was right” posts that you’ll see on a Reddit thread. At least not in the same way you’ll find “Thanos was right” posts and memes. Nevertheless, Gorr was right, or at least partially so. Allow me to explain.

As a Christian, I compare all things to the truth of Scripture to see if it lines up. Notice the parallels between Gorr’s quote above and the Scripture passage quoted here.

God: “God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; He judgeth among the gods [1]. How long will ye judge unjustly, And accept the persons of the wicked? Selah. Defend the poor and fatherless: Do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy: Rid them out of the hand of the wicked.”

Psalm 82:1-4

Gorr: “The only ones who gods care about is themselves.”

So we see that Gorr agrees with God on the problem, and as the second half of Gorr’s declaration demonstrates, they agree on the solution/sentence.

God: “I have said, Ye are gods; And all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men, And fall like one of the princes.”

Psalm 82:6-7

Gorr: “All gods will die.”

So Gorr correctly diagnoses the problem, and even agrees with God on the solution. But the title of this post is “Gorr was Right…and Wrong.” So why was he wrong? Here are two reasons:

1. The judgment is not his to make

The judgment is not his to make because he does not have the authority to make it. The only way he could issue this judgment is if he was higher than them in rank, or had that authority delegated to him by one who was. Only the Most High God fits this definition. Therefore, to Him and Him alone does this authority belong.

2. The sentence is not his to carry out

It stands to reason, then, that if Gorr doesn’t have the authority to make the judgment, then he doesn’t have the authority to carry out the sentence. Again, only one who is higher in rank can execute the sentence. Verse 8 of Psalm 82 says, “Arise, O God, judge the earth: For thou shalt inherit all nations.” The only One Who can judge the gods is the Most High God. And since God the Father has given all judgment to the Son (John 5:22), then the One Who will judge the gods is the Lord Jesus Christ. “And it shall come to pass in that day, that the LORD shall punish the host of the high ones that are on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth.” (Isaiah 24:21)

I find it interesting that both Jesus and Gorr use the same weapon to carry out their judgment: a sword. It appears to be the favored weapon of choice for God. Here are a couple of the passages where it is mentioned.

If I whet my glittering sword, And mine hand take hold on judgment; I will render vengeance to mine enemies, And will reward them that hate me. I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, And my sword shall devour flesh; And that with the blood of the slain and of the captives, From the beginning of revenges upon the enemy. ~Deuteronomy 32:41-42

And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree. For my sword shall be bathed in heaven: behold, it shall come down upon Idumea, and upon the people of my curse, to judgment. The sword of the LORD is filled with blood, it is made fat with fatness, and with the blood of lambs and goats, with the fat of the kidneys of rams: for the LORD hath a sacrifice in Bozrah, and a great slaughter in the land of Idumea. And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness. For it is the day of the LORD'S vengeance, and the year of recompences for the controversy of Zion. ~Isaiah 34:4-8 [2]

The “Day of the Lord” is also known as the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. One depiction of it in Revelation also has Jesus wielding a sword.

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 [3]

The wisdom of God has made the Lord Jesus Christ not only King of Kings and Lord of Lords, but also God of gods [4], and Inheritor of the Nations [5]. And this sword is Jesus’ weapon of war that will be used against His enemies both human and spiritual. So in the end, it is Jesus Who is the real god-Butcher.

John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne; and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. ~Revelation 1:4‭-‬6 

Footnotes

[1] Some Biblical interpreters see this reference to “gods” as human kings, judges, rulers, etc. But I will be operating under the belief that they are actual spiritual entities. Sometimes the Bible uses the word “gods” to refer to supernatural beings (ex. 1 Samuel 28:13). That’s why sometimes God is distinguished from them by the title “The Most High God.”

[2] Also see Isaiah 66:15-16, Ezekiel 21:3

[3] For other Scriptures depicting Jesus holding/wielding a sword, see Joshua 5:13-15, Numbers 22:22-31. (Yes, I believe Jesus is both the Captain of the Lord’s Host and the Angel of the Lord.)

[4] Ephesians 3:1-12; Philippians 2:9-11

[5] Psalm 2:8; 82:8; 110:6; Revelation 2:27; 12:5; Isaiah 9:6-7; Daniel 7:13-14

How to Know You’re Under the Judgment of God

Below is a link to my sermon on Jan. 16. It’s part of my series on Revelation, and it includes my response to Canadian bill C-4.

Response to C-4

Ecclesiology and the Arrest of Pastor James Coates

by Pastor Mike Hovland I want to address something that has been on my heart this past week as I’ve seen many of the responses to the posts about James Coates’ imprisonment. Early on in this pandemic I saw a tweet on this website that went something like this “I wonder if the church of […]

Ecclesiology and the Arrest of Pastor James Coates

This is not referring to me, but I support Pastor James Coates 100%.

Unmasked Love

Romans 12:9 Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good.

The word “dissimulation” used by the old King James Version means unfeigned, or sincere, without hypocrisy. In ancient times a hypocrite was an actor, someone who wore a mask to play a part in a play.

Like modern day actors, when they play a role, they’re only pretending. Whatever they say or do as that character doesn’t represent who they are or what they themselves believe. The Apostle Paul commands us to love genuinely, sincerely, not pretentiously, but truly, from the heart.

A common idea among Christians is that wearing a mask is a way we love our neighbor, to help protect them from COVID-19. And on some occasions, that may be true. However, I would argue since masks are completely ineffective at stopping the transmission of this, or any, virus (more on that later), that you are actually lying to your neighbor by wearing a mask.

Are we to love our neighbor as Christians? Yes, it is the second greatest commandment, only behind loving God. And part of love is that it rejoices with truth (1 Cor. 13:6). If your neighbor is fearful, inform him of the truth, and hopefully facts will inform his feelings. See the below studies and quotes regarding masks.

CDC Study: 85% of COVID-19 Patients “Always” or “Often” Wore Masks

Also see these mask facts

Mask Facts

One of note: A study done by the University of Illinois at Chicago concluded: “Wearing masks will not reduce SARS-CoV-2,” the virus that causes COVID-19.

Universal Masking in Hospitals in the COVID-19 Era | NEJM

From the article: “We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.”

I ask you, should Christians capitulate to anxiety and fear? What should be our response?

We know from Scripture that “There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.” (1 John 4:18) Therefore, if I love my neighbor, I will not do that which causes him to fear, but will allay those fears with truth.

From the New England Journal of Medicine article linked above:

“Masking all [symptomatic health care providers] providers might limit transmission from these sources by stopping asymptomatic and minimally symptomatic health care workers from spreading virus-laden oral and nasal droplets.

“What is clear, however, is that universal masking alone is not a panacea. A mask will not protect providers caring for a patient with active Covid-19 if it’s not accompanied by meticulous hand hygiene, eye protection, gloves, and a gown. A mask alone will not prevent health care workers with early Covid-19 from contaminating their hands and spreading the virus to patients and colleagues. Focusing on universal masking alone may, paradoxically, lead to more transmission of Covid-19 if it diverts attention from implementing more fundamental infection-control measures.

“It is also clear that masks serve symbolic roles. Masks are not only tools, they are also talismans that may help increase health care workers’ perceived sense of safety, well-being, and trust in their hospitals. Although such reactions may not be strictly logical, we are all subject to fear and anxiety, especially during times of crisis. One might argue that fear and anxiety are better countered with data and education than with a marginally beneficial mask, particularly in light of the worldwide mask shortage, but it is difficult to get clinicians to hear this message in the heat of the current crisis. Expanded masking protocols’ greatest contribution may be to reduce the transmission of anxiety, over and above whatever role they may play in reducing transmission of Covid-19. The potential value of universal masking in giving health care workers the confidence to absorb and implement the more foundational infection-prevention practices described above may be its greatest contribution.”

This says masks may reduce anxiety. But I thought they were a response to anxiety? If they make my neighbor feel better, shouldn’t I as a Christian love him enough to put one on? On one level, it makes sense that they would reduce anxiety. People feel anxious, they put on a mask, they feel less anxious. But have they actually done anything to protect them from COVID-19? The data suggest that they haven’t. Read the above quote again. You see words like “symbolic,” “talisman,” “may,” “perceived,” and “trust” (trust, like faith, is only as good as the object of that trust; if the object is untrustworthy, then that trust is worthless). So they may make the wearer feel better, but don’t offer any real protection. As Christians, we should be people of truth. To affirm someone in their mask-delusion is the equivalent of affirming a transgender that they are the gender they think they are, rather than the gender they were born as, something unthinkable for the Biblically minded Christian.

A couple more articles.

‘Masks Are Symbolic,’ say Dr Fauci and The New England Journal of Medicine (an opinion piece on the above NEJM article)

When Should A Mask Be Used | JAMA

“Face masks should be used only by individuals who have symptoms of respiratory infection such as coughing, sneezing, or, in some cases, fever. Face masks should also be worn by health care workers, by individuals who are taking care of or are in close contact with people who have respiratory infections, or otherwise as directed by a doctor. Face masks should not be worn by healthy individuals to protect themselves from acquiring respiratory infection because there is no evidence to suggest that face masks worn by healthy individuals are effective in preventing people from becoming ill. Face masks should be reserved for those who need them because masks can be in short supply during periods of widespread respiratory infection. Because N95 respirators require special fit testing, they are not recommended for use by the general public.”

So love your neighbor, and don’t wear your mask, but tell him the truth. Love your neighbor in sincerity and truth, without a mask.

Disclaimer: I acknowledge that there are some circumstances when masks should be worn, and some people who should wear them. But this post explains just one of many reasons why I am against forced mask wearing.

Atheists’ Memes Refuted: KKK

This one should have come with a “trigger warning!”

Really?? Does this one even need refuting? Does anyone seriously think the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) represents “Christian Values”? The KKK is associated with such values as white supremacism, slavery, cross-burning and hatred, NONE of which are sanctioned in Scripture. Yes, that’s right. Slavery, as it was practiced in America 200 years ago, is NOT condoned in Scripture. It would have been classified as man-stealing, which was forbidden and punishable by death under Old Testament Law. [1] [2]

Am I really supposed to believe the KKK is a Christian organization because a “Jesus Saves” banner appears in the background, and they use twist a few verses of Scripture? Jesus Himself said that many would do works “in His Name,” while not having a personal, saving relationship with Him. Jesus is clear that only by obedience to His commands can one claim a true relationship with Him. [3] And the values represented by the KKK are clearly not in obedience to the commands of Jesus, and therefore cannot rightly be termed “Christian Values.”

Many of the verses the KKK perverts to support their views of racial superiority are in the Old Testament. What they fail to take into account is that even Israel, God’s chosen nation, was not any better than any other group of people, as God specifically told them: 

“6 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth. 7 The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: 8 But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.”

Deuteronomy 7: 6-8

This passage makes it abundantly clear that the Jews are not superior to any other group of people. And if God’s chosen people aren’t superior to others, what do other people groups have to brag about? The New Testament agrees that all people groups are equal in the sight of God. 

“God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth…giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us.”

Acts 17:24, 25b-27

As it relates to Christians, we are commanded to love our Brother or Sister, our neighbor [4] and even our enemy, [5] regardless of the color of their skin. A Christian who has had his heart changed and mind renewed knows that Jesus breaks down racial barriers. He exhibited outreach to Gentiles during His earthly ministry [6]; and His Apostles carry it on, as we see the progression of the Gospel going to the Gentiles in the book of Acts: from native Jews, to Greek-speaking Jews, to Samaritans, to Gentile proselytes to Judaism, to God-fearing Gentiles, then to pagan Gentiles. In short, the Gospel is for all; and in Christ, all barriers are torn down, including and especially racial barriers.

“Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.”

Ephesians 2:11-18

In heaven, we will not be separated by ethnicity, class, or anything else that currently divides us. But people of all colors will be around the throne of God worshipping Him forever.

“After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; and cried with a loud voice, saying, ‘Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb’…And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? And whence came they? And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. ANd he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.”

Revelation 7:9-10, 13-15

There will be no ghettos in heaven! [7]

I’ll leave you with a few more Scriptures.

We love him, because he first loved us. If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.

1 John 4:19-21

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Galatians 3:28

Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.

Colossians 3:11

Every life matters!

Footnotes 

[1] Deuteronomy 24:7

[2] For more on slavery in the Bible, see this link. https://carm.org/slavery

[3] See Matthew 7:15-27

[4] Matthew 19:19 and 22:39

[5] Matthew 5:44

[6] Luke 4:24-27, Mark 7:26

[7] I mean “ghetto” in its classic, non-disparaging meaning of an area consisting of predominantly one ethnicity, NOT in its slang or offensive usage.