Sad day in World Football

Please allow me this interjection. The world of football is taking a hit today with the announced retirement of Pierluigi Collina, aka the world's greatest ref. The true "Italian Stallion" made an extremely classy and upstanding move in retiring when he did. He signed an endorsement deal with a company that also supports Serie A powerhouse AC Milan. The likelihood of challenges to fairness and the conflict of interest led him to his decision.

He was an imposing figure. His authoritative, "You will not walk over me," stare made all else stop until he said they could continue. I remember watching him call a foul, but instead of running after the guilty party, he would stand, stare at the felon, and simply use his finger to call them over. Like obedient children to a father you just did not mess with, the players would go to him, many times with their heads hanging down. Collina was accurate and fair. He could see everything going on, and would let the players play the game. He had a perfect balance between control of the rules and the fun of the sport.

I will miss his presence in next year's World Cup.

James White v. John Dominic Crossan

Tomorrow night, James White and John Dominic Crossan will hold a debate on the question, "Is the orthodox, Biblical account of Jesus of Nazareth authentic and historically accurate?" I am sure within a month after the debate, audios and videos will be available.

For more information, click here: The 2005 Alpha & Omega National Conference

On the images of White (left) and Crossan (right), I did not have a larger one of White, plus in color, intentionally. Similarly oriented images of Crossan are not available on the web, as far as I could find when I wrote this. Of course I would be more aligned with the position of White, a Calvinist (Hey, like me!), but that has nothing to do with the images I posted. If you take exception, let me know.

Papal Brew

See, this is just too funny. This is posted at professorbainbridge.com. It gives new meaning to the popular bumper sticker you see around town, "Papas & Beer."

Taking up your cross and Mark viii

This Thursday our Home Fellowship will go over the first half (verses 1-23) of chapter vii, and next Thursday we'll cover the second. The following week (unless the Lord chooses to turn us a different direction that week; it happens) we will start into chapter viii. I will be facilitating the discussions in that chapter, so I thought I would delve into a particular portion of the chapter here, to develop some thoughts and ideas.

As a whole, chapter viii can be looked at in five parts, some larger, some smaller. In 1-10, Mark brings up the feeding of the 4,000. In 11-13, there's a condemnation of the Pharisees for seeking a sign. 14-21 discusses a teaching of Christ on leaven and the lack of understanding the His disciples, who have already been called apostles (οι αποστολοι, hoi apostoloi), had with respect to what Christ was doing and Who He was. In 22-26 there's another healing by Jesus, of a blind man in this case, and yet again in a different way than He healed other people. We then reach verses 27-38.

And Jesus went on with his disciples to the villages of Caesarea Philippi. And on the way he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that I am?" And they told him, "John the Baptist; and others say, Elijah; and others, one of the prophets." And he asked them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter answered him, "You are the Christ (Συ ει ο Χριστος)." And he strictly charged them to tell no one about him.

And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things (πολλα παθειν) and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again. And he said this plainly. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. But turning and seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said, "Get behind me, Satan! For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man." And he called to him the crowd with his disciples and said to them, "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me (Ει τις θελει οπισω μου ακολυθειν, απαρνησασθω εαυτον και αρατω τον σταυρον αυτου και ακολουθειτω μοι). For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it (και του ευαγγελιου). For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? For what can a man give in return for his life? For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

While the two paragraphs break the section into different parts, this as a whole is an awesome section of Mark's Gospel. After asking His disciples who they think He is, He teaches them for the first time about the suffering He will endure, as well the suffering they must accept for His sake. "The Christ" told the people if someone wants to follow (or "come after") Him, first that person must deny himself (απαρνησασθω εαυτον, aparnesastho heaton), then take up his cross (αρατω τον σταυρον αυτου, arato ton stauron autou) and follow Him.

To deny yourself is to say "no" to yourself; to refuse or utterly reject yourself. Following Christ is not about what you want or desire, or even the preservation of your own life. Remember that Christ is saying this in response to Peter's attempt to rebuke the Lord for talk of His suffering and death. Peter tried to pull the Lord away from His cross, His destiny, and deny God. On the contrary, we must deny ourselves. The Christian life is not about conquering or gain, but about utterly rejecting yourself for the sake of Christ.

The cross is, in my opinion, one of the ideas in the Gospels so often misinterpreted and misapplied in today's American Church. Let me be very clear: the cross is no mere burden or struggle. When Christ said, "take up your cross," he by no stretch of the imagination meant, "carry your burdens" or "be vigilant in your struggles." The cross is not your financial lows, car accident, five children, 9-5 job you can't stand, wheelchair, or hearing aids. The cross was known by the disciples and the crowd as a way of execution. They knew to be crucified was to be humiliated (likely naked) and in sheer pain (from the nails and broken bones) while suspended for days until you asphyxiated. The cross signified suffering and death. Jesus had just talked about His own suffering and death. The cross for His followers stems from the denial of the self. That denial results in true affliction and suffering, and possibly even in death. That cross we must agree to carry is that affliction and suffering. And if you have denied yourself, you will not lay that cross down. This is not the nicey-dicey Christian persecution most Americans will suffer, e.g. your boss tells you take take the Bible off your desk, or to change the radio station from that Christian talk or music.

Please do not be misled by the addition of "daily" in Luke ix.23. "Take up," αρατω, is in the aorist tense, meaning an action in the past. He is not saying, "Take up your cross one day, then lay it down at the end. The next day, take it up again." You take up your cross, and each day you carry it. You can never lay down the cross as a follower of Christ. You persevere and endure in your afflictions and suffering, even if that cross takes you to Heaven.

The confessors and martyrs of the early centuries of the Church, the Church of the persecuted, knew all too well what these words of Christ meant. They suffered immense persecution for denying themselves and calling themselves followers or disciples of Christ. Many were killed; them we call martyrs. Many others were allowed to live; they are known as confessors. These confessors were left most of the time with a personal stigmata, whether it was an eye having been gouged out or a severed limb, etc. They took up their cross proudly, but not for themselves. They did so for their Master, as Peter and the Apostles did in Acts v.41.

After, Jesus said, "For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it." Those who save their lives, who do not deny themselves, who hold on to what they have and who they follow now, will lose their life. Their life will not be saved. But those who deny themselves, who give up their lives for the sake of Christ and the Gospel, will save their lives. Here again the Church of the martyrs exemplified and amplified the words of Christ. They rejected themselves for Christ and the Gospel, and though their physical life was taken, their true lives were saved. Their crosses took them to heaven.

KJV Humor

Here's a little KJV humor (especially if you're a KJV Only kind of guy, or gal), courtesy of Dan Wallace, via Better Bibles Blog. Enjoy!

One of the ironic facts about the KJV is that it is impossible to honestly speak about the first printing, because there never really was a first printing! “The revision and correction process began immediately in 1611, … even before the first printed edition was completed and put together. The pages of these two editions [the actual first edition and the corrected second edition]… seem to have been accidentally mixed before either was assembled and bound.”¹⁴

Thus, the first edition of the KJV is actually more of a first-and-second-edition hybrid. But there are ways to tell whether one possesses a ‘first-second’ edition or a completely second edition. I won’t go into those details here. I have seen what is probably the finest example of the so-called ‘first’ edition of the KJV surviving today. It is part of a private collection in Texas.

Besides these two editions, the Authorized Version went through at least two more in the first year alone. In the first three years, it actually went through fourteen minor editions due to the frequent mistakes in the process of translating, revising, and printing. But these are not really revisions by today’s standard. Two larger overhauls were completed in 1629 and 1638. Within fifty (50) years “the need was presented and an effort was made to officially revise [it once] again”—this time more thoroughly than the previous two revisions. But Parliament decided not to act on this impulse when Charles II ascended the throne in 1660. The shifts of the political winds thus stymied the third revision of the KJV. It would not undergo a major revision again for 100 years. In 1762 and 1769, the KJV was revised for a third and fourth time.

Altogether, nearly 100,000 changes have been made to the 1611 KJV. The vast bulk of these are rather minor (mostly spelling and punctuation changes), but in the least this fact shows how impossible it is today for any church or any Christian to claim, “We read only the original 1611 King James Version of the Holy Bible”!

With all the revisions made to this translation over the centuries, printer’s errors were bound to creep in. Even though the goal was to eradicate all mistakes, every printing of the KJV added more!

For example, in 1611 the so-called ‘Judas Bible’ was printed: In Matt 26.36, the KJV says that Judas came with his disciples to a place called Gethsemane—even though Judas had already hanged himself in the previous chapter!

The very first edition of the Authorized Version is the ‘Basketball Bible’ because it speaks of ‘hoopes’ instead of ‘hookes’ used in the construction of the Tabernacle.

A 1716 edition has Jesus say in John 5.14 “sin on more” instead of “sin no more”!

The next year, the famous ‘Vinegar Bible’ appeared; this name was attached to this printing because the chapter title to Luke 20 was “The Parable of the Vinegar” instead of the “Parable of the Vineyard.”

In 1792, Philip, rather than Peter, denied his Lord three times in Luke 22.34.

Three years later the ‘Murderer’s Bible’ was printed: It was called this because in Mark 7.27 Jesus reportedly told the Syro-Phoenician woman, “Let the children first be killed” instead of “Let the children first be filled”!

In 1807 an Oxford edition has Heb 9.14 say, “Purge your conscience from good works” instead of “Purge your conscience from dead works.”

A printing of the KJV in 1964 said that women were to “adorn themselves in modern apparel” instead of “modest apparel” in 1 Tim 2.9.

But none of these printing mistakes can equal the Bibles of 1653 or 1631. These are the two ‘Evil Bibles’ of the King James history, for they both left out the word ‘not’ at key junctures. The 1653 edition—known as the ‘Unrighteous Bible’—said “the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of God” in 1 Cor 6.9. And the 1631 edition, the infamous ‘Wicked Bible,’ wrote the seventh of the ten commandments as “Thou shalt commit adultery”!

The Wicked Bible was such an embarrassment to the Anglican Church that the archbishop ordered the Bibles to be burned, and he fined the printer, Robert Barker, 300 pounds—no small sum in those days. Barker, who had been the king’s printer since the Authorized Version came out, died fourteen years later in debtor’s prison.

Not only have there been these occasional but bizarre printing mistakes, but several errors in the 1611 edition have never been changed. For example, in both Acts 7.45 and Heb 4.8 the name “Jesus” appears when Joshua is actually meant! Hebrews 4.8 in the Authorized Version says, “For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.” The passage is saying that although Joshua brought his people into the promised land, he could not give them the eternal rest that they needed. But by having “Jesus” here, the KJV is thus saying that Jesus was inadequate, that he was not able to save his people from their sins. In Greek, both ‘Joshua’ and ‘Jesus’ are written the same way— jIhsou'". The issue is not one of textual variant, but of inattention to the details of the interpretation of the text.

Or consider Matt 23.24 the Authorized Version reads, “Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.” The Greek text here means to “strain out a gnat”—not “at a gnat.” Jesus’ point is the same as what he says in Luke 6.41— “Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye?” The religious leaders focused on the tiny problems of others without taking care of the big issues in their own lives.¹⁵

Now, please understand: I am not listing these errors to make fun of the KJB! But I also don’t want anyone to have the illusion that it is a perfect translation. No translation is perfect—not the KJV, not the RSV, not the NIV, not the NET Bible.

In fact, just to play fair, allow me to mention an error that made its way into the second printing of the NET Bible, New Testament, in 1998. This translation has more notes in it than any other Bible in history. There are half a million words of notes for the New Testament alone! And at one of them, the typist accidentally hit a second ‘s’ when he wrote the conjunction ‘as.’ I won’t spell it out for you, but you can well imagine the name this edition of the NET Bible would be called! Not only this, but as the senior New Testament editor of the NET Bible, I have to take full responsibility for this note. Besides, I was the one who actually typed in this word!

Footnote 14: Minton, Making, 330. He adds some other fascinating information as well!

Traditions of Men

We have reached Mark vii in our Home Fellowship Bible Study. There is actually quite a bit packed into this chapter. You have more on the Pharisees, the idea that what comes out of a man is what defiles him, casting out a demon based on the answer to a question, the Jew-Gentile issue, and healing a man in a yet another different way. The first matter I am concerned with is in verses 5-9:

And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, "Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition (παραδοσιν, paradosin) of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?" And he said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men." And he said to them, "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!"

Traditions are powerful and deceptive creatures. They are extremely difficult to track down if you are not careful. While we all may carry certain biases and presuppositions, for example, which we bring into an interpretation of Scripture, a tradition is something altogether different. A tradition is a teaching or practice based on "how it's always been." A tradition is passed along over the years, changing little by little. These traditions seep into your theology and make camp. When outsiders try and get rid of the squatters, they hear the dogmatic, "Uh Uh. This is how it is."

Christ gave the Pharisees an example of what they were doing. He said

For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.' But you say, 'If a man tells his father or his mother, Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban' (that is, given to God)-- then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do. (vv. 10-13)

This practice allowed for the money to be used by the giver of the gift--that wonderful follower of God, who gave such a humble and thoughtful gift--and never reach the father or mother in need. This tradition, and a vile one at that, trumped the commandment of God. Over the centuries, as the tradition built up and kept being perpetuated, whether orally or written, later generations simply assumed the authority of the teaching. While a tradition may have started with Scripture--like all myths began with some truth--time and people (who are unwilling to go back and check the origin and validity of the tradition) cause the tradition to get out of control.

There is no difference with what is going on in today's Christendom. Traditions, regardless of the source and how they get there, can dominate our theology and practice. For example, the idea of the rapture of believers before (or during) the tribulation. This "doctrine" was created in the 19th century, but for whatever reason caught on with the majority early on and has become the dominant eschatalogical theory today. Ask a pre-tribber to find the rapture in Scripture and receive empty responses and eisegesis to no end. I used to believe a rapture absolutely because of what I was taught by others. They were taught by others also, and so forth. Another similar example is the altar call or coming forward to pray the sinner's prayer to receive salvation. Again, this is entirely based on tradition, not Scripture.

One of the complaints non-Reformed "apologists" have against Calvinists is in that title: Calvinist. I have heard several arguments from non-Reformed people that include, "They call themselves Calvinists. They choose to follow John Calvin. I will follow Christ. I'm not a Calvinist, or an Arminian. I'm a Christian." What they will say is that we Calvinists are the one's following tradition. Call yourself a Calvinist, you ipso facto follow the traditions of men. Besides the absurdity, this is far too common. What do we Calvinists say? They are the ones following the traditions of men. So, we have a constant battle. Of course I believe the Calvinist side to be correct in this debate, but that could just be my traditions talking for me.

This does not only apply to Roman Catholicism. The RCC openly embraces and instructs the fact that tradition is on par with our Bible as Scripture. Sadly, the majority of Christendom is blind and unwilling to search themselves out, and be rid of squating traditions. It's much easier to learn from a Pastor, especially if they've written a book with a fancy title, and have "Ph.D." after their name. "They know what they're talking about. Look; he even has the Greek and Hebrew!" Traditions are blinding. We need to search the Scriptures, and test everything we see and hear, but only hold on to the good (cf. 1 Thes. v.21; Ac. xvii.11).

Jesus brought the Pharisees face to face with the commandment of God, and held their traditions up to God's light of truth. Their traditions failed; that's the easy part. The hard part is deciding what to do next, when you know your traditions cannot stand by the light of truth.

Novum Testamentum on εντος υμων

Over at Novum Testamentum, Brandon Wason posted an excellent examination of the translation and interpretation of εντος υμων (entos humon) in Luke xvii.21. Read it over carefully, though it is not long at all. While I agree with Brandon's conclusion, an exploration of the debate would be beneficial.

The entry in Robertson's Word Pictures disagrees with Brandon on this.

Within you (entos humōn). This is the obvious, and, as I think, the necessary meaning of entos. The examples cited of the use of entos in Xenophon and Plato where entos means “among” do not bear that out when investigated. Field (Ot. Norv.) “contends that there is no clear instance of entos in the sense of among” (Bruce), and rightly so. What Jesus says to the Pharisees is that they, as others, are to look for the kingdom of God within themselves, not in outward displays and supernatural manifestations. It is not a localized display “Here” or “There.” It is in this sense that in Luk_11:20 Jesus spoke of the kingdom of God as “come upon you” (ephthasen eph' humās), speaking to Pharisees. The only other instance of entos in the N.T. (Mat_23:26) necessarily means “within” (“the inside of the cup”). There is, beside, the use of entos meaning “within” in the Oxyrhynchus Papyrus saying of Jesus of the Third Century (Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, p. 426) which is interesting: “The kingdom of heaven is within you” (entos humōn as here in Luk_17:21).

However I do not believe this can adequately account for the immediate context showing us that Christ is talking to the Pharisees. To say Jesus told the Pharisees "to look for the kingdom of God within themselves, not in outward displays and supernatural manifestations" is either to miss or disregard the presentation of who the Pharisees were (why would the kingdom of God be within them in any sense?) and that the kingdom of God was not presented as an inward, purely individualistic spiritual idea. While the phrase εφθασεν εφ υμας (ephthasen eph humas) is metaphorical--the kingdom of God does not literally "come upon" a person in a physical way--that empowers the idea that the kingdom is outward, among the people, not inward, within the individual. Christ was saying that He casts out demons by the power of God and therefore the kingdom of God is here.

Now, the argument could take a turn at this point. If you still believe the intended meaning is "within," υμων could possibly be in question. You would need to argue that υμων is not a direct address to the Pharisees, but a general, plural "you" intended to include everyone. Though that may be a possibility, that would also be diificult to pin down. There is still the problem of the kingdom being within everybody when you take into account everyone individually.

As with John iii.16, the dominant or popular interpretations are based on the KJV reading. Luke xvii.21 in the KJV reads "the kingdom of God is within you." Unfortunately, so many of the commentaries we have base their interpretations on the KJV. According to John Wesley's Explanatory Notes, "Look not for it in distant times or remote places: it is now in the midst of you: it is come: it is present in the soul of every true believer: it is a spiritual kingdom, an internal principle. Wherever it exists, it exists in the heart." The JFB has "is of an internal and spiritual character (as contrasted with their outside views of it)." Both of those miss the mark. What about one of my favorites: John Gill? Here's his interpretation:

for behold the kingdom of God is within you: in the elect of God among the Jews, in their hearts; it being of a spiritual nature, and lying in righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.. . . it does not lie in external works and duties, but it is an inward principle of holiness in the soul, or spirit of man, produced there by the Spirit of God, and is therefore called by his name.

I would struggle to wholly agree with that. The kingdom of God is an outward concept. While the expression of the kingdom, or what we see, begins with the people of God, the kingdom would be limited if it was not predominately outward in nature, present among the people. The kingdom is something you see. In John iii.3 Christ told Nicodemus, "Unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." If you have the kingdom within you, why would you need to be born again in order to see it? Why not just look inside?

I appreciate what Vincent's Word Studies has in it's entry:

Better, in the midst of. Meyer acutely remarks that “you refers to the Pharisees, in whose hearts nothing certainly found a place less than did the ethical kingdom of God.” Moreover, Jesus is not speaking of the inwardness of the kingdom, but of its presence. “The whole language of the kingdom of heaven being within men, rather than men being within the kingdom, is modern” (Trench, after Meyer).

The kingdom was there with Christ, in the presence of the Pharisees. The kingdom of God is among you.

Rare Jewel Magazine

Last week I received my introductory package of the Rare Jewel Magazine I will be reviewing for the next year. Rare Jewel is a relatively new, bimonthly periodical focusing their attention on restoring the idea of America's Christian foundation. The subtitle or motto of the magazine is "The Christian Patriots' Guide to Restoring our Culture." The means to that end are articles about subjects they believe every citizen should be concerned with in today's society: judicial tyranny, preserving marriage and the family, creation and evolution, abortion and so forth.

The package arrived with four magazines: the most recent issue (July/August 2005), and three prior issues (Mar/Apr '05, Jan/Feb '05, Jul/Aug '04). Each issue is thematic, selecting a topic and giving us a wide variety of articles on that topic. While the articles tend to have a decidedly Conservative American Christian bend to them, they vary in their scope and spotlight so you are not reading the same thing over and over. For instance, the most recent issue is focused on Creation. There are articles, interviews, book reviews, cartoons, editorials, news updates. One of the articles is by D. James Kennedy from Coral Ridge Ministries; another is by Kan Ham, President of Answers in Genesis. They even have an interview with B.C. cartoonist Johnny Hart (who also chimes in on the evolution debate).

The issues are very colorful; the pages are filled with images and graphics related to the article. At times the background images are too much of a distraction, even to the point of making the text hard to read. They are limited, but those distractions are there. For the most part, the magazine layout is simple and basic, which is something I appreciate. I cannot stand it when magazines break up articles, and put pieces of them on all different pages and sections. You do not start an article on page 6, and when you get to page 8 you are told to continue the article on page 25. When you flip over to page 25 you realize you passed over two articles you have yet to finish.

My position on many things associated to the relationship between Christians and America has been clearly set forth here on the blog. I definitely have a bias and my own experiences having engaged people and writings on many of the issues that will come up in future articles. I believe I can be fair in spite of my biases. I always enjoy a good, valid argument, regardless of the source and goal of that source. I am always looking to learn and grow in knowledge. I want to be well versed on the issues. The hope is that there will be some scholarly articles that will challenge me to think about some ideas, especially on the religious history of America. The Sept/Oct '05 issue will be on "The Next Great Awakening"; hopefully there will be historical writings about the original Great Awakenings.

An Article on Scripture from Karen Armstrong

Karen Armstrong write an article in Mail & Guardian Online on the topic of Scripture and how people see and use written Scripture. This is a good article, and makes several strong points. Click here to see the whole article: Mail & Guardian Online. Here is a paragraph I thought would grab some attention:

People do not robotically obey every edict of sacred texts. If they did, the world would be full of Christians who love their enemies and turn the other cheek when attacked. There are political reasons why a minority of Muslims are turning to terrorism, which have nothing to do with Islam. But because of how people read their scriptures these days, once a terrorist has decided to blow up a London bus, he can probably find scriptural texts that seem to endorse his action.

Particular Redemption in John iii.16

Instead of John iii.16 being the often championed verse (i.e. proof text) for Arminianism, this verse is quite the supporter for Particular Redemption, aka Definite Atonement, Limited Atonement. First, of course, let us have a look at the text (be sure to switch your Character Encoding to Unicode in your View menu):

For God so (ουτως) loved the world, that (ωστε) He gave His only begotten Son, that (ινα) all who believe (πας ο πιστευων) in Him should not perish but have eternal life.

The usual translation that comes to mind when you hear "John 3:16" or see the sign at a football game is the KJV's

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

The KJV translation is problematic if you are trying to grasp what the passage is saying here. Not that the KJV is wrong, but the words used are misunderstood in today's American English. Again, this is a great opportunity to use a tool for studying and knowing the Scriptures of our Lord: reading the Greek New Testament. Do you need to know Greek to rightly understand Christ's words here? Of course not. This is only an additional tool. However, if you can only read English, you need to have at least three different translations to lead you in the right direction, along with at least three commentaries coming from different theological backgrounds. That seems to be a good guideline.

Arminians, or generally those who hold to libertarian free will (e.g. Dave Hunt, Hank Hanegraaff), are very quick to jump to this verse when challenged with the idea that Christ died only for the elect. Funny thing is this verse more strongly promotes the case of the Reformed follower than it does the free-willer. Those who think a Calvinist cannot show Limited Atonement from the Scriptures should a look at this verse again. The Greek will help us; not put the nail in the coffin (of Arminianism), but be an aid.

"For God so loved the world" should not be interpreted like the Rock Church (here in San Diego) commercial I hear sometimes saying "God loves you so much." Nor should those words be understood like The Message has paraphrased: "This is how much God loved the world." The word for "so," ουτως (houtos), is not that sort of "so." ουτως refers to the manner in which God loved, or how God loved. With that understanding, "For God so loved the world," or "For God loved the world in this way" can be viewed as a setup clause of Christ, giving the motivation God had for what He did.

"that He gave His only begotten Son" should be understood in reference to the prior clause, "For God so loved the world." Christ is describing up the way God loved the world: He gave His only Son. "That" is ωστε (hoste) in the Greek, representing the start of a new clause dependent on the prior one. The idea is the action based on the motivation: God loved so He gave.

"that all who believe in Him should not perish but have eternal life" is the reason, the ultimate goal God had in mind when He gave. "That" in this final clause is not the same as "that" in the prior one. Here, the Greek word is ινα (hina) which denotes a purpose or aim. The purpose or aim of the giving of the Son, the reason God gave His Son, was not directly His love for the world, but "in order that all who believe in Him should not perish but have eternal life."

God gave His only begotten Son in order that all who believe in Him should not perish but have eternal life. This is because of God's underlying motivation: His love for His creation. He did not give because He loved. He gave because He wanted to save those who believed in Him.

But we are not done with the text yet. While we can readily see the definite atonement in this passage, a portion of this that is far too often misunderstood has to be clarified. "all who believe" is typically a new phrase for Bible readers. The phrase most everyone is used to, "whosoever believeth," causes far too many struggles when interpreting this passage. The dominant reason for the struggle is that the English language has no good equivalent to the grammar here in Greek.

The Greek construction is a participle. Literally, the translation of πας ο πιστευων (pas ho pisteuon) is either "everyone who is believing" or "all the believing ones" or "all the ones believing." Notice, this is difficult to say in English. The idea being conveyed (like in verse 15, and similarly in verse 18) is that Christ speaks about all of the people who believe in the God who gave His Son to save them. The KJV used the word "whosoever" to try and convey the message. In our American English we tend to see "whosoever" as an indefinite designation of people. On the contrary, πας ο πιστευων, "all the believing ones," is very definite indeed. Christ was not giving an invitation to whosoever would listen. There is no invitation involved. To Nicodemus, Christ made the declaration that God gave His Son in order that all who believe in Him (again notice how definite that is) should have eternal life.

Those like myself who believe in a definite atonement (limited atonement) see this verse as another link in the chain. The sweet doctrine of salvation by grace through faith is purely grounded in Scripture. This verse is part of a passage, which is part of a Gospel letter. Remember the whole when you look at the parts.

As simple a text as so many make this one out to be, there sure is a lot packed in there if you stop and take a look around. My hope is that more and more people realize this verse is not a solid foundation of salvation by free will. If you still believe that, if you believe this verse contains a open invitation to all people, let me know and show me how you arrive at your conclusion. I enjoy a quality dialogue over the text. This happens to be a great text to discuss.

Filed in: Calvinism, Grace

WHC Frend, RIP

A bit of sadness to report on this otherwise wonderful day. I learned that the great William Frend passed on to be with our Lord on 1 July. He was an awesome historian of the early church. His work Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church is an absolute must for studying martyrdom and is a blessing of information and analysis for a general study of the first centuries of the Church. Below is an article in the UK's Daily Telegraph.

__________
The Rev Prof William Frend
(Filed: 11/08/2005)

The Rev Prof William Frend, who has died aged 89, combined the roles of Early Christian historian, archaeologist and theologian in a career of such startling optimism and diversity that some were inclined to dismiss him as 'a holy fool'.

Encouraged by his Low Church inclinations and experience of digs in North Africa, he genially denied papal claims to primacy in the first centuries AD, and retained strong sympathies with those who had fallen out with Rome. Before his pre-war Oxford thesis was published as The Donatist Church in 1952, patristic scholars had generally viewed Donatism, which appeared at Carthage early in the fourth century, as a heresy which prompted St Augustine to formulate aspects of Catholic sacramental theology.

But Frend saw it as a valid theological stance which allied itself with the rural poor against their largely Catholic landlords, and he gloried in the resistance of the early Christian martyrs to Roman persecution. He further suggested that Donatism, rather than St Augustine's Catholicism, was the inheritor of the traditions of pre-Constantinian African Christianity. While such ideas about the social basis of Donatism have been qualified by subsequent scholarship, Frend's interpretation is still respected.

His Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church (1965) dealt with a wide canvas of sources from pre-Christian Jewish texts until the fourth century, though it attracted criticism from specialists. The Rise of the Monophysite Movement (1972) was a study of the opposition to the Council of Chalcedon, which defined the doctrine of the Incarnation in 451; and The Rise of Christianity (1984), covering the first six centuries of the Church, remains the most substantial work of its kind written by a British scholar for more than half a century.

For more of the article, click here: Telegraph | News | The Rev Prof William Frend

The Megachurch and Building Projects

I was just reading over a 2004 article from Outreach Magazine titled "The Exponential Church," which discussed the largest 100 churches in America. The article goes into the megachurch complex this country is in right now. This topic is near and dear to me because I was a member of a megachurch here in the San Diego area for quite a few years. I have immense concerns with the tendency for the megachurches to be about the show and presentation of the "good to you news" over and against doctrine and the forthright good news, the euangelion.

According to the article, we can define a megachurch as a local body of 2,000 attendees. As of 2004, there were over 830 such churches (over 30 with 10,000+ attendance). That gives us around 3 million churchgoers each weekend who call a megachurch their home in the US. The largest church in America, packing in over 25,000 each weekend is Lakewood Church in Houston, TX, pastored by Joel Osteen. The second largest, at just over 23,000, is lead by none other than Creflo Dollar. Then you have Rick Warren's Saddleback and (oh my!) T.D. Jakes's Potter's House. Over 18,000 each weekend go and listen to T.D. Jakes espouse his heresy, and then support him financially. But, that's not the reason for my writing this.

Lakewood Church now talks of over 30,000 people in attendance each weekend. They just completed a renovation and held a grand opening of their new facility in mid July; over 57,000 attended that. The cost was only around $95,000,000! Let me spell that one out: $95 M-i-l-l-i-o-n. Who paid for that? Well, when you have 30,000 people coming each week in a state that loves for things to be big, it is not hard to get the donations, pledges and offerings.

Sadly, such endeavors are all too common with growing churches. Some of the problems I see in all of this are a loss of focus on the gospel message, lack of growth and equipping of the local body members, and a failure to be good stewards of the offerings of the people. When you are trying to raise $95,000,000 to build a facility, you will have to spend a lot of time talking to the people about getting the money in. A lot of time! One of my previous churches was deep in a "building project" and they had to do everything they could to ask folks to make pledges, follow up on those pledges, get the tithes turned in, make special offerings, fund raisers, sales, and so on. That time horrendously takes away from the ministry of the Gospel. While you could be talking about grace, love, relationships, exhorting people to grow in their Bible study, how John vi.44 does not mean "wooing" and John iii.16 is not an Arminian proof text but a Reformed cornerstone, you are instead centering the focus on the physical church structure and infrastructure itself. Eyes and hearts are off of Christ and the people, and placed only on the cement and wood.

The people, young to old believers, are lost in the shuffle. Churches are trying to grow their numbers. Why does any one church need to have 30,000 attendees each week? Why are these people not being instructed on the ways of Christ and His mission, and sent out to do God's mighty work? In Mark's Gospel, Christ selected His twelve disciples whom He called apostles in iii.14, and by vi.30 they had already been sent out and returned to give a report. In Acts we see the continued germination of the apostolic activity, after Christ ascended and the Holy Spirit descended. Are the people of Lakewood Church waiting for Joel Osteen to die (or ascend)? Well, with the loan Lakewood will be paying off they will need as many "supporters" as possible.

As far as stewardship goes, this is a far cry from the parable of the talents. $95,000,000 on a building is properly using the money of the church? What about spending $26,000,000 to build a $6,000,000 structure? Taking the money the church body and using that to fight legal battles? That is money taken away from the international missionaries who are struggling and need major support. That is money taken away from educating members of the body who need to learn the doctrines of the Church. What about the needy in the body? Or the widows? How can you say, "Now, we only have $10,000 this year for miscellaneous needs (you know, we had to increase our pastor's salary to $200,000 this year), so speak up quickly," yet turn around and have millions set aside so each staff member can have an office space?

The megachurch phenomenon going on in Protestantism right now is dangerous. Now, do I fear a downfall for Christianity? Of course not. I do believe that many people will feel burned and hurt by what can happen in a megachurch. Sadly, so many can be truly deceived by the message of some of these churches. Getting wrapped up in the hype can cause you to lose sight of the truth. We need to keep our eyes and ears open to what is being taught in our churches, regardless of the size. But for those who are in a megachurch, be sure you are grounded in the faith and Scripture, and not just going with the flow.

Addendum: here's a good article on T.D. Jakes's Potter's House.

Elders, Pastor, Bishop: Who Should Lead the Local Church?

A topic of constant discussion and debate in today's Church is Church government: how a local church should be structured and the roles to be played by the local congrgants. One facet of particular intrigue is the debate over who should be the head of the church body. Should the church be directed by a bishop, a pastor (also can refer to a priest), or a council or plurality of elders?

The vast majority of evangelical churches have a senior pastor as the local head, then a group of other pastors: usually an executive pastor (like a vice principle) and a youth pastor; depening on the size of the church, there may be other roles to be filled by "pastors." The senior pastor is the shepherd of the people. He, or she in some cases (an update from the Barna Group in January 2004 placed female senior pastors in Protestant churches at 6% of the total), teaches on Sunday mornings as well as some nights, and has the majority of control over the direction and mission of the church. Many times a council of elders or deacons will be in place to keep the checks and balances.

My church, Grace Fellowship of San Diego, holds to the plurality of elders. We have six elders right now, and they each fill a role and do their part in and for the local congragetion. Just off the top of my head, Pheonix Reformed Baptist Church, the home of Dr. James White, holds to a plurality of elders. That model looks good, very non-democratic; shared authority, responsibility, and deserved submission and respect for each individual elder. They work as a team to support and direct the local body. One of the downfalls for a group that tries to hold firmly to this model is the tendency for the lay congregation to look toward one man as the princeps, the first among equals, and place that man as the unofficial pastor, whether or not that person plays such a role or not. The church taking the plurality of elders model stays away from putting one of the elders in any sort of superior role over the others.

Regarding such an idea, the way a local church should be organized, and who the leaders should be, and so forth, I will not pretend to be a wise man and give you my own conception of exactly how the church should be governed. I know that Christ is the head of the body, and the body is the Church. The Church is the totality of believers, who are all over the world, meeting together in relatively small, local bodies. Initially, I look to the historic Church to find how my ancestors in the faith have discussed and dealt with issues, and how they have understood Scripture and the teachings of Christ.

In a soon to be completed post, I will be discussing the position of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, martyred c. AD 107. He has played an integral role in our understanding of the era he lived and lead in. His letters are packed with teaching and guidance for the church, and wonderful exhortations as he is led to his glorious reward, as he would see it. In his letters, he left us important information about church structure at the time and what he believed to be some of the vital issues involved in keeping the church unified and strong, and able to persevere not only persecution but also heresy. The discussion will focus on the Ignatian model for the local church hierarchy. Of course, the era was slightly different then, but easily applicable to today's society.

New Look

You will notice the look of Reformatus Sum has changed. I am liking the look and feel, the color scheme and organization. Maybe some tweeks here and there will help, but this is much better than before.

The title image at the top is cool, in my humble opinion. Please, drop a comment and let me know what you think.

Soli Deo Gloria

Reformatus Sum is Changing

My posts have dropped off recently. I have been looking seriously at my choice of study, examining new and different aspects of the Church and Church History, the Scriptures, manuscripts and even textual criticism. So, in the future, posts here on Reformatus Sum will reflect more so what I will be studying. Truly, this is not a divergence from what I have been studying for years; the difference is I am becoming more focused. I am kicking out some of the extraneous stuff.

My focus will be Church History, from the New Testament to the time of Augustine. In my humble opinion, that was the most pivotal and formidable time of our Church, and a majority of Christians today neglect a proper study of our true heritage. Indeed the Reformation period was immense. There is no way to deny the importance of the fourteenth through sixteenth century period not only to the developement of Christianity, but to the effect Christianity has had on the world. However, without the strong foundation of the Early Church Fathers, and their determination, perseverance, and love of Christ and the Church during the tentative, painful decades, the Reformation would have nothing to stand on.

Overall, my study of martyrdom is all encompassing. I am examining and comparing martyrdom and persecution in the first four centuries to those of the Inquisition and Reformation era.

The Greek New Testament will play a bigger role in my study, along with the koine language as a whole as I delve into the Fathers.

I anticipate some fairly involved studies and writings. I take joy in writing, especially research papers. Heh; maybe I will even write and submit an article for a journal in the near future on Ignatius of Antioch and the role of the Bishops, Elders and Deacons. That would be exciting.

The True Beast in 2006?

I was sent notice of this new movie coming out on 6-6-06, The Beast, directed by Brian Flemming. The story follows a young girl, whose father, a Bible scholar, dissappears after discovering a dreadful cover-up by Christendom: Jesus never existed. Apprarently the cast is kept secret also, so we do not know yet who will be in the film. For some more information and even a trailer, go to thebeastmovie.com. With the controversial Da Vinci Code film due out 5-19-06, next Summer should be quite the time for talk of the Gospel message. Probably also good for the theaters.

While The Beast will be just another movie, The Da Vinci Code will be the talk of the town. After I get through the Chronicles of Narnia in prep for December's visual feast, I will dance through the historical accuracy wasteland of Dan Brown.

I still love soccer

While this evening's kick-around could have gone better, I still love the sport. I do believe I have not played as bad as I did today since my first year of learning the sport. I had no energy, my feet weren't doing what I was thinking, I thought too much instead of letting instinct and skill take control, I changed my mind mid move, my passes were weak, and I was unable to think (especially about how to get around the defence I faced). There were many opportunities and I just didn't take advantage. I started to get frustrated at my playing and it was downhill from there.

To add injury to insult, I got injured. Feels like at worst it's a minor sprain of the ankle. No swelling, so that's a good sign. But, it initially felt like someone jabbed a knife into the side of my foot, then pulled it out slowly. That's actually my first turned ankle in a few years, so you cannot blame the shoes.

Besides the injury and the pathetic play, I still had fun and love the sport. When I am able to get out there again, I will.

New post on Nachfolge Christi, on the sword

I just posted a piece on the sword and Balthasar Hubmaier's position and teaching. Have a look; but be reminded that I can get pretty passionate about things like this. Von dem Schwert

Ben Witherington: Inspired, but not Truthful

Ben Witherington wrote a very pithy yet formidable article on his blog regarding 1 Jo. iv.4-6 and the relationship between truth and inspiration. Ben Witherington: Inspired, but not Truthful

The US Christian Flag

This flag is apparently becoming a popular item in Christian circles. Here is an article from WorldNetDaily on the creation of the US Christian Flag. From the creator's website, uschristianflag.com, I found this passage:

Please become a member of the "Operation Band Together" movement by flying the National Christian Flag as a Wave Offering. The time is right for this dynamic concept. It will be effective when Christians for God and country boldly identify with Christ and each other by flying the U.S. National Christian Flag right under Old Glory to represent Christ as our foundation and Christian heritage.

In addition there is a Pledge of Allegiance that goes along with this.

I pledge allegiance, to the Christian flag, of the United States of America, and to the Lord, who made us great and free, I purpose, to band together, with all believers, to protect the truth and liberty of God.

To this she placed a disclaimer because some people were misunderstanding the use of the new pledge:

Please note: there is clearly confusion among many. This pledge, flag, and its mission is not to replace our government pledge OR Old Glory. We are NOT trying to overthrow our government or force anyone to be a Christian. We are, however, honoring our LORD and protecting our Christian heritage and liberties. We are allowed to do that under our Constitution. The State cannot dictate to our church that we may not. When that day ever comes, You and I will all be in a desperate condition. May we please agree upon that much?

I posted this more as an FYI. I will not be commenting on this. This is the first I have seen of the flag.