March 2024 Devotionals

14 March 2024

Plan Seed Now

Today on the M’Cheyne Bible Reading chart you’ll read Ex 25, Prov 1, Jn 4, and 2 Cor 13. Here are some brief comments on John 4. In between his teaching to the woman at the well and the healing of a nobleman’s son is a brief interlude on the harvest. Jesus is teaching his disciples spiritual truth. Here are some basic nuggets of truth. First, stop waiting on the harvest it is ready now. Stop procrastinating and making excuses. The time is now. Second, the harvest is a joint effort. We are not competing. Some sow and other get the blessing of reaping. You may never get to see the fruit of your efforts. Lastly, your efforts will continue what others have already begun. Our secular society is quickly becoming an unreached people-group that has no concept of the saving gospel of Jesus Christ. Jesus sows and this chapter shows three explicit results of sowing where you can. It called believe in Jesus Christ. 

13 March 24

How Do I Enter the Kingdom of God???

Today on the M’Cheyne Bible reading plan you’ll read Ex 24, Job 42, Jn 3, and 2 Cor 12. Here’s some brief encouraging comments from John 3. This passage is famous for a Jewish leader Nicodemus coming to Jesus by night (2). This passage sort of divides nicely between two aspects of salvation. In this context, multiple parallel ideas for this happen: “see the kingdom” “enter the kingdom” “have everlasting life” “might be saved” and “not condemned.” Historically, this idea has been divided into two aspects: the new birth and saving faith (personal responsibility). On one side there is the concept of being born again (or born “from above”). The emphasis being God must do this because it is a gift and something mankind cannot do (3, 5, 😎. On the other side there is the exercising of saving faith “believe” “cometh to the light.” Saving faith is the responsibility of everyone “whosever.” It is also a lifelong idea that requires perseverance “believing” (a present tense verb that must continue) (15, 16, 18, 36). It is the imperative of all to believe “in the name of the only begotten Son of God” (18). Eternity with God is the blessing and eternity without God is the condemnation (15, 16, 36).

Bill & Bob Baptist Discuss what is a Baptist

The personal and corporate expressions of exegetical, theological, and practical Antinomianism

The Exegetical, Theological, and Practical Expressions of Antinomianism (both personally and corporately) (Part One)

Introduction

    Christians of all people should be the ones who can get along the most.  Sadly, interpretations and applications of the Scripture itself is what causes divisions. Not only these areas but the way we identify and respond to those who disagree is another problem entirely. Just consider what you think to be essential and nonessential theological positions and how our consciences interact with one another, especially in regard to the law. Personally, I would rather have the scriptures in my own language, regardless of if its resultant disagreements, at least I can read a Bible for myself.  So again, in the spirit of Romans 12:18, "as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men," instead of labeling people with ad homiems let's wrestle through the nuances of Antinomianism. 

    So, before we can begin any discussion of an idea or disagree on its applications, we need to have a definition of the term. It is much easier to fabricate a definition and accuse others of sinning against my own contrived definition either in belief or practice or simply to fire off ad hominem attacks, but I'd rather wrestle with the text. Here is part of the problem, emotionally charged terms like lawlessness, legalism, antinomianism, license, or worldliness are very nuanced and don't apply consistently across the board. However, our mission today is to discuss the concept of antinomianism. On a basic level, you can see it is a compound word combining "anti-" and "nomian."  The first idea should be simple: "anti" means to be "against" something. The second term is a transliteration of the Greek term for "law" or "custom." But is that really helpful? Antinomian means to be against law. In a way it means "lawlessness." Still not all that helpful but a decent starting point. The scriptures themselves identify this term "law" with multiple nuances--the entire Old Testament, part of the Old Testament, or maybe even the Ten Commandments explicitly, to suggest a few.

    I would like to suggest being most helpful we need a nuanced understanding of the terms such as Legalism and Antinomianism. Historically, we have wrestled with understanding "law" in nuanced fashions such as a civil, ceremonial, and moral law. Even this understanding creates push back that the law must be understood as all or nothing (see James 2:10, "offend in one point, he is guilty of all") or defined in a manner in which Christ fulfilled it, "For Christ is the end of the law" (Rom 10:4). But there must be some more nuances or principles behind it because the "law" is still referenced hundreds of times by New Testament writers. So, I would like to suggest this concept of Antinomianism can likewise be understood in a nuanced fashion from a Biblical perspective. I think we have room to argue here since the term does not show up in the scriptures and we need to do a better job than simply accusing other Christians of obeying and/or applying less verses than I do (be it decalogue, Mosaic law, or Old Testament as a whole). I do wish to take Christ's warnings seriously from Matthew 5:19, "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach me so, he shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven...." So, I would like to tread carefully before I thrown out about 2/3 of my Bible or say it doesn't matter or apply to me in 2023.

Argument Proper

    With that introduction and basic understanding of law and some of its nuances I would like to suggest based on the title of this article at least three nuances to the concept of Antinomianism. And I think you'll see there is more to grasp than simply saying "against law." These three categories are exegetical, theological, and practical Antinomianism. It would not be fair to call someone an Antinomian without nuancing what I actually mean especially since I know there are good and godly Christian people holding to other positions on this issue than myself. That in itself should cause me to want to, even if we don't always, show charity toward other Christians in this area. And as we shall see the terms: antinomianism and legalism are closely the opposite sides of the same coin.

I must admit to a degree, definitional nuances are almost like splitting hairs but for our purpose it is necessary. Let's define our three aspects and focus on each individually. Worst case I don't want to be accused of definitional hedging, which is always a danger, but here we go. First, exegetical antinomianism is an understanding of law which sees the law like a dimmer switch. Second, theological antinomianism is an understanding of law which sees the law like an on/off switch. Lastly, practical antinomianism is an understanding of law in which a person is living without law. The greater struggle I hope to show is that these categories overlap and there is a point in which a person's relationship to the law also parallels their relationship to Jesus Christ. Please understand I will unpack the three categories giving each a separate and fuller explanation and I will do my best to reference modern day authors wrestling with these issues.

Exegetical Antinomianism

First, what does an exegetical antinomian look like? What theological positions might they oppose? This is the Christian in my diagram below in the far-left blue circle (no political association just for example purposes). To this person their understanding and relationship to the law (be it OT, Decalogue, imperatives, rules) functions as a dimmer switch. A dimmer switch by reminder can be turned on but you can typically slide it up/down or left/right making changing the level of light in the room. For quick application, these Christians do believe the law does apply today but in different ways and in different nuances. Each scriptural text is interpreted and applied personally and corporately with the understanding that the law is somehow and someone still functioning today (hence in our diagram there is an overlap with those who believe the law is either on or off). And yes, this applies to both dispensationalists and covenant theologians but in different forms of emphasis, nuance, and application.

Theological Antinomianism

Second, what does a theological antinomian look like? How do they view their relationship to the law. Back again to our diagram, the theological antinomian is the Christian in the center circle (the one in red). Please note according to the diagram, a theological antinomian tends to view the law as an on/off switch. Simply put the law is still in effect or it is not. Please note also that those of this understanding overlap two different positions. One, they overlap the exegetical antinomian to their left and the practical antinomian to their right. Again, this position as we will discuss in future articles has an interpretive grid providing for convenient applications such as "that was for Israel" or "this applies to the church" way of thinking. Please note also this grid has a 2000-year bridge to cross. Just like the dispensationalist and covenant theologian they still have to wrestle with what can be identified with labels such as: descriptive, prescriptive, or normative. 

Practical Antinomianism

Lastly, what does a practical antinomian look like? How do they view the law? What do they think of its application to them? Refer to our diagram, the practical antinomian believes they are not under the law in any form or fashion. Please note the green circle above overlaps the theological antinomian to their left. So, there are clearly people in this camp who believe and interpret scripture as though it does not apply to them in many or most aspects of life. They may tend to minimize doctrine and emphasize more often than not that particular texts only applied to the original audience. Much of wrestling with this group will involve how we identify the overlapping portion with the red/green circles and conversely how might we tend to label those who do not overlap the red in any way. At what point do we truly and honestly start using phrases such as: worldliness, licentious, without rules, slaves to the flesh, or unbeliever.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we have discussed some introductory basics on Christianity and it's understanding of and application of the law. We've discussed the law has multiple facets: OT, decalogue, imperatives, or simply rules. This author has also started a hopefully charitable understanding of differently nuanced positions on the law: Exegetical antinomianism, theological antinomianism, and practical antinomianism. In future articles we shall wrestle honestly as possible with each positions' understandings of and application of the law.

As always thoughts and comments encouraged.

 

Doing Right: Ethically, Morally, and Legally

Doing Right: Ethically, Morally, and Legally

Introduction

Actually to discuss this topic opens the door even for Christians to discuss what actually serves as the bedrock standard for doing right: ethically, morally, and legally. More often than naught it brings charges of legalism (an over-abused term) or its converse license. Christians are actually commanded and exhorted to do good (right). Our example for these references is found in the small epistle written by the apostle Peter. But even to use these epistle as the basis implies or presupposes my standard for doing right is God's self-revelation of himself in the Bible. It does touch or bear directly into issues such as the scriptures claims of authority and sufficiency. Consider a sampling as follows,

"For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people." (1 Peter 2:15)(ESV)

"having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God's will than for doing evil." (1 Peter 3:16-17)(ESV)

"Therefore let those who suffer according to God's will entrust their souls to a faithful Creator while doing good." (1 Peter 4:19)(ESV)

For Christians to do what is good or right requires a standard. For the Christian, that unchanging standard is the Bible. Unfortunately many today are swept along with whatever standard is produced, endorsed, and punished by the prevailing culture. And yes, this ever-changing standard even for many Christians is simply their own experiences and feelings. To begin a series on this topic I would like to consider also some of following definitions for these terms. What is moral, ethical, or even legal? To be honest, even using advanced search engines for the Biblical text such as Logos, there just aren't pages of Biblical references to terms such as ethical, moral, and legal. So principles and inferences, (yes, proof texting even), might be a better option unless we simply want to resort to imposing the Moral Law (not sure that went to well in the early years for the Pilgrims and those first winters). 

Ethics as defined by The Dictionary of Theological Terms by Alan Cairns is "the science of morals." He goes on to elaborate in terms of human action: "motive" "standard" and "purpose." These three identifications he extracts from Cornelius Van Til. Barrett defines ethics in a similar manner, "the rules or standards that govern conduct." (Complete in Him: A Guide to understanding and Enjoying the Gospel by Michael P. V. Barrett, Appendix 4, p. 295). To add a third source, ethics is "the area of philosophical and theological inquiry into what constitutes right and wrong, that is, morality." (Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, by. Grenz, Guertzki, and Nordling, p. 47). Simply put the study of ethics helps us to evaluate both thoughts and actions which can be viewed as morally right and wrong.

If ethics is to involve what is moral then where can we find a standard for morals? Whatever it means to be moral is important. Cairns writes, "the moral law embodies divine directives by which God commands ... both in private and in public life." (Chariots of God: God's Law in relation to the Cross and the Christian, Alan Cairns, p. 28). I would like to expand on this definition. The moral law or even God's will for us today is found in the entirety of the 66 books found in the scriptures. If this is so true and simple then why do Christians disagree on ethical, moral, and even legal issues? Perhaps in a society with rights and privileges we as Americans don't understand having no privileges or rights. Just to complicate the matter, add in concepts such as "world view" and the individual "conscience" of each person.  

Applications to Consider

As we begin this series simply consider some examples. Where would YOU personally place them? Are there ethical, moral or even legal issues found in these examples? I am deliberately picking these examples because they are current and potentially future realities Christians can or do face.

First, should Christians obey the speed limit? Simple right? Have far above it is okay? Late for work, pregnant wife, wasn't paying attention, conscience issues, etc...? Try explaining obedience to a child who sees the speed limit sign "55 MPH." Doesn't that solve the problem? Does everyone perfectly do this? Why or why not?

Second, should I show up late for work or early? Standing around staring at you iphone (texts, emails, facebook) on work time? How about extra breaks? Longer lunches? What place do the state and federal employment policies have a say? Pay rates, injuries, and other related issues abound, but at what point do these items become issues?

Third, should Christians turn in or hand over their firearms if the government bans all firearms (not just "assault weapons" but revolvers, center fire, rim fire, muzzle loaders, etc...). No more hunting, self-defense period, not even a butter knife. Even the most peacefully and meek-appearing individual get their hackles all bent out of shape over topics like this. Imagine it as a reality--look at foreign countries where this is real. 

We could go on and one. Kids shots, doctor visits, schooling, records, military service, registering for the selective service, social security numbers, and more.... I am beginning to wonder whether some of these issues are simply character flaws or are they conscience issues? I would suggest a great many of these simply are conscience issues. You and I may disagree simply because they are not (or maybe they are) ethical, moral, and legal issues.   

Feel free to comment. I'll be working on this series for a while. 

New International Version (NIV): A Plea for Consistency from its Critics

New International Version: A Plea for Consistency from the Critics

(Series Part Two)

Introduction

My son recently purchased a green Ford Ranger as his first actual vehicle, including a manual transmission. In the process, he paid cash for the vehicle. It is a truck of course with all the bells and whistles that come with a owning a truck. Now suppose I start critiquing my son’s newly purchased truck. First, I start criticizing the fact that his truck gets less that 55 miles per gallon, is bad for the environment, and might cause someone somewhere to lose sleep about global warning. Second, suppose I also compare his truck to my red car stating my red car doesn’t blend in with the trees. Third, I get upset he can’t earn any credit for paying cash for his truck, because having good credit is so important. I can proceed to criticize his wide tires, standard transmission, or any other item that makes my car look so much better. But here’s the point: my son could have bought a car, but he didn’t. Why? He can’t put a dirt bike in the trunk of his clean red Honda Accord.

Argument

So many of the attacks against the New International Version (regardless of the year and edition). And to be fair even the ESV has undergone multiple editions (and yes the text is actually different in places). Any of the arguments used to attack or critique the NIV can easily be applied to any other English translation. Consider some examples before we look at actual examples. All these examples appear in explanations of why somebody’s church switched to the ESV. Let’s be clear though, I read the ESV every day including much Greek text study. So I’m not critiquing the ESV, NASB, or KJV, I’m making the point: let’s be consistent and not plead for double standards.  

As mentioned in the previous article, we can criticize translation philosophies of any translation (compare any two English translations: NASB, KJV, NKJV, ESV, NIV, RSV). They each will make choices and anyone can simply list all the differences with your favorite translation. Who determines what translation philosophy is more biblical? Which one “really” believes in plenary verbal inspiration? Do we really want to go down the road that only certain positions consistently believe in biblical inerrancy?  

We can identify English gloss inconsistencies in the same context as though it’s a fault. Quite frankly the same charges made toward the NIV could easily be made toward the KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, or RSV. Simply look at the underlying Greek text and see if they consistently translate the same word the same way in each context. The truth is they don’t. This is simply not consistent. This line of reasoning assumes it is best to translate the same Greek word the same way when it appears in a similar context. Obviously, multiple committees didn’t think so now or in the past.

Let’s move on to adding or subtracting words from the English text. Every English translation (NASB, ESV, KJV, NKJV, and NIV) includes phrases and/or terms they think best reflects the underlying Greek or Hebrew text. The NIV and obviously any English translation which did chose the words you would have used is of course wrong. Add to many words: wrong. Don’t use enough words: wrong. You lose both ways. No one maintains a word for word pattern. No one can win with this everchanging standard. Can we at least admit we simply compare their favorite English translation with the NIV? If we want to list all the additions and subtractions, let’s at least be consistent and list the ones in your own pew or pulpit.

This is the last one I’ll address in this article. The charge is simple: Preaching is just not as easy with the NIV. This is actually contrary to the very reason the NIV translators produced the NIV. Older translations were harder to understand for preaching and evangelism. To be fair and accurate, I’ve listened to scores of sermons from multiple churches and preachers and this critique is just not fair. Thousands of sermons are listened to each year, all claiming to be expository sermons. Quite frankly the English text they used for their sermon outline, preaching applications, or even illustrations had nothing to do with the underlying text. I’m actually surprised to see the number of supposedly expository sermons which go no further than quoting scripture or simply rereading sections of the text. This argument is simply not consistent.

Conclusion

None of the complaints made toward the New International Version are consistent. They could easily be applied to any English translation of the Bible. Translation philosophy is simply a straw man to attack. Using more words or less words in a translation is simply not consistent. Finally, based on hundreds of sermons I’ve personally heard from evangelicals themselves, the exact text wording has no effect on the outcome of their supposedly expository sermons. Thus far I have been less than impressed with the inconsistently applied standards for attacking or critiquing the New International version. But don’t worry we’ll still address the so-called gender-neutral attack on the NIV. Whatever standard we use to criticize the NIV is fair game to also criticize the chosen preferred translation of others. We’ll see how well they stand up.

  

A quest to interact with the best-selling English Translation: the NIV (New International Version) (Part One)

Introduction

One English translation which since its introduction to the English-speaking world in the 1980s (1984) has outsold every other English translation including the KJV, ESV, and NASB is the New International Version (NIV). Like it or not these are simply Publisher facts and reality. Unfortunately this English translation, whether popular or not, has been the whipping post for some in conservative evangelical circles and even in Fundamentalist churches since this time. It is the purpose of this thread to evaluate the theology, understandability, and other related issues of this top-selling English Bible translation. To do this, several issues must be addressed, including its adherents and attackers (to include what is their strongest arguments) against it.  But before we start I really want to challenge folks: what drives Bible translation? What is the motive for Bible translation? Consider some options concerning translations (1) is the purpose to rigidly adhere to and be scrutinized by how well you follow a particular translation philosophy (2) or better yet, is the purpose to put the Bible (God's word) into the language of the people so they can understand what God says and requires of them (Justification, Sanctification, etc...). And yes, this second point can run wild especially when translations are produces by individuals and not by committees providing accountability across denominational lines. 

My Argument

So here's the following plan of offense/defense (to use an Army understanding):

First, what is the purpose of a Bible translation. The question is not what you think the purpose is or is not.  Nor is the question what translation philosophy you think is best (which ultimately serves as a straw man) to attack other English translations not matching your selected choice (word for word, thought for thought, etc...). So here's my stab at a working definition for Bible translation, and hopefully not to commit a fallacy of definition hedging.  Definition: The PURPOSE (emphasis mine) of Bible translation is to put the original languages (by God's sovereign choice) (Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic) into any and every spoken language possible (in the most understandable manner) that any and every language may know who God is and what he expects of them (in their own language). Consider the Encyclopedia Britannica's definition of translation, "the art and practice of rendering the Bible into languages other than those in which it was originally written." Note the similarity, we are taking the words in one language and "rendering" them in another different language. 

Second, and related to the first point above, the vast majority of attacks thrown at the NIV (outside the KJV-only) camp is to attack the translation philosophy employed by these men. Perhaps even a sidebar ad hominem attack at them or other issues. These we'll address with facts and their own words in defense. If the goal of translation, as stated above, is to understand the underlying Greek and Hebrew text, then what would you do? Consider your options: (1) keep a wooden word for word order (no one consistently does this); (2) keep a thought for thought; (3) or perhaps do your best to explain faithfully idioms, phrases, and the meaning the best you can? How about denominational or theological bias? To be clear and to be academically honest, all English translations employ these concepts. And yes it might even surprise you that your favorite English Bible translation even dips into the world of gender-neutral translation (regardless of whether its cool or not). Again, concerning translation philosophy, Jesus, the four gospels, and all the epistle writers (55 times total) quoted from the Septuagint (LXX), freely and without reservation. How good was that translation or the philosophy behind it? 

Third, the text and translation issue, as much as I appreciate the motive, intent, and product of pastors and laymen to free people from the grip of false teaching in this area, I am concerned that we are creating artificial standards to poke fun at or criticize English translations we personally don't want to use, or don't want others to use, either in translation philosophy (see above); associations (a major whipping post), or later on how they translate hotly charged gender issues (as if that is the new standard of conservative translations). And yes we will address these issues showing how they are used to misrepresent the theology of this particular English translation. I would challenge anyone to read the personal motivation behind the writing of the NIV. 

Conclusion

So again the plan of attack is to address these three issues. By way of reminder (with slightly different wording):

(1) Is there a potentially false understanding of what Bible translation actually is or what makes or is necessary to be a good translation (even by men who are well-intended) battling against the grip of false English only positions? Avoiding one extreme only to embrace another extreme is not helpful. Neither is it helpful to paint these issues as "either...or" arguments. 

(2) Is there a potentially false understanding of which Bible translation philosophy is best, more accurate, or more God-pleasing? Or are these standards artificially designed to limit or to self-profess which English translations are authoritative? Typically this takes the form of labeling certain translations and "conservative" and others not.  

(3) Is there a possibility for fundamentalists to use the same strategies used against music, denominations, or other issues to paint these same "guilt by association" tactics against the most well-read and most sold English translation? Is it possible even for conservative evangelicals could borrow a page from this play book to attack gender issues or a combination of the above points?

(4) I also wish to show from the text itself, that no orthodox theological doctrine is lost.  No cardinal fundamental of faith is skewed or hidden in the NIV. This includes every category of systematic theology found in any reputable theological textbook.

(5) Finally, the vast majority of churches, denominations, and even well-known pastors (which you listen to already) use the New International Version occasionally and you probably didn't even know it when you listen to their sermons. Sadly, personalities tend to be more important than actual facts.

Read. Enjoy. Comment. Be informed.

A Review and Recommendation of The Ology: Ancient Truths Ever New By. Marty Machowski

The Ology: Ancient Truths Ever New
By Marty Machowski

A Review on Reformed Forum is available here.
A Review at Redeemed Reader is available here.  

The Author's site and other available books are available here. 

My family just completed all 71 chapters in 2019 during our family worship time. The book was originally published in 2015. It is sprinkled with beautiful illustrations. Some funny and some more serious. The topics covered cover the full spectrum of really any systematic theology textbook. It can easily be used for children of all ages. I am including a basic breakdown of the table of contents. An excellent gem and highly recommended for children.

Table of Contents

The Ology of God (Chapters 1 thru 8)

The Ology of People (Chapter 9 thru 11)

The Ology of Sin (Chapters 12-19)

The Ology of the Promise and the Law (Chapters 20-26)

The Ology of Christ (Chapters 27-35)

The Ology of the Holy Spirit (Chapters 36-38)

The Ology of Adoption into God's Family (Chapter 39-44)

The Ology of Change (Chapter 45-51)

The Ology of the Church (Chapters 52-58)

The Ology of the End Times (Chapters 59-65)

The Ology of God's Word (Chapters 66-71)

The book also includes review study questions for each chapter in a Question and Answer format. It also includes a small glossary of terms that you may or may not know. 

Amazon's Summary: 

The Ology by best-selling children's author Marty Machowski is a stunningly illustrated beginner's theology book to help kids of all ages understand who God is and how we, as his children, relate to him.

Arranged within a traditional systematic theological framework, each truth in The Ology is also connected to the larger redemptive story of Scripture. This storybook of systematic theology takes abstract concepts in the Bible and makes them easier to understand with the use of creative examples, illustrations, and analogies.

The Ology is a starting point to learning theology and aims to create a hunger and desire in children to learn more as they grow older. Designed for six-year-olds through preteens, this flexible resource includes built-in adaptations so the entire families can enjoy it together.

The story begins in the cellar of the old stone cathedral, where Carla and Timothy uncover a life-changing treasure: a carefully wrapped, ancient book known as The Ology. Young readers will discover a tale of adventure, mystery, and wonder, which will lead them to the truth about God, themselves, and the world around them.

As a father to six children, Machowski knows how to intentionally create a vivid resource, full of analogies and word pictures to help kids grasp difficult theological concepts. Read The Ology to preschoolers; read it with grade-school kids, and let older kids discover the "hidden" truths by reading the corresponding Scripture passages for each section.

However you read it, The Ology will give your children a gift that will last a lifetime—a solid foundation of transformative biblical truth that will point them to the God who loves them and gave himself for them.

There is also a companion album to The Ology by Sovereign Grace Music that celebrates these wonderful theological truths through worship music that the whole family can enjoy.

An excellent book and worthy of reading.

Again, read, comment, enjoy.