Evangelical Study Bibles Continued: How do they interpret Genesis Chapter One?

Evangelical Study Bibles Continued: How do they interpret Genesis Chapter One?

This is part two of a short series concerning how well-known evangelical study Bibles handle the account of creation as recorded in the historical narrative of Genesis chapter one.  Chances are you may not invest heavily in commentary sets but you may be willing to purchase a study Bible (either in paper or digital form).  It is for this very reason that we must understand what viewpoints appear in the notes.  

Our previous articles discussed the MacArthur Study Bible, the Reformation Heritage Study Bible, the Ryrie Study Bible and the Zondervan Study Bible (KJV Edition).  It would be only fair to state that the exact same notes for the KJV edition also appear in the the edition using the NASB and NIV.  So simply dismissing an English translation does not solve the problem (s) found within the study notes.

Our first stop for this article is the ESV Study Bible, General Editor Wayne Grudem.  As we shall see the notes in this study Bible clearly make room for the vast views of new evangelical scholarship within their churches and seminaries.  The study introductory and study notes don't even attempt to place a literal six-day interpretation as more favorable.  
Note on page 44, "Faithful interpreters have arguments for ...."  From here faithful interpreters can hold to the following positions "ordinary days" "a sequence of geological ages" "analogical days" or simply as a "literary framework."  So basically when it comes to the the creation account in Genesis, evangelicals can believe whatever they want.  This is patent new evangelicalism, "You call me a scholar and I'll call you a Christian."

The introductory notes continue on to make full liberty of interpretation for the many evangelicals that believe in evolution and the earth being millions of years old and the opened door for a local flood (another series forthcoming).

Concerning 1:1 they write, "This opening verse can be taken as a summary, introducing the whole passage; or it can be read as the first event, the origin of the heavens and  the earth (sometime before the first day), including the creation of matter, space, and time."  Later on they write, "The text indicates that God created everything in the universe, which thus affirms that he did in fact create in ex nihilo."

Discussion of how they describe the first six days is more fuzzy, which actually matches the all-embracing comments found within the introductory notes.  The comment, "By a simple reading of Genesis, these days must be described as days in the life of God, but how his days relate to human days is more difficult to determine."  This is a rather odd statement considering the first two humans were created on day six.  I think this is double talk to make room for broader evangelical scholars who don't take Genesis literally, don't believe in a literal Adam and Even, and the new trend of believing in death before the fall.

From here we move on to the The Reformation Study Bible, General Editor R. C. Sproul.
Unfortunately, Sproul's handling of the text fits well within the broader new evangelical landscape.  Again broad strokes will be made for the positions held by "scholars."  
The introductory notes for Genesis  don't start off very well, "The tension between Genesis and modern science about the origins of the universe and of living species is largely resolved when it is recognized that they are speaking from different perspectives."  In other words, modern evolutionary science tells us what we are to believe without ability to question to believes, motives, or assumptions.  Reading on in his introductory notes shows this conclusion to be correct.

Interestingly enough, Sproul first critiques one alternative view to holding to a literal six-day creation.  His notes on 1:2 state, "Some suggest that vv.1 and 2 refer to two separate creative acts separated by a span of time...this view is very doubtful."  He moves on from here in his notes on 1:5 to include four other positions held by "Reformed scholars."  He mentions a literal 24-hour day young earth position, a day-age theory, literal days separated by long lengths of time, and a literary framework view.  He spends the most time defending the "framework hypothesis" view and compares it to several other positions as obviously it being superior to the other positions.

Due to the lengthy overviews and warnings found in the ESV Study Bible and the Reformation Study Bible, we shall hold off on our comments for the following study Bibles.  It doesn't hurt to know what your Study Bible actually teaches in the notes before spending money on these publishing house products.  Next we will tackle the following:

The Apologetics Study Bible, Numerous Authors

The Archaeological Study Bible, General Editor Walter Kaiser Jr.

The NET Bible, Biblical Studies Press.

Hope this helps some.  Comments of course encouraged.

Music in the Old Testament: Sometimes they call it Prophecy.

Music in the Old Testament. 

Apart from terms such as praise, psalm, and other related terms, one that stands out as special in relation to music is prophecy.  For our consideration of this topic we should briefly overview First Chronicles 25.  Several points emerge from the text which can be useful when wading through the water of the current music and worship war debate.

This text is not new to the issue of music.  It will no doubt be championed by some and ignored by others.  Our main concepts for viewing this passage are two-fold: first, the appearance of the term prophecy, and second, how this term is used and abused in the context of music and worship.

Leadership and Selection

First, leadership was involved in the selection of musicians.  Notice in verse one that the sons of three men Asaph, Heman and Jeduthun were "separated" out for this purpose.  For what were they selected out?  Prophecy.  Is this foretelling the future or adding to an already completed collection of scripture?  This verse defines prophecy (at least in this context) as music with instrumental accompaniment. This musical understanding of the term is repeated in verse three.  As a side note for future articles, the musical writings (at least as has been preserved for us) by these three men have been recorded for us in the book of Psalms.  For example, note Psalm 73, "A Psalm of Asaph."  Taking into consideration that these three authors wrote Psalms (for musical accompaniment) at a minimum implies that the Psalms were meant to be sung with musical accompaniment.  This is further encouraged based on the fact that many Psalms include a specific tune for which to sing that particular Psalm. 

Content and Focus

Second, the content and focus of their music is also made known.  It was for the purpose of giving thanks and praise.  The distinct focus of the music was the LORD (Yahweh).  If this is truly a faithful means for viewing song content then the content of the Psalms should be of utmost importance to us (death, suffering, pain, praise, sorrow, history, righteousness, wickedness, sin).  There is much content in the Psalms for which we can meditate upon.  We do have 150 to occupy our singing.  Seems rather strange that most church don't sing them at all.  I think I can safely say (without refutation) that the vast majority of evangelical denominations sing songs (music) on a weekly basis (without singing one Psalm).  I would guess you would be hard pressed to find more than a handful of Psalms in your local church hymnal.

Training and Dedication

Third (and lastly), these were well-trained men.  Even the well-intended need to take note here.  Yes, lets take for granted not everyone will be able to sing well (I'd be happy if people just sang period).  Anyone who has put forth effort to produce music knows that time and effort has been put forth.  My children every week practice piano.  We pay for lessons and they practice (through much pain, suffering and woe--well, not always).  There must be something to this because God specifically mentions, "all these were under the hands of their father for song" and later "their brethren that were instructed in the songs of the LORD."

If this last one sounds kind of harsh or too restrictive, try to remember which of the twelve tribes were able to participate.  Don't forget the other eleven were not selected.  Remember this when people in 2016 squabble about gender participation and music leading.  Take note of the trends in current new evangelicalism.  Just try to apply a consistent form of regulative principle to Christian music today on the gender issue.  Are you forced to appeal to a historical narrative by desperation?  Any actual prescriptive exhortations?  1 Cor 14?  Mary?  Anna?  Deborah?  

If the text actually matters then we have some weighty ideas to consider.  From here well will turn to the ark of the covenant and the relation it has to worship and music in local churches.  Does God give actual commands and precepts for worship?  What happens when we refuse to listen?  What happens when we decide to do it our own way (even if we had good intentions)?

Hope this helps some.  Comments (as always) encouraged.

Evangelical Study Bibles and a Literal Six-Day Creation Narrative

Study Bibles and a Literal Six-Day Creation Narrative 
(Part One)

If you are an avid Bible reader then you know doubt have purchased or seen personally something called a Study Bible.  They come multiple fonts, sizes, English translations, and theological viewpoints.  It is this last comment that is our focus of attention for this article.

We should not be naive in believing that Study Bible are unbiased in their note presentations.  Don't forget the notes are not scripture they are simply notes to help the reader better understand the meaning of the text (or at least to make sure the reader understands it the way the note writer wants them to).

Some study Bible dig deep and others are rather shallow.  Some provide actual exegetical comments from syntax and grammar for actually defending a literal six-day creation week.  On the other hand, others go to great length to defend nearly every other possible interpretation of the text.

I am including a sampling of the notes from some well-known study Bibles so you the reader can see first hand the position taught and encouraged by each.  Please make careful note as to what each study Bible teaches (positively) and teaches against (negatively).  The danger enters when they simply start espousing other (acceptable positions) held by other new evangelical pastors and teachers.

Our first stop will be the The MacArthur Study Bible, authored and general editor being John MacArthur. His study notes on Gen 1:1-2:3 are as follows:
     "This description of God creating heaven and earth is understood to be: 1) recent, i.e.,    thousands not millions of years ago; 2) ex nihilo, i.e., out of nothing; and 3) special, i.e., in 6 consecutive 24 hour periods called "days" and further distinguished as such by this phrase, "the evening and the morning."  Scripture does not support a creation date earlier than about 10,000 years ago."'

Obviously The MacArthur Study Bible is a strong advocate for a young earth creationist position.  He clearly is not endorsing any possible form of day age, theistic evolution, or a gap theory.  And certainly not a multi-million year old earth.

Our next stop will be the Zondervan King James Study Bible, general editing done by Kenneth Barker.  Associate editors were Burdick, Stek, Wessel, and Youngblood.  Concerning 1:1 they write, "The opening verse is a summary statement introducing the six days of creation."  Later in the notes for 1:5 they include, "Some say that the creation days were literal 24-hour days, others that they were indefinite periods.  Several factors, however, support the first interpretation." 

It is only academically honest to say the do fill nearly three inches worth of note space for providing a defense for literal 24-hour days.  These notes do include pointing out problems with other understandings of the text.

Thirdly, we shall visit a newly published The Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible, general editor Joel Beeke.  Other editors were Barrett, Bilkes and Smalley.  Concerning 1:1 they write, "The beginning of time, space, and matter.  All cam from Him and is under His control."  Later on 1:2 they state, "What the original creation was at the beginning, not what it became.  The gap theory tries to argue original creation became corrupt, but the expression means empty and uninhabited."

So clearly they do not believe in any form of theistic evolution and take creation as six-literal days.  They also directly disagree with and refute a gap theory position.  Directly after Genesis one they include a full page article on creation which was adapted from John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion.  Later in an appendix they include a full length rendering of the Westminster Confession of Faith, which clearly stands on a literal six day, 24-hour creation week.

Fourth, we shall visit the time-tested Ryrie Study Bible, General Editor Charles Ryrie.  His introductory notes include a roughly 6500 years old timeline.  He writes against the gap theory, "Some understand a "gap" of an indeterminate period of time between verses 1 and 2, and translate "became' rather than "was."  He includes a lengthy paragraph showing the problems with this gap period position.  Later arguing against those seeing large period of time he writes, "Evening and morning cannot be construed to mean an age, but only a day; everywhere in the Pentateuch the word day, when used (as here) with a numerical adjective, means a solar day (now calibrated as 24 hours)."

Our next post shall include comments from the following Study Bibles:

The ESV Study Bible General Editor Wayne Grudem
The Reformation Study Bible, General Editor R. C. Sproul
The Apologetics Study Bible, Numerous Authors
The Archaeological Study Bible, General Editor Walter Kaiser Jr.

Hope this helps some.  Comments Encouraged. 

The Historical Adam: If Adam is not Real then Neither are the Gospel nor Scriptural Authority even Necessary



The Historical Adam:  If He's not Real then Neither are the Gospel nor Scriptural Authority even Necessary

This is an inescapable reality which New  evangelicalism must avoid at all costs.  They will tell you its okay to believe in evolution just believe the gospel.  Its okay for Genesis to be a myth just believe the gospel.  Adam and Eve never existed but just believe the gospel.  Noticing a trend yet?  Plenary verbal inspiration is not needed just believe the gospel.  Liberals on the other hand will simply deny both.  No need for a literal Adam, creation, or even the gospel.  It would probably shock you if I listed by name the new evangelical authors, seminaries, (and even preachers) who don't believe in a literal historical man named Adam.

Next question, who then decides what these non-issues are?  Second, once you compile the long list of ecclesiastical-determined secondary issues, it makes it that much easier to say only the gospel matters.  See how the logic flows.  This has been played out through history.  Let's be clear that to deny certain doctrines is not necessarily a salvation issue however, it present a very inconsistent position.  Not only this but it presents a stumbling block to those who are trying to teach the truth concerning a literal Adam and a six-day creation.

There are groups, very large groups to be fair, which want to fellowship (or for that matter extend fellowship) to anyone who will believe the limited gospel content alone.  This makes for the perfect formula to say the other issues don't matter or are of secondary importance.  Again does church history agree with this scenario?  What happens then when actual fundamental doctrines are rejected but they still believe this gospel content?  Seem far fetched?  Trinity? Incarnation? Vicarious Atonement? Plenary Verbal inspiration?  Young-earth Creationism?  It's very easy and convenient to make something secondary if the gospel become the only allowable priority.  Back to the discussion of a literal and historical person named Adam.    

Let's consider a sampling of Biblical texts connecting the salvation found in the gospel of Christ's death, burial, and bodily resurrection (as revealed in the scriptures) in close context with a literal person named Adam.  We'll consider Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15, and 1 Timothy 2.  All three of these texts refer to the Historical person named Adam.

Romans 5:14-19, "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come."
(v. 17) "For if by one man's offence"
(v. 18) "Therefore as by the offence of one"
(v. 19) "For as by one man's disobedience"

Paul's very argument in relation to salvation is based upon the reality of two federal heads (not saying everyone would agree with this understanding).  The introduction of sin into the world is through a literal historical person named Adam.  It is through his headship that all humanity sinned.  Note the parallel with Christ as head over another group of individuals.  If the parallel is lost than the Christian gospel is affected. We can't just throw this aside because some in liberal and new evangelical circles don't want to believe the scriptures.  Worse case when "conservative" evangelicals won't even acknowledge there is a problem here.  

First Corinthians 15:45-47, "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.  Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.  The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven."

Please note that Jesus Christ (the God-man, 2nd person of the Trinity), is identified as the "last Adam."  Obviously Paul had to base this title and reference based on an original person.  He also identifies the man Adam as "the first man Adam" and later as "the first man."  So whatever parallel or association Paul is making between Jesus and Adam, it is lost if there was no historical person called Adam.

1 Timothy 2: 12-13, "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.  For Adam was first formed, then Eve.  And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."

Again by the the same author a third time.  It should be clear that Paul under inspiration of the Holy Spirit believed in an original historical person Adam.  This reference I'm sure is every egalitarians favor memory verse.  Apart from how it is used and abused by liberals and feminists, the fact remains Paul's argument is based on the original creation order.  A literal Adam (male gender) was born (created) before a literal Eve (gender female).  He bases his argument on the literal and historical existence of these two individuals.  It is not based on a local Ephesian, Corinthian, or Roman context but straight back to a literal creation with a historical man named Adam.

In conclusion, this issue is simple.  Evolutionary ideas have caused liberal and new evangelical scholars to deny the historical reliability and authority of scripture.  They deny a literal creation and they deny a first literal and historical man named Adam.  This not an issue of secondary importance.  You believe scripture or you don't or you try to make it more academically, socially or culturally acceptable.  Another danger emerges when Bible-believing folks read the books and articles by these men and are influenced and drawn into their pragmatic views.

This won't solve all the problems.  But at least I can help provide a banner of warning to those concerned about these matters.  Comments again encouraged. 



Useful Resources in the Local Church Music and Worship Wars (Resources that have at least helped me).

I pray the following resources help to build up and encourage believers.  May these be resources that help Bible-believing Christians to make wise choices in the constant music and worship wars debate.

I am not listing them in any order of value or importance but simply following an alphabetical listing by book title. 


By the Waters of Babylon. (Worship in a Post-Christian Culture). By. Scott Aniol (Kregel, 2015).


***Covenantal Worship. (Reconsidering the Puritan Regulative Principle).  By. R. J. Gore Jr. (P&R Publishing, 2002).

Harmony at Home (Straight answers to help you build healthy music standards) By. Time Fisher (Sacred Music Services, 1999).


Measuring the Music (Another Look at the Contemporary Christian Music Debate) By. John Makujina (Old Path Publications, 2002.


Singing and Making Music. (Issues in Church Music Today). By. Paul S. Jones (P&R Publishing, 2006).


Sound Worship (A Guide to Making Musical Choices in a Noisy World) By. Scott Aniol (Religious Affections Ministry, 2010).


The Battle for Christian Christian Music (2nd Ed.) By. Tim Fisher (Sacred Music Services, 2004).


The Beauty of Holiness (A Guide to Biblical Worship) By. Michael P. V. Barrett (Ambassador International, 2006).

The Worship of the English Puritans. By. Horton Davies (Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1997).

Treasury of Great Hymns and their Stories.  By. Guye Johnson (BJU Press, 1986).

***What to Listen for in Music. By Aaron Copland. (New American Library, 2009; McGraw-Hill, 1939).

Worship in Song. (A Biblical Approach to Music and Worship). By. Scott Aniol (BMH Books, 2009).


Why Johnny Can't Sing Hymns. (How Pop Culture Rewrote the Hymnal). By. T. David Gordon. (P&R Publishing, 2010).


(Note of caution: Several texts are written by authors holding to positions on music and worship contrary to what this author considers correct.  I would deem these to be less helpful in coming to a Biblically-conservative and theologically accurate position on this issue.  ).***

Hope this is helpful to someone out there.  Comments encouraged.

The God-Ordained hymnal: The Psalms. God does have a say in this matter.

The God-Ordained Hymnal: The Psalms

It appears as though God does have a say in what text and tune should be used by God's people for worship.  God did provide his people with a hymnal of his own choosing and arrangement.  He provided his people a 150 page (chapter) hymnal.  I can just imagine trying to do this today with a scroll.  The worship/song leaders stands up and says, "Please roll your scroll to Psalm 118."   Can you imagine how long that would take?  Imagine a synagogue full of people rolling their scrolls.  Praise the Lord for the invention of codex.

Just consider a standard page found in an English text Bible.  I turn to a Psalm, let's say Psalm four (150 to choose from). As you quickly glance at the text you see several things. First, a title in bold font Psalm 4 or perhaps Psalm Four (most likely it says Psalm 4).  But look right below that title for Psalm 4.  There's some more information provided for us.  Second, we have the person or sometimes the group for which this psalm was written.  Not on that but many psalms (like this one) include either the musical instrument intended for it, the musical tune, or perhaps even the mood by which it is to be sang or played.  Lastly, many psalms include the human author who wrote under divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit, in this psalm specifically it is called a psalm of David, perhaps Asaph, or maybe we don't no specifically who wrote it.

Perhaps your thinking well that was just added by the translators or by a publishing house.  Think something similar to reading the gospels and the two color font used by some publishers.  The color red denotes the publishers aid to the reader in distinguishing when Jesus is speaking and when his is not.  Here's a point of similarity.  The font whether red or black in an English translation is based on an underlying Greek text.  Question: is there any underlying Hebrew text for these titles and related introductory information?  Check out a Hebrew Old Testament text or find and interlinear.  When you look at the text in Hebrew where is verse one?  Do you translate this way, "Hear men when I call"?  Or do you translate it, "to the chief musician on Neginoth"?  Where is verse one and verse two?  Is there an interesting change occurring between Hebrew and English?

This not the only place in the Old Testament where this concept appears.  Consider also a text like Habakkuk chapter three. Verse one, "A prayer of Habakkuk the prophet upon Shigionoth."  Sounds like many of the psalms.  But look also how chapter three ends, "To the chief singer on my stringed instruments " (v. 19).  Oh, and by the way, there is Hebrew text underlying both of these verses.

One more little piece of evidence remains.  The little word Selah.  The meaning at present is not as important as when it appears.  It occurs to my knowledge 74 times in the Old Testament.  The number itself is not that important either.  When and where does it appear?  Only two books in the entire Old Testament.  Three times in Habakkuk chapter three and guess where else?  The book of Psalms, the God-ordained hymnal.

Perhaps there is more evidence for God determined text and tunes than you might have imagined.  What happens when we sing the Psalms?  Are we singing a text and tune which God chose?  Do you you think God would have chosen tunes that are described as worldly or flesh-arousing?  Let us also remind ourselves historically, that many within church history rejected and opposed the creation of hymns (and a hymnal for that matter).

Here's where another battle begins.  This is apart from the God doesn't care about the tune crowd.  Or God consider's all cultures neutral crowd.  Even to suggest otherwise to many evangelicalism smacks of a warped definition of cultural superiority or racism.  We don't have the exact tune preserved in the text for us.  What do you think a holy and reverent God would choose?

Hope this helps some in this matter.  Comments and questions encouraged.

Ark Exceeds Attendance Projections

Ark Encounter Exceeds Attendance Projections

Click on the link below or copy paste.

See what God is doing is Williamstown, KY.



http://wlwt.com/news/riding-wave-of-popularity-ark-encounter-exceeds-attendance-projections/41685082

Singing Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs: One or Three Issues?

Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs: One or Three Issues?

Strange as it may sound this is an issue.  An issue that existed far before 2016 and our church worship wars (sad to use worship and war in the same sentence).  Are these three distinct categories or are they synonymous? Does history have a voice?  Where do commentators stand on this issue?  Do these words occur elsewhere in scripture?  What should we sing in our churches today?

First a quick scriptural overview. The underlying Greek term for the English gloss "Psalms" occurs seven times in the New Testament.  Every time it occurs outside of both Ephesians and Colossians it directly refers to the book of Psalms in the Old Testament canon.  One of those five references is used to create a three-fold division for the OT, "in the Law of Moses and the prophets and the Psalms" (Acts 1).  One of these references strongly supports the continued singing of the psalms in local churches, "when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm" (1 Cor 14:26).

So should we take the remaining two references to the same Greek term to have any other meaning?  Seems obvious that the meaning has not changed, especially since one of those other five references is by Paul himself (writer of both Ephesians and Colossians).

Well that was rather easy and painless.  Now the harder part.   What do hymns and spiritual songs represent?  Restatement of the Psalms or distinct categories?  First, the underlying term for hymns occurs two times.  Guess where?  Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3.  No help there. How about spiritual songs?  Is there any help here identifying these three categories or whether they all refer to the same thing?  The term for songs occurs five times in the NT. Two occur in our common texts (Eph 5 and Col 3). The other three occurrences appear in the book of Revelation (5:9, 14:3, and 15:3).  Eighty three times(LXX) it occurs in the OT, many of which are references found within the book of Psalms.

Singing is also done by Jesus and his disciples in the gospels.  Consider Mt 26:30, "And when they had sung an hymn."  I wonder what they sang?  Is it one of our three terms from Ephesians or Colossians?  Wonder what the content was?  Did it have a tune?

This time the word under focus is a verb.  It occurs four times in the New Testament (Mt 26:30, Mk 14:26, Acts 16:25, and Heb 2:12) and 97 times in the Septuagint (LXX).  It is related to one of the three terms used in both Ephesians and Colossians.  It is the second term "hymns."  Acts and Hebrews translate the concept as "singing praise."  This is very similar to the Hebrew title for the book of Psalms, "Book of Praises."  Our English title "Psalms" comes from the Septuagint not necessarily from the Hebrew text.

So regardless of where you come down on this issue there is at least enough evidence to show that all three categories, directly or imply a source in the book of Psalms.  So lets look at it from both sides by way of application.  Yes, there are multiple commentaries that come down on both sides of this issue.

If all three categories refer to the Psalms, what does your local church do on Sunday Morning or evening?  Okay, for the sake of argument, that they are three separate categories, then at least is your church one-third obedient?  Are they at least following this pattern at all?  If not, why not?  Hymnal too old-fashioned?  Not cool, trendy, and relevant enough?

I praise the Lord for churches in our history who sang from a Psalter.  The church we used to attend in South Carolina explicitly used a hymnal that contained many of the Psalms put to music, both carefully and reverently. Our family still sings from this same hymnal.  I'm thankful our children can learn to sing the Psalms from it too.  There appears to be a strong precedent for taking a detailed look at the psalms for our music and worship concerns within a local church. 

Hope this helps some.  Comments encouraged.

Book Recommendation: Holiness: Its Nature, Hindrances, Difficulties, and Roots By. J. C. Ryle

Holiness: Its Nature, Hindrances, Difficulties, and Roots. By. J. C. Ryle

This treasure is still in print today (paper, kindle, and pdf).  I have worked through it several times.  It still serves as a refreshing source for combating what much of evangelicalism is passing off today as correct doctrine and practice.  Progressive Sanctification is simply not taken as serious as it should in today's Christian circles.  Much of what is passed off today under the guise of grace, liberty, and relevance is infecting the lives of Christians for their harm.  Code words such as legalist, antinomian, neo-nomian and judgmental have been used far to long by present-day evangelical writers.  Christians today need to return to time-tested books that have served God's people for many years not the trendy and faddish books quickly printed and disappearing from print almost as fast.

Consider the table of contents below:

Ch. 1 Sin
Ch. 2 Sanctification
Ch. 3 Holiness
Ch. 4 The Fight
Ch. 5 The Lost
Ch. 6 Growth
Ch. 7 Assurance
Ch. 8 Moses-An Example
Ch. 9 Lot-A Beacon
Ch. 10 A Woman to be Remembered
Ch. 11 Christ's Greatest Trophy
Ch. 12 The Ruler of Waves
Ch. 13 The Church which Christ Builds
Ch 14 Visible Churches Warned
Ch. 15 Lovest Thou Me?
Ch. 16 Without Christ
Ch. 17 Thirst Relieved
Ch. 18 Unsearchable Riches
Ch. 19 Wants of the Times
Ch. 20 Christ is All
Ch. 21 Extracts from Old Writers

I highly recommend this book to any and all who desire to take the doctrine of progressive sanctification seriously.

Spirit-Filled Singing: Seeking Clarification and Definition (Part Two)

Music Series Part One

Spirit-Filled Singing

What is Spirit-filled singing?  Or for that matter, Spirit-filled music?  Paul had to mean something specific.  For this article, the attempt at addressing the music issue will focus on with Ephesians 5.

Ephesians 5:18-19 are as follows, "And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord."

The  focus on music and singing immediately follows two imperatives, both of which appear as present passive verbs.  The theological debate concerning the filling is not the intent of this article. On the other hand, the verbs which follow are our concern.  Verses 19-21 contain a series of participles.  As I understand it these participles are the result of Spirit-filling.  They are as follows:

Verse 19, "speaking, singing, and making melody"

Verse 20, "Giving thanks"

Verse 21, "Submitting yourselves"

As best I can tell, the first four participles are present active participles and the fifth is a present passive participle.  The intermittent prepositional phrases are taken the same way as in the previous article addressing the sister passage in Colossians 3.

Back to our original focus.  Spirit-filling directly affects or controls our music.  Specifically, our use of psalms, hymns and spiritual songs is of great concern.  So Paul has repeated the exact same phraseology in two different epistles to two different local churches (Ephesians and Colossians).  

So how do we actually evaluate what is spirit-filled music?  Please rest assured I am neither the first nor the last person to ask and wrestle with this question.  By what parameters or criteria do we use to evaluate music?  This is no small matter.  When do local culture and/or context become a factor?  Does every culture have an element of "worldliness"?   Or have too many cultures and music become so intertwined that a difference can no longer be established?

Do numbers serve as a gauge or litmus test for spirit-filled music?  If numbers are important, and pragmatism rules then consider the following (not music related):

1.  How dare anyone attack Joel Osteen (if numbers are our criteria for Spirit blessing)?

2. How dare anyone attack Bill Hybels or a Willow Creek (again, if numbers are the standard)?

3. What of people like Rick Warren, John Piper, or Rob Bell?

If the reasons are preaching, theology, practice or whatever the reasons are you object to the above individuals, then how do we evaluate when God is actually blessing a ministry?  How much church history and practice must we reject to create yet again standards for God's blessing?

Does it require my agreement?  Hope not.

Hope this helps some.  May create more questions than answers.

Comments of course encouraged as always.

Music and Affections: Paul seems to think there is a connection.

Music and Affections: Paul seems to think it matters.

Taking a cursory look at Colossians 3, some important details emerge in relation to our standing in Christ and the resulting condition of our affections and our music.

(Yes, I am finally going to tackle the church  music issue.  I need to put these thoughts down for my own growth and personal challenge).  At the end of each article I plan to challenge both those who agree and disagree with what I consider to be Biblical based positions.  Also in a following post I wish to include a multitude of texts (books) that have helped and challenged me in this issue.

Consider Col 3:1 "If ye then be risen with Christ,..."  I take this grammatically to be a first class condition assuming the reality of the condition.  The "if" protasis being the reality in the previous sentence, "If ye then be risen with Christ" and the standard "then" or apodosis is a series of imperatives (appearing both in present and aorist tense).

I list them as follows:

Verse 1, "seek those things which are above"
Verse 2, "set your affection on things above"
Verse 5, "mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth"
Verse 8, "But now ye also put off all these"
Verse 9, "Lie not one to another"
Verse 12, "Put on therefore, as the elect of God,..."
Verse 15, "And let the peace of God rule in your hearts,"
Verse 16, "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom"

Verses 18-22 address wives, husbands, children and servants.

For our discussion, we will focus on the complete quotation of verse 16, "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord."

Let's go through the verse clauses (grammatical goofs are mine):

First, "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom." The imperative is "let... dwell."  It is a present imperative displaying a habitual action in progress the Christian should engage.  What is to be dwelling or living in the Christian?  The word of Christ.  Simply put, we'll call this scripture or God's word.  Unless I missed a reference, this genitive phrase appears elsewhere appears only in Rom 10:17, "So faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."  Translations such as the ESV and NASB, include a different English gloss rendering, "the word of Christ."  The prepositional phrase, "in all wisdom" seems to describe either the means or manner of the scriptures dwelling. 

Second, "teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs."  The two terms "teaching" and "admonishing" are both present active participles.  I take the text to be saying the means of both teaching and admonishing is achieved through psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.  As to what the last two entail I am not certain.  As for the first it should be obvious to match it with the book located in the Old Testament, which contains 150 chapters (many of which include spiritually associated musical tunes, moods, and even instruments).

Third, "singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord."  A third participle clearly identifies the concept of singing with your mouth.  The manner in which we sing is "with grace."  The location of this grace is "in your hearts."  The audience for which we singing corporately or privately is "the Lord."

The following quote comes from "Already Gone: Why your kids will quit church and what you can do to stop it" authored by Ken Ham and Britt Beemer.  It's intent is to discover why youth are leaving the church:

"Our research showed that music is not a fundamental factor in young adults choosing to leave or stay in a church..."

As we shall see through this study, why then the need to use music (including the sound) to draw people in or to sound more relevant and modern  (think contemporary)?

The same research book includes the following also:

"many times the music worship time is more of a stage production and entertainment."

Questions for thought:

1.  What form of teaching and admonish do you experience via singing?
2.  How much of what your church sings actually contains scripture?
3.  Does your church sing the Psalms?  Any of them?  Or is this old fashioned?
4.  Does your church use music to edify those who are already attending or to draw them in?

Next I will address the similarities and differences between this passage and the mirror image found in Ephesians 5:19.  The context is different and will need added attention.

Hope this helps some. Comments encouraged.  Hopefully nothing here is trendy or novel.

Historic Creeds, Confessions and a Literal Six-Day Creation

Historic Creeds and Confessions and a Literal Six-Day Creation

It appears to me that every orthodox Christian confession I can find declares a literal six-day creation (not to say the list below is all inclusive).  If not this specifically, then God directly made man and woman in his own image.  Evolution (in any form) does not appear at all.  To say so is academically dishonest.  Shame on new evangelicals who try to make evolution fit with their Bibles.  According to every standard creed and confession, this is not a secondary doctrine.

I challenge you to read the statements made by the big "Gospel-based" groups.  Their beliefs (in writing) concerning creation are not what you think.  Notice how much space is spent on defending other views of creation and not a literal creation alone.  Is this a historical position of Christianity?  If you check out the membership and speakers in these groups it will be clear why a literal creation is not necessary (or even allowable).

New Evangelicalism for years has placated to evolutionary and old earth compromise in their ranks.  It infects both their pulpits and their seminaries.  Please read the following from a recent Gospel Coalition blog (please note, that creation was not considered a secondary issue in historical church creeds),

"The length of the Genesis 1 days, the age of the earth, and animal death and predation before the fall are all secondary or tertiary matters which must be worked out in ways consistent with our first-order commitments."


I would suggest that solving society's problems, whether social, political, or any form of social justice issues starts with a teaching of Genesis, a literal Adam and Eve, and a defense for a literal creation.  As long as main stream new evangelicalism believes the Calvinistic Gospel alone will fix all our problems, they are not only not historical, but further avoiding a cure to help society's real problem with sin.  Added to this an avoidance of teaching against evolution and then making room for evangelical leaders who embrace it does Christianity a great disservice.  Worst case this is simply false teaching not addressed because pragmatism works.

The Apostles' Creed, "I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth"

The Nicene Creed. "Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible"

Belgic Confession (Article 12) "created of nothing the heaven, the earth, and all creatures as it seemed good unto Him"

Heidelberg Catechism (Lord's Day 9, Of God the Father) "who of nothing made heaven and earth, with all that is in them"

Westminster Confession of Faith, 1647 (Chapter IV, of Creation) "to create, or make of nothing, the world,...,, in the space of six days, and all very good."

London Baptist Confession. 1689 (Chapter IV, of Creation) "to create or make the world, and all things therein,...in the space of six days, and all very good."

Unfortunately history will once again be ignored.  New Evangelical churches will continue to teach their people creation doesn't matter.  Just repent and trust in Jesus.  Don't worry about creation or the age of the earth.

I will in the near future list the positions found within major study Bibles.

Hope this helps those who are confused on the Church's historical position on this issue.

Comments welcomed and encouraged.

The Synagogue and the Regulative Principle of Worship

The Synagogue and the Regulative Principle of Worship

Anyone familiar with the worship wars within Christian circles has no doubt come across the terms: regulative, puritan, and/or normative.  Detailed study will take students back to divisions among great reformers such as Calvin and Luther.  These divisions extend even today in the worship wars of 2016.

Despite my strong convictions as a baptist and dispensationalist there is an institution that puzzles me.  It is called the synagogue.  Consider the roots, beginning and continuation of this worship activity even up to 2016 (you'll need to  look back at the inter-testamental period).  Do we have a command to participate as Christians?  Do we have a command to worship during this event?  How did Jesus and the apostles (both before and after) his resurrection make use or participate in this worship event (this is for the publisher's red letter font is more authoritative types)?  These are truly puzzling questions to consider if we must have a command, principle, or practice to maintain these events as God ordained.

Consider the many references in the gospels to Jesus the Messiah worshipping in the Jewish synagogue.  He attended and even read scripture in their hearing.  The apostles will do the same during his life and after his bodily resurrection.

This is the beginning of thought on this matter.  There are references to the apostles going into a city and evangelizing a city starting with the synagogue.  There are multitude references to the apostles repeatedly teaching weekly at theses same events in the book of Acts.  You also have these same individuals meeting as a church elsewhere on "the first day of the week." 

Where does this fit into the worship wars?  Do we pull a mild-dispensational hermeneutic, "well that was the gospels." Problem is that it happened in the book of Acts also (including after Acts 2).  Luke especially seems to overlap with the book of Acts (same author of both books helps).  Seems to be an issue for post-Acts 2 church-birth Christianity where they are still worshipping in the synagogue.  Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, worshipped in this institution without OT command or precedent.  As far as I can tell he also never attacked or condemned the Pharisees for worshipping in the synagogue (their lifestyles and theology is another issue).

I am simply exploring how do we fit a regulative worship principle with the synagogue?  If your best exegetical response is to say, "that was Bible times" or "that was another context" then your missing the point.  It can't be only for Jews because the apostles are participating throughout the book of Acts.

If we appeal to a "transitional nature of Acts" then when did the transition stop?  The synagogue is still used today in 2016.  James actually uses this term in chapter two συναγωγή.  If you can't read greek then try to see the English gloss "synagogue."  Appears in KJV text as "assembly."

There is no command, principle or precedent for Sunday school.  Do we throw it out?  Do we keep it as a useful tool?  Who decides this, the pastor or congregation?  Do we throw out Wednesday night or Sunday night because we don't agree on how to use scriptures to defend it (or not)?  When does history have a voice in aiding our interpretation?  Must ever generation reinvent their own doctrine from scripture?  Does the current cool kid trends shape our theology and practice (think: trendy small groups)?  At what point does pragmatism take over as a hermeneutical grid to justify any means or methodology?  These are only preliminary thoughts as I look for detailed exegetical texts addressing this issue.

Thoughts encouraged.  Dialogue interesting.  Hope it helps to actually further and build up Christ's body.