Usefulness of Confessions and Catechisms (A Dispensationalist Take on the Issue)

Usefulness of Confessions and  Catechisms (A Dispensationalist Take on the Issue)

Yes I am unashamedly a Christian who believes in dispensational premillennialism.  That being said there are some valuable points taken from an introduction section of "A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith" by Samuel E. Waldron.  I would encourage you to check them out.

First, every local church I've every attended, joined, or been part of for any length of time for forty-two years has had a confession.  Or at least some form of doctrinal statement.  So this is not an unusual situation to be in.  They almost across the board have been dispensational and premillennial.  So yes these same churches have creeds and confessions as a statement of their core beliefs.  They are not "a-creedal."  I would suggest this is a title (either self-proclaimed or others-invoked) to say that particular body of believers does not hold to a historical creed or confession (in the same way they do).  Thus, since they don't hold to the same historic creeds that I do then they are labeled as "a-creedal."

Second, nearly any historical confession outside of local churches, has not been dispensaional or premillennial.  Please take this into account when you consider these issues.  This applies equally to both the London Baptist Confession and Westminster Confession.  This would also apply to smaller creeds such as the Apostles Creed or Nicene Creed.  Don't expect the time frame they were written in to be friendly toward either dispensationalism or premillennialism.  They addressed issues of concern in their own historical context.  These previous Confessions (LBC and WCF) are both also strongly Calvinistic (in soteriology) and Covenantal (in ecclesiology).  Also as far as I can find, historical creeds also endorse a form of (if not outright) replacement theology.  This controls both their ecclesiology and eschatology (and I would suggest for many reasons their soteriology as well).

Third, concerning catechisms.  If you are of the persuasion that the Decalogue (Ten Commandments) does not apply today for believers in any way, then older catechisms will be an issue.  If this is a door of hindrance then you'll have to write your own.  If you want a different ecclesiology (church) or eschatology (end times) to appear in your Q/A then you'll have to write new ones.  Obviously, rewriting a couple questions for the church and end times issues is much less laborious then replacing the entire Ten Commandments.

Finally, regardless which line of theology you follow: Baptist, Westminster, or Heidelberg you will still have to address what topics you want to address.  Do I stick with some basic categories and then tack on the Ten Commandments and Lord's prayer?  Do  I add extra questions addressing issues that they did not need to address in the 1600-1700s time frame?  Do I need music questions?  Do I need topics addressing the Charismatic/Continuationist movement?   How much Systematic theology do I need to include in a Catechism?

These are just some introductory thoughts for mediation.  My family currently uses a Baptist Confession adapted by John Piper.  Almost verbatim to an early Baptist version by Benjamin Keach.  Of course we adapt some issues and vernacular to fit our current theological situation.  Yes, we keep in the Ten Commandments and the Lord's Prayer.

Enjoy.  Comments as always encouraged.

Is Holding to A Cessationist Position on Spiritual Gifts Committing an Unpardonable Sin Against the Holy Spirit?

Is Holding to A Cessationist Position on Spiritual Gifts Committing an Unpardonable Sin Against the Holy Spirit?

What is that?  An unpardonable sin?  Where?  First lets show the biblical text under question and then lets deal the context of when it occurred and what if any relevance there is for believers today.  Obviously, if there is a possibility to commit sin (without forgiveness) after the cross then it is truly a predicament.  Could this apply to believers as well as unbelievers?    

So whats the text under discussion, 

"20 And the multitude cometh together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread. 21 And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself. 22 And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils. 23 And he called them unto him, and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan? 
24 And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 
25 And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 
26 And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end. 
27 No man can enter into a strong man’s house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house. 
28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: 29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation: 30 Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit." (Mark 3:20-30; Context is also repeated in Mt 12 and Lk 11)

The last verse is the text under discussion.  The entire paragraph is listed to show the local context in which it appears.  Having the context for proof texts goes a long way for weeding out verses which are commonly quoted out of their context to prove some theological or practical position.  So my concern is what it means to "blaspheme against the Holy Ghost."  What did it mean when Jesus said it in the first century?  What application and authority does it carry for us today?  More importantly, would it be correct for a Charismatic to use this text to defend their views or to say speaking against their views is not allowed (or worse making it a sin)?  Here's another ongoing thought: what accusation do some people repeatedly make concerning modern English Bible translations--as to their source)?  A little double-edged sword here?

First, Jesus has just healed individuals (Mk 3:10), more importantly the chapter began with Jesus healing on the sabbath day (vv. 2, 4).  After this the context shifts to Jesus ordaining twelve (vv. 14-21).  From here religious leaders begin to make accusations against Jesus  (v. 22).  Verses 23-29 record Jesus' response to their accusation (this is conveniently marked by some publishers with a red font lettering).  Again, by way of reminder, the red font is no more inspired, preserved, nor authoritative than the black font. 

Second, Jesus' (vv. 23-29) begins with a question and a series of conditional statements related to division (see my formatting above "and if").  Jesus shows how ridiculous their views are.  He was defeating Satan, not serving him.  He was directly attacked for performing a miracle (healing people that were sick, vv. 3, 10).  To put it simply, these unbelieving Jewish leaders were saying Jesus was performing legitimate sign-miracles in the power of Satan ("by" marks the means of this miracle, v. 22).    

Lets follow this up with the notes found in major study Bibles for comparison.  I've tried to highlight some of the repeating themes the study Bible notes are catching on (or at least repeating).

"Whenever someone deliberately and disrespectfully slanders the person and ministry of the Holy Spirit in pointing to the Lordship and redemption of Jesus Christ, he completely negates and forfeits any possibility of present or future forgiveness of sins, because he has wholly rejected the only basis of God’s salvation." (The MacArthur Study Bible, p. 1465).

"The unforgiveable sin is knowingly and boldly attributing the Spirit's works to demonic forces (v. 22); people who do this reject the Spirit's testimony to Christ and thus will never seek the Savior for forgiveness." (The Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible, p. 1419).

"However, if a person persistently attributes to Satan what is accomplished by the power of God—that is, if one makes a flagrant, willful, decisive judgment that the Spirit’s testimony about Jesus is satanic—then such a person never has forgiveness." (The ESV Study Bible, p. 1899).

"The unforgivable blasphemy specified here is the act of deliberately associating the power and the work of Jesus, who is full of the Holy Spirit, with the work of Satan. This is to equate supreme spiritual good with supreme spiritual evil, hardening one’s heart in a way that makes repentance, and therefore forgiveness, impossible." (The Reformation Study Bible, p. 1420).

"Jesus here teaches that it also may be the reviling of God by attributing the Spirit’s work to Satan. The special circumstances involved in this blasphemy cannot be duplicated today; therefore, this sin cannot now be committed. Jesus exhorted the Pharisees to turn and be justified (vv. 33, 37)." (Ryrie Study Bible, p. 1534).

Notice how each of the study Bible notes are repeating the theme of attributing the power of the third member of the Godhead (the Holy Spirit) to Satan.  The interesting point to note is that only one of the note sets actually includes a reference to the actual context in which this miracle occurred (Ryrie).  The sign-miracle was the healing of sick people.  Not speaking in tongues, interpreting, or prophecy.  I am rather perplexed why they left the scenario open and not specific to the situation.  Perhaps because of the broader theme of the forgiveness of sins which Jesus does address on multiple other occasions.  

In conclusion, I would suggest that genuine believers cannot commit this sin today.  Simply line this up with a thorough understanding of perseverance and assurance in relation to salvation.  Second, this was a sign gift, as a Cessationist, I do not believe the scriptures teach sign gifts such as: prophecy, tongues, revelation are in practice today as they are practiced in the Gospels and book of Acts. Third, these Jews were not born-again believers, so this sin was obviously not committed by a genuine believer.  Lastly, based on the context, I would suggest that any parallel made with the charismatic movement is illegitimate.  I am more concerned with the ad hominem claims in the translation realm in relation to translations (conveniently after 1611) have Satanic sources.  This is a troubling accusation. I close with a quote from a journal article on this specific issue, 

"It is clear from the accounts in Matthew 12 and Mark 3 that Jesus’ charge of blasphemy was directed toward the unbelieving Pharisees. If the sin could be committed by believers, it would be an exception to the doctrine of the eternal security of the believer (John 5:24; 6:37; 10:27–30; etc.). Truly, only the unregenerate can commit the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit." (DBTS Journal 2009, :B. Combs, "The Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit.")

Enjoy.  Comments as always encouraged.
I would especially encourage you to read the above article online.  Especially if this text troubles you.  It is free at www.dbts.edu. 

Does Matthew 4 and 5 Teach that God will Providentially Preserve the Hebrew Text or KJV 1611?

Does Matthew Chapters Four and Five Teach that God will Providentially Preserve the Hebrew Text or KJV 1611?  In short, No.

My heart goes out to the pastors and professors who are trying to teach God's word.  However, academic honesty requires me to exposes the faulty exegetical handling of the biblical text.  Matthew 4 and 5 serve as another test case for how the text of scripture is misused to try and teach God chose to preserve his word only through the means of the Hebrew text and one particular Greek manuscript.  Of course this must then extent to the language of English alone.  This texts in question are used to teach Jesus believed God providentially preserved the Hebrew text (and only the Hebrew text) of scripture.

So what's our texts under discussion,

"But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Mt 4)

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Mt 5)

The phrase "it is written" (which occurs throughout the NT) appears in conjunction with the Septuagint (LXX), not just with the underlying Hebrew OT text (NT, eight times): Acts 7:42-43, Rom 2:24, 3:4, 11:26, 14:11, 15:21, 1 Cor 1:19, and Galatians 3:10.  To be fair, Jesus here is quoting from the Hebrew text.  However, Jesus also quotes the LXX Matthew 13:14-15; 15:8-9; Mark 4:12; 7:6-7; Luke 4:18-19.  So to deny that Jesus used the LXX puts you in a historical inaccurate situation.  Also to deny that the phrase "it is written" also applies to the LXX puts you in violation of the actual text of scripture.  Both of these texts are used by many KJV only advocates to teach God chose only to preserve the Hebrew text (which underlies this particular English translation).

Further, to try and use this "jot" and "tittle" terminology to claim God would only preserve his OT text in the Hebrew language is incorrect on multiple accounts, As previously stated above, the phrase "it is written" is also applied to LXX texts (not just quotations from the Hebrew text).  Second, since Jesus quoted from the LXX, God in-flesh himself did not have a problem quoting form a Greek OT text (that apparently he also stated here in Mt 5) was only to be in the Hebrew text.  Third, and this is more my concern, there is such an attempt to look for proof-texts to defend this modern KJV only defense position, that nearly anything and everything looks like a proof text for their position.  Yes, we must admit this last point could be applied across a large spectrum of both doctrinal issues as well as daily practical issues.

So what then was Jesus actually teaching here?  What point was he trying to get across?  I would suggest that Jesus is teaching the abiding or present authority of the Old Testament which will continue till all points of prophecy and typology are fulfilled.  Again, to be fair, some identify the concept of inspiration taught in these verses.  Let's back this up with the view with other current writers,

"He was specifically affirming the utter inerrancy and absolute authority of the OT as the Word of God—down to the least jot and tittle" (The MacArthur Study Bible, p. 1400).

"Jesus confirms the full authority of the OT as Scripture for all time " (The ESV Study Bible, p. 1828).

"The Lord’s point is that every letter of every word of the OT is vital and will be fulfilled" (Ryrie Study Bible, p. 1520).

"Divine inspiration extends to the smallest parts of the prophetic writings, and therefore God will bring to completion all He has said in His Word without fail" (The Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible, p. 1363).

So as we can see these text do not necessarily imply that God chose only to preserve his word in the Hebrew text (nor is authority found only in the Hebrew text).  God has preserved his word and it is still authoritative today.

As always comments encouraged.

Historical Quotations on the Translation issue,

(1881) "No one claims for the Textus Receptus, or common Greek text of the New Testament, any sacred right, as though it represented the ipissima verba, * written by the inspired men in every case. . . . It is therefore not asserted to be above emendation (Robert L. Dabney, Works, vol. I, p. 398; borrowed by Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC).
* Latin for "the very words"

(1881) "Concerning the fact of difference between the Revised and the Authorized Versions, I would say that no Baptist should ever fear any honest attempt to produce the correct text, and an accurate interpretation of the Old and New Testaments.  For many years Baptists have insisted upon it that we ought to have the Word of God translated in the best possible manner, whether it would confirm certain religious opinions and practices, or work against them.  All we want is the exact mind of the Spirit, as far as we can get it. . . . By the best and most honest scholarship that can be found we desire that the common version may be purged of every blunder of transcribers, or addition of human ignorance, or human knowledge that so the word of God may come to us as it came from his own hand." (C. H. Spurgeon, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, vol. XXVII, pp. 342-343; from Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC).

Discourse passages in the book of Acts in Relation to the Charismatic gifts of Prophecy

Discourse passages in the book of Acts and Charismatic gifts of prophecy and tongues

Even as I write this thread the Charismatic movement has just produced yet another book on how to use your miraculous spiritual gifts (this includes all gifts: tongues, prophecy, healing, etc...).  Each area of the Charismatic movement needs to continuously addressed.  We'll continue with what are discourse passages.  As New Evangelicalism continues to modify their outreach (including coolness, trendiness, and music), Fundamentalism must continue to respond with objective biblical truth to counter the ever growing (I had an experience) subjective focused movement.  To make the claim that today in the year 2017 we have access to all the miraculous sign gifts (just as practiced in the NT) is a claim that is neither defensible from scripture nor actually practicable today (that is, according to NT standards--not new standards to help justify their practice today).

What's a discourse passage?  What in the world is that?  You've used this term before probably without noticing it.  When you read Matthew 24-25, what is this commonly called?  The Olivet __________.  You got it.  Olivet Discourse.  From a simple grammar standpoint, discourse passages occur in two basic types: direct and indirect discourse.  You've seen this in you Bible before probably without noticing it.  Direct discourse appears as one person reporting what another said word for word such as, "David said, "We should sit in the chair.'"  Indirect discourse appears as the formula, "David said that we should sit in the chair."  Both can be identified (but not necessarily) with appropriate prepositions to identify verbal content conveyed.  I would suggest it is much easier to identify content clauses marked with appropriate preposition (just a side note).

Now within the book of Acts there are multiple discourse sections in which the Holy Ghost (Spirit) actually gives verbal content to a hearing audience.  It is no mysterious speech or utterances.  The point being, actual words (content) is delivered and preserved on the pages of scripture.  Every time the Holy Spirit speaks to believers in the book of Acts it is breathed out Scripture.  Logically, every time the Spirit speaks it is scripture.  Question: When people today claim (or believe) the Holy Spirit is speaking to them do they put it on the same level as scripture?  Do they give it another personal or individual authority for themselves alone?  Be careful how you answer this.  Vast denominations claim God is speaking to them today.  Howbeit via different means and of course with a different standard of authenticity.  So when we evaluate from the basis of scripture, does the modern day Charismatic claims of prophecy, tongues, and Spirit led content stand up to the paradigm of scripture?

Let's sample some of these passages in the book of Acts.  You (yourself) evaluate what the scriptures record the Holy Spirit said.  Again, you evaluate is the Holy Spirit functioning this exact same way today?  If not, why the different standard today?  Remember this question is not, are churches being planted, gospel content delivered, unbelievers converted, but is it happening the exact same way.  All these things can happen without the mysterious miracle claims by the Charismatic movement.  In the end, the Charismatic movement will reinterpret all texts based on personal experience.  All texts must be made to fit their subjective experience paradigm.  And don't forget all categories (including Bible) must be redefined to fit these experiences.  Prophecy not working.  Easy, just redefine what prophecy is so it fits your experiences.

Let's look at some text explicitly mentioning the Holy Spirit speaking verbally with understandable content to actual believers in an understandable language (we'll get to Pentecost later).

Acts 10:19-20, "While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee.  Arise, therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them."

Acts 11:12, "And the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting."  No explicit verbal content described but notice the recipient of the message had no doubt as to what the Spirit required.

Acts 13:2, "As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them."

Acts 15: 28, "For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;"

Acts 16:6-7, "Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia, After they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia: but the Spirit suffered them not."

Acts 21:11, "Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles."

Note from all these passages we have in scripture the following: first, every time we have verbal content from the Holy Spirit spoken to a believer it became scripture (not a different level of authority).  Charismatics don't like this concept of inspiration and discourse.  Why again?  Two standards and redefinition or prophecy needed.  Second, the Holy Spirit always (in every text) when speaking directly to the believers, it was in a language they understood.  No ecstatic tongues or closet prayers or visions.  Lastly, in all the available data we have in scripture, when multiple people were present, they all understood the exact content that was given.  

So is what you just read being practiced to biblical standard and proportion?  I would suggest no.  This is part of why I am a Cessationist. 


Again, comments as always encouraged.