Principles for Disagreeing with Others by Tim Keller (My Personal Applications to the Text and Translation Debates)

Principles for Disagreeing with Others by Tim Keller 

(My Personal Applications to the Text and Translation Debates)

I've come across several books that include means and/or different methods for disagreeing with other people's theological positions. I would suggest these could be equally applied to other people's theological applications (at the risk of ad hominem name calling). Today I'm attempting to apply six principles from Tim Keller to the Bible text and translation debate. These six principles are taken from Tim Keller's book Center Church: Doing Balanced, Gospel-Centered Ministry (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), pp. 376-38. Keller's points are in bold and my comments follow each point. These principles are as follows:

1. Take full responsibility for even unwitting misrepresentation of others' views.

I'm am fully convinced it is not possible to perfectly reflect the views of others no matter how hard we try. Perhaps you are able to do this. But it seems as though no matter what is written down, said, or practiced, there are always a series of caveats to every definition. For example try arguing with a dispensationalist on some issue (and I'm one of them), even listing off scores of quotes by leading dispensationsalists of the past. It seems as though there is a continual shift to "that's not  what I believe." Transfer this to the text and translation issue, phrases used by the KJV only position leave you wondering what they actually believe and practice. I have repeatedly requested individuals to clarify what they actually mean when they say, "we believe the KJV is God's preserved word for the English-speaking people" and no response given. Its hard not to understand things any other way without clarification in both writing and practice. This doesn't sound like preference, familiarity, or a Greek text argument. If your argument is simply, one Greek text is preferred and then we should produce translations from that text, then let's be consistent and produce a modern English translation from that text you believe is correct. If not then you really are in practice KJV only. I am left with no other acceptable alternative then to think that preaching from the ESV, NASB, or NIV is wrong to these people. This is not a difference of opinion or liberty but to them it is erroneous. If simply a preference, then why all the fuss? Is it remotely possible that a secondary or tertiary preference or application has been raised to a point of orthodoxy or the only acceptable practice? If I'm wrong in this understanding, please tell me what it means. Please explain to me in history when this different understanding (both belief and practice) started. I would suggest neither one Greek text nor the language of English has ever been a historical standard for the doctrine of preservation.

2. Never attribute an opinion to your opponents that they themselves do not own.

I personally have a hard time trying to apply this point to the text and translation issue. It seems as though over the years there are so many versions of the King James Only position its getting harder and harder to figure out at what point error actually begins. As point one above tried to express it is very hard to understand a person's view if they will not elaborate on it. Obviously, we don't want to appeal to straw man arguments (see #4 below), definition hedging, or the like but this example phrase is directly from multiple websites, "we believe the KJV is God's preserved word for the English language."  How else can I understand this? I am left to believe that the doctrine of preservation not only depends on the English language, but also on a 400+ year old version in English. I have tried contacting many of them but to no avail nor clarification. Where does error begin? 

3. Take your opponents' views in their entirety, not selectively.

It is too common to make comments either positively or negatively about others writings but not comments on everything they say on the topic. Consider some examples, first in relation to MacArthur and term blood. Much ink has been spent by well-meaning conservatives on this issue. What becomes apparent is that these critics have not (for the most part) read everything he has written or said on this issue. A simple preview of every sermon or comment he has made on this issue is available (he actually has an entire page where he compiles all his comments on this issue). Perhaps ideas like hendiadys, synonym, or metaphor (you'll have to research this one) would help his detractors. Consider terms like repent or believe. Rarely do they occur in the same sentence in the biblical text. Yet at the same time they both are true and necessary for salvation. Or consider terms related to salvation such as Savior and Lord. Yet how often do people claim or deny one or the other because they simply don't reference every side of the coin every time the topic appears. Apply this to the text and translation issue and see where it leads you. How often do well-meaning people selectively pick words (present or not) or even verses to attack particular English translations or their particular translation philosophy? 

4. Represent and engage your opponents' position in its very strongest form, not in a weak "straw man" form.

I would suggest this is very similar to number one above. Trying to use the exact wording of the opposite position is usually not enough. There will always been a rebuttal to falsely representing the other position(s). I see this all the time (you probably have too). Try explaining a variant in the Greek or Hebrew text without getting accused of tampering with the scriptures. Try teaching your people on issues like this one. For example, try using the NIV as a Christian fundamentalist without getting that weird look (or even the NASB or ESV) in some circles. I've seen time and time again the same strategies used to attack the NIV as those who attack English translations printed after 1611. They quote some verses here or there then they criticize the translation for doing so--as if their (or my) academical credentials were asked to be on their committee (sarcasm intended). 

5. Seek to persuade, not antagonize--but watch your motives!

Unfortunately, past generations got more liberty here than we do today. Simply read past historical works by John Owen or Charles Spurgeon. People weren't always the most polite or congenial toward their opponents (who were professing believers too). Yes our mannerism count. Yes our speech counts. How many arguments (positions) get dismissed by a bad disposition. But even the best, well-organized arguments will face the same fate as the rest, "well that's your opinion." At what point in the text and translation issue are we willing to call historical errors and false teaching what it is? Error. We proudly call worldliness as such. We sadly in love have to correct disobedient professing believers in our churches. If this error festers in our own camp then shame on us for not trying to persuade them for not continuing down a road of error. To say nothing and to simply "agree to disagree" has done what for our local churches? Evangelicalism has moved on from this issue but it seems as though my bible-believing fundamental brothers are struggling with this one. Will the millennials share your view? Have they also moved on already to the NASB, ESV, or even NIV? 

6. Remember the gospel and stick to criticizing the theology--because only God sees the heart.

Clearly the text and translation issue has been raised by many to a gospel level issue even to the point of requiring that particular English translations be used alone for preaching, teaching, evangelism, and memorization (many other positions can be just as guilty). This appears is scores of churches. Just look at the multitudes of church, camp, and para-church ministry sites. On the other hand, if the gospel can be preached or taught from any translation in any country then why limit it to one English translation? Inspiration and preservation are historic doctrines defended throughout church history. But for the sake of your own personal research, I invite you to study the theological views of those who prefer a one English only position (see if can you notice any trends concerning the gospel itself). Carefully exegete the text and declare the gospel to all who will hear. Christ died for their sins according to the scriptures and he also bodily arose for their sins according to the scriptures. These scriptures are not limited to a translation in English, Spanish, or French.

With a clear conscience and pure heart motive preach and live the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Read. Enjoy. Comment.

Church Membership: Some Practical Considerations for Local Churches (Part Three)

Church Membership: Some Practical Considerations for Local Churches (Part Three)

Part One          Part Two

If you are new to this short three part series allow me to quickly review.  First, we discussed the historical nature and practice of church membership as observed and taught by the London Baptist Confession and Westminster Confession of Faith.  Second, we discussed the Biblical texts employed to teach the practice of church membership.  In this article I would like to provide some practical suggestions in relation to this important topic.


Suggested Guidance

 I think the route to go if people want to be honest is the legal protection route toward church members. We don't need a roster of names added to a visible church institution (unless it is simply a safeguard for who is allowed to vote).  Even this line of reasoning is not completely consistent if you can join a church at 17 but not vote till 18.  

What we want is a list of names who agree to a common doctrinal position and manner of living.  In essence, they agree to the same church covenant.  They agree to be disciplined by the church for failure to believe and practice these things.  The sad reality is that Christians actually seek legal repercussions for being church disciplined.  A roster of names who are willing to be disciplined helps to provide this legal protection.  It is this same roster in most churches that allows one to vote in local church elections and participate in decision making (at least for those 18 years and older).  On the other hand, it is just as possible for a local church pastor to abuse this church discipline concept toward church members.  

In conclusion, I would argue the church membership position is eisegesis.  I would also suggest that there is no text teaching prescriptively or descriptively (with sound exegesis) any doctrine known as local church membership.  I would further argue that the Bible teaches an individual becomes part of the universal church through faith and repentance in Jesus Christ, of which the only visible manifestation is the local church.  The topic known as church membership falls into the category of application.  This application applies only in a local church and has no authority in or over the members of any other local church.  Hence, you either join one local church or another individual local church (both of which are autonomous).

As to reasons why an individual should join or leave a local church is another question.

Some questions for thought:

Do I have to be a church member to serve? teach? preach? teach Sunday school? provide Music?
Do I have to be a church member to grow? Read my Bible? Pray? Make Disciples?
Do I have to be a church member to submit to other believers? Pastor/Elders? 
Do I have to be a church member to be committed? Regularly attend?
Do I have to attend for a certain length of time before joining?  Attend special classes?

Let's take the reverse to these questions (just to make the point more clear):

There are many church members who don't and never will serve.
There are many church members who don't and never will teach or preach.
There are many church members who will not sing, either corporately or individually.
There are many church members who rarely read their Bible (systematically or sporadically).
There are many church members or who rarely pray or make disciples.
There are many church attenders (non-members) who attend more often or regular than the actual church roster members.

See the difference?  The opposite motive to using these as arguments just doesn't make sense.  This is not a biblical argument.  They may serve as motives someone wants to join a church but this is not the same as a prescriptive command to join a local church.   

Hope this helps some on this issue.  Comments of course as always encouraged.

If you disagree or have constructive push back with this line of reasoning, then provide me a Bible verse anywhere that teaches a different historical and exegetical position.  History provides us two camps: regenerate members (those who have made a profession) and non-regenerate members (those who have not personally made a profession). Its that simple.  Either way, who will you practice church discipline? Allow to the ordinances/sacraments? Voting and elections?  There are bigger issues that church membership does not exactly solve (perhaps they apply only for your own local church covenant and bi-laws). 

If there are any verses written in any text on this issue that could change these conclusions, then I would be glad to know.  There are many current books and journal articles addressing this issue.  I applaud the ones that take church discipline and voting seriously (I personally recommend the ones written by IX Marks ministry, Captiol Hill Baptist Church, Senior Pastor Mark Dever).  If you find a good church that is trying to be biblical both in doctrine and practice then join, especially if you want to vote.

Descriptive or Prescriptive Passages: How do we know when? (Church Polity Rabbit Trail) (Part Three)

Series Part Two          Series Part One

Descriptive or Prescriptive Passages:  How do we know when?
(Important rabbit trail for more than just church polity issues)

Believe it or not we all do this when reading and interpreting the scriptures?  Consider the following questions:
1.  How do we know when a passage only applied to the first century audience?
2.  How do we know when a passage also applies to us today? (Think universal applications, timeless truths, whats it mean to me, etc...).

Consider some scenarios (not designed to be straw men but consider the large scale ramifications):

1.  Did God command you to build a large wooden ark to be rescued from a flood?
2.  Did God command you to save up money and build a large temple for worship?
3.  Did God tell you to cross the river and conquer cities in the land of Canaan?
4.  Did God command us to only sing the Psalms?  We have a whole book full of them.

Leap forward in history.  Again how do we know when God is giving a command directly to us as New Testament believers?
By way of reminder again, descriptive passages "describe" for us what was actually happening in the context of the passage.  Prescriptive passages actual give us exhortations or commands to follow today (By way of reminder, don't be upset if textbooks on exegesis and/or hermeneutics disagree).

The dangers here are multitude.  Consider how many passages you've heard or read about that don't apply anymore because that only applied to a first century situation.  On the other hand, consider the number of "universal" applications that have materialized from any given text.  Consider some practical applications:

1.  Do we go out in pairs of two to share the gospel door to door?  (It happened in the gospels and Acts).
2.  Do we go around healing people as part of gospel message?  (It happened in the gospels and Acts).
3.  Considering this church polity series: Do we ordain multiple pastor/elders in each local church?  (We have a couple proof texts for this in Acts).

It is this last bullet #3 and the book it draws from that are battle grounds today.  Without yet mentioning what I think is a strong case for determining descriptive/prescriptive boundaries (the epistles), please consider the battle ground in the book of Acts (yes this one book all by itself):

1.  How should we view the events of Pentecost and later references to miraculous gifts?
2.  How should we view the references to faith and baptism in this book (very important for the Baptist denomination)?
3.  How should we view the references to apparently multiple elders in a local assembly (only a couple of times in select cities)?
4.  How should we view the concept of missions/missionaries found in this book?
5.  How should we view Christians still attending a synagogue and a local church?

Hope this gets the brain gears turning in 2016.  We have to apply the scriptures to our lives.  However the framework by what applies and what does not is not as easy as you would think.

Comments encouraged.