Is the correct view of inspiration really that hard to figure out?  I don’t think so.  So what’s gone wrong?  Here’s what I think.

You’ve got one side that believes in inerrancy only in the autographa, only in those manuscripts originally etched by holy men of God.  They think there are errors in what we have today without any hope of discerning what all the Words of Scripture are.  That doesn’t represent what we see taught in Scripture and it leaves us without full certainty in God’s Word.  Authority comes in shades of gray.  This view comes across like it’s the position of scholarship, the real brainiacs, some very deep thinkers.  They just can’t wrap their faith around the promises of God, but, instead, men like Metzger have wrapped them around their little fingers.  Heavy hitting institutions like Bob Jones and mainstream publishers push the critical text and modern versions.

If you say that you believe that we have all the Words of God in the languages in which they were written, and you base that upon the promises of Scripture about the Bible, they call you a hyper fundamentalist, not worth considering in any other theological point.  If you comment on some other subject, they’ll likely delete your comment.  You’re not welcome to the adult table.  You’ve got to eat at the little picnic table out back with the other children.  You’re now very near or already a laughingstock.  Everything else you say will be treated like a creationist at an evolution conference.

On the other side, you’ve got the people who are stronger on the Bible than the Bible is on itself.   There are others on this side that are pretty much right where the Bible is about the Bible, but they fight against others that are also right where the Bible is, so that they will stay in good standing with those who are stronger than the Bible itself.  For instance, some of these believe that God inspired the English words of the King James Version in addition to having inspired the Hebrew and Greek words of the original manuscripts.

Others take the strongest possible view of the Providence of God by saying that God superintended the translation work in something less than inspiration, but something so close to inspiration that every single word was exactly what God wanted.  He didn’t want “assembly” but “church.”  He didn’t want “immerse” but “baptize.”  He didn’t want “lampstands” but “candlesticks.”  Even the italicized words are exactly the ones God wanted.  And so on.   If you don’t believe that strongly, then to them you just don’t believe in the Providence of God.  You know that Scriptural teaching of the Providential Perfect Translation of the Bible into English view, right?  Hezekiah or 2nd Maccabees, I think.

If you say that you don’t believe that the King James Version was inspired like the original manuscripts, they pounce all over you because you don’t believe that the King James Version was inspired.   You begin to explain, but it’s too late.  You’re weak and defensive.  They are much stronger critics of you, if you believe in the perfect preservation of the inspired Hebrew and Greek words, than they are of Gail Riplinger for her quacky, wacky, and unscriptural views.  There’s no doubt to them on whose side the Rippler is on, but you’re suddenly losing your King James credentials if you say something that sort of sniffs of something less than an inspired King James.  She at least has a Bible, but you; well, snort.  These Ruckman and Riplinger enablers do more damage than good.

I’m tired of playing this game.  I’d like to say that I’m done playing it.  I don’t want to play it any more.  The only thing that tells me that I’ll keep playing it is that there are far, far more on both sides of the swing than there are those with their feet planted on the ground.  You’ve got to play the game even a little just to have a conversation.

The first side will barely to never even deal with your arguments.  The latter side might deal with your arguments.  I think a few of them do.   However, they confuse the issue by not pointing out certain obvious points.  Usually the first side will say, “Oh, I believe in preservation of Scripture.”  The second side will say, “Oh, I don’t believe in double inspiration.”  The first side are no Bart Ehrmans.  The second side are no Peter Ruckmans.  That’s balance for you.

However, you can’t believe in preservation of Scripture and also believe that we aren’t sure what all the words are, at least based on what the Bible itself teaches about preservation.  And you can’t say that you don’t believe in double inspiration when you will not differentiate between inspired original manuscripts and an inspired English translation.  If you believe in double inspiration, then you don’t believe in inspiration at all.  And if you don’t believe in perfect preservation, then you deny what Scripture teaches about itself.  And if you believe in double inspiration, then you also deny what the Bible says about itself.

On the former side, you’ve got to continue with that position if you want any credibility with Bob Jones and its orbit and with the conservative evangelicals.  If you want to be invited to speak at the national leadership conference or the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship meeting, then you better find the critical text to have some appeal.  On the latter side, if you want to get in the Sword of the Lord line-up or receive kudos from most revivalists, you’d better not try to “correct the King James.”

I’m afraid that politics continues to plague fundamentalism.  We can barely discuss the Bible anymore without the pressure of politics.  You feel the start of a cold shoulder coming or the beginnings of a whisper campaign.

With me could you just say you’d like to stop the swing, because you’d like to get off?  I don’t care if you say I’m a fideist.  Oh well if I’m kicked off Sharper Iron.  Too bad if Central or Andy Naselli won’t post my comment.   Or if Maranatha won’t put my two books in their library.  I’m not going to keep trying to defend my belief in the continued inspiration of what God perfectly preserved to people who either are or need to remain cozy with English inspirationists or preservationists.   I don’t want to swing any more….even if you push.

Your argument is sound… nothing but sound.  —Benjamin Franklin

I, being of sound mind and body, am about to touch the third rail.  I do so reluctantly, yet resolvedly.  But before I do, I should like to say a very fond farewell to both of my readers (Hi mom!  Hi dad!) and it has been nice knowing you all.  Not that political suicide is the best way to go or anything.  I certainly wouldn’t recommend it to anyone.  But from time to time, it becomes necessary for one to sacrifice oneself for the sake of an important issue.  So, here I go.  I’m stretching forth my hand even as I type, reaching for that superconductor of electricity that is sure to send a shockwave through the ole’ system and land me flat on my back, perhaps pushing up daisies.  Just remember, I did it for the Gipper…

All Spark and No Fire

So, here go I.  Much of the controversy swirling around the King James issue centers on the question of whether or not the King James Version is inspired.  The English Preservationists have made this the particular sticking point on this issue, and of course, we who also consider ourselves KJVO’s are loath to challenge them on the question.  At least, if we value our place in the KJVO orbit, we better leave this one alone.

Which is exactly why I find myself anxious to address it.  First, there is just something about a third rail that is especially electrifying.  And secondly, I don’t believe that this particular third rail has enough juice to toast a piece of Wonder Bread.  It is all spark and no fire, or something like that.  I certainly don’t believe that this issue will be my undoing.  But then again, I’ve never stepped on a landmine before either.

The real issue here is in the definition of terms.  English Preservationists throw the term “inspiration” around as if it means nothing at all.  Then, they stretch the term around like Gumby, trying to make it sound rational to (a) deny double inspiration, and in the same breath to (b) claim inspiration for our English Version.  One might wish for a grain of honesty, just the size of a mustard seed, so that one could ascertain exactly what it is that they are arguing for, since they believe that the English version of the Bible is inspired, and deny that this means “double-inspiration.”

Since God inspired Hebrew words in the Old Testament and Greek words in the New Testament, and since, as far as we know, English words weren’t around at the time that holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, we are faced with a dilemma.  If we deny double-inspiration, then we can’t argue that our English version is inspired.  If we argue that the English version is inspired, then we must necessarily believe in double-inspiration.

Either that, or else we will need to admit that we have elasticized the word “inspired,” turning “inspiration” into a clay humanoid figure.  Logicians call it “equivocation.”  When we use the same term in two different senses, all within the same argument, we are guilty of equivocation.  Equivocation is very popular in humor.  But equivocation is always mis-leading when we change the meaning of our terms mid-argument, without offering any sort of explanation for the suddenness of our switch.

Depends on What the Meaning of “Is” Is

When a man says that the King James Version is inspired, we understand that to mean that the English words proceeded directly out of the mouth of God.  That would be the plain meaning of the statement.  That is, if we are applying the commonly understood, 2 Timothy 3:16 meaning of “inspired” (theopneustos).  If that same man then turns around and denies “double inspiration,” well then, either he is lying, or he is equivocating the meaning of his terms.

Humorous arguments rely on equivocation in order to make their point, and we generally understand that.  For instance, a student was arguing that there are no such thing as black or brown feathers.  In order to make his point, he argued that since a feather is light, and what is light cannot be dark, therefore a feather cannot be dark.  You might recognize the equivocation in that argument.  It is humorous, so long as he isn’t serious.

Worse examples can be found.  My wife really hated the man who argued that women are irrational because the only rational being is man, and women are not men.  She had an almost irrational desire to bash his brains out of his head.  Fortunately, I was there to point out his equivocation.  Necessity once required us to bring a man before the church because he argued that Ray Charles is God.  He claimed that God is love, and love is blind.  Since Ray Charles is blind, he concluded that Ray Charles must be God.  In his case, he should have understood what the meaning of “is” is.

The Non-Inspired Argument

Unfortunately, not all equivocations are equally apparent.  On the question of whether or not the King James Version is inspired, the definition-shift befuddles and be-muses at times.  This is never more the case then when a man takes it in hand to explain how it is that he believes our English version is inspired.  One favorite trick that he will use is to argue that if the King James Version is not inspired, then we have an “uninspired” or “non-inspired” Bible.  Take this statement from Shelton Smith of The Sword of the Lord as an example.  Under the head “If not inspired, then what is it?” he makes this statement:

As I hold the King James Bible in my hands, if it is not the inspired Word of God, then what on earth is it?

Are you telling me that it is somehow the Word of God but yet not inspired?  Are you saying it is the uninspired Bible?

Ironically, the next section is entitled, “An Inspired KJB is not Double Inspiration.”  And Dr. Smith goes on to say,

None of the men that I know who believe in a preserved, inspired text believe in “double inspiration.”  We do not believe that the KJB translators were gifted (theopneustos) with God’s inspiration!

What we very strongly believe is that the Lord God Almighty promised to “preserve” His inspired Word.  He did use those translators to preserve the text for us so that we have an authentic English Bible.

To automatically equate our insistence on a preserved inspired text as double inspiration reflects neither reality nor the truth.

I repeat – we do not now, nore have we ever, advocatied or believed in double inspiration!

As a side note, we should point out that neither does Peter Ruckman.

Nevertheless, we do struggle to answer this charge. If we say that the King James Bible is not inspired, then are  we saying that we have an uninspired Bible?

The charge really is not so difficult to answer.  Instead, the reader should note the shift in the terms of the argument mid-stream, because what we have here is a sort of extended equivocation — yet another mis-leading use of ambiguity employed by Shelton Smith and those who make this same argument.  We are discussing whether or not a translation of the Bible is inspired.  If I say that the translation was not inspired in the same sense that the original Greek and Hebrew words were inspired, am I saying that my King James Bible is the uninspired Bible?  Absolutely not.

You see, whether intentional or not, this kind of argumentation is dishonest.  Those who make it are glossing over what they mean, and they are doing this by shifting terms back and forth.  First we are discussing a translation, then without any warning whatsoever, we shift the argument to Scripture.  The Scriptures are inspired.  The King James Version is a faithful translation of Scripture.  So, we can say that the King James Version is the inspired Word of God.  It is not, however, contradictory on our part to say that the Authorized Version is not inspired.  You ask how that can be so?  Very simply.  When I said that “the King James Version is the inspired Word of God” a moment ago, I was referring to the KJV as Scripture.  And we know that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God.  When I said that “the Authorized Version is not inspired” immediately afterward, I was referring to the KJV as a translation.  The translation was not inspired — that would require double inspiration.  But the Scriptures are still inspired.  And since the Scriptures are not lost in translation, the King James Version is the Very Word of God.

When a preacher insists that the King James Version is inspired, and insists in the next breath that he is not arguing for double inspiration, he is equivocating.  He should explain what he means when he says that “the King James Version is inspired.”  Is he referring to the KJV as an English translation of Scripture, or is he referring to it as Scripture.  When he calls the KJV inspired, what does he mean by “inspired?”  Does he mean that God breathed it out in the same sense that God breathed out the Greek and Hebrew words?  Does he mean that God divinely superintended the translators as they translated?  Is he referring to the fact that translated Scripture is still Scripture?  There is a significant difference between each of these meanings of inspiration.

The point is that he needs to do a better job of defining his terms.  All arguments aside, it really is mis-leading to argue that the KJV is inspired, and then to turn around and say that you don’t believe in double inspiration, without any kind of explanation in between those statements.  If a man believes in inspiration for any translation, if he believes that the translation itself is inspired, then he believes that God re-wrote the Bible, re-gave the words, this time as English or Spanish or Russian or Latin words.  If he doesn’t believe that, then he needs to find a better way to say what it is that he means.

Given by Inspiration

We have discussed this before in our comments section, but we thought it appropriate once again to attempt a more complete treatment of the question.  In 2 Timothy 3:16, the Bible says, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.”  In English, this phrase is 8 words long.  It is the translation of 3 Greek words — and I apologize to the Greek purists who hate transliteration here, but — those three Greek words are, “Pasa graphe theopneustos.“  Literally, all Scripture is God-breathed.  Theopneustos is an adjective in the predicate position, hence the word “is.”

We have had some amount of debate in the past as to whether theopneustos refers to the product or the process.  In other words, does theopneustos refer to the process of giving the words, or to the words as the product of the process.  If we would understand the issue concerning the KJV and inspiration, we must understand the answer to this question regarding theopneustos.

Theopneustos is Product

An adjective in the predicate position makes an assertion about the noun.  All Scripture is theopneustos — God-breathed.  We understand the word “is” to refer to a state of being or existence.  We describe the nature of the existence of Scripture as “God-breathed.”  All Scripture exists as God-breathed Scripture, and that quality is never lost in any of those words.  In the past, we have argued that we know which words were the God-breathed words, because we still have them.  We have all of them.  Non-inspired words were lost, or lost for long periods of time before they resurfaced, thus proving that they were not God-breathed words.  The breath of God produced words, and those words formed Scripture.  All the writings of Scripture are God-breathed.

Theopneustos is Process

Our English Bible translates theopneustos as a verb — given by inspiration.  In fact, the phrase “by inspiration” modifies the verb “given.”  It explains how it was given, the instrument by which all Scripture was given.  If the product of theopneustos is God-breathed words, then the process must necessarily have been by God breathing out those words.  Our English Bible is correct then in its translation.  All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.  Inspiration was a process, and the result of inspiration was the product of the totality of inspired Scripture.

Inspiration as a process occurred over a fixed period of time.  We believe that God closed the canon, that God finished that process in time past.  The product continues, per the promise of God, forever.  But the process was completed almost 2,000 years ago.  God did not re-start or re-do that process somewhere around 1611.  But God did enable English-speaking men to give a faithful translation of His Words in English.  The product continues.  We have the ability to examine that product continually, and a great assistance in examining that product, through our English Bible.

But our English Version is not inspired.  To say that it is would be to say that God re-did the process.  Our English Bible is the inspired Word of God.  But that is different than saying that the English Version is inspired.  Our English Bible is the inspired Word of God because it faithfully translates God’s Word (the product) into English.  The product is not lost in translation, nor is the process re-done.

Much of the argument on this issue has revolved around the “breath of God” and whether or not it can be lost in translation.  I would agree with those who insist that the words retain that quality of being the “breath of God.”  But I would also point out the words that retain the quality of being the “breath of God” are not the English words.  The words that God originally gave, those are the inspired words.  We must understand our English translation in that context, or else we are undoing ourselves in this debate.

While Dave Mallinak approaches the third rail of fundamentalist politics, I will seek my own source of theological voltage, what has been called the “qualifications of the pastor,” as found in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1.  I’m going to focus on only one little phrase in the Titus 1 listing as found in verse six—”having faithful children.”  If we are going to guard the truth of God’s Word and our churches, then we better have an understanding of what are these characteristics of pastors and whether they are required in order for a man to have, fulfill, and then continue in this office.  I’m afraid that often men approach the traits outlined in the pastoral epistles with too many personal situations or hypotheticals in view.  Instead, we should understand these qualities and then conform our practice to them, rather than adapting them to something that will preserve our own job or someone else’s.   The two chapters are bigger than any one man or group of men.

Qualification or Disqualification or Both?

Before we think about what “having faithful children” means, I want to consider some points about these pastoral character traits in general.  In conversations I have had with others, I have heard this type of statement about these two lists:  “They are qualifications, not disqualifications.”  In other words, we might agree that men should fulfill these traits in order to be appointed to the office of the pastor, but once a man is into the office, he can’t be removed based upon a characteristic violation of one or more of these attributes.  I’ve never seen them that way, but maybe you agree.

1 Timothy 3:2 reads—”A bishop then must be. . . .”—after which are the characteristics listed.  Titus 1:6 begins, “If any be. . . .”  In both cases, we have present tense forms of the being verb, communicating continuous action.  The verbs do not refer to a point in time, but an ongoing activity.  Someone in that office must continue to live according to these descriptions.  Even before “faithful children” in v. 6, we see “having,” which is a present active participle, again expressing continuous action.  These traits must remain the lifestyle of the man in the office.

Someone might argue that both passages are talking about the commencement of a man in the office.  1 Timothy 3 describes him as desiring the office and Titus 1 as being ordained and appointed to the office.  In other words, some might say that these are attributes that need only be fulfilled when a man first starts as a pastor.  The present tense verbs do not lend themselves toward that view, that these are only qualifications, but not disqualifications.  A few more items, I believe, work against this idea to reveal it to be false.

The works of the man of God are produced by the gospel.  Gospel produced works (Eph 2:8-10) will not stop being performed.  Whatever is happening in the life of a believer will persevere, but it is God who conforms the believer into the image of His Son (Rom 8:29).  God will continue to cause the characteristic works of a Christian until his day of redemption (Philip 1:6).

We also know that a pastor can disqualify himself by his actions.  Paul certainly wasn’t speaking about losing his salvation in 1 Corinthians 9:27, when he talked about being a “castaway.”   In the various usages of the Greek word translated “castaway” (adokimos), we see it to say “disqualified.”  He was motivated to keep his body under subjection by the threat of disqualification from some type of Christian ministry.   I believe that 1 Timothy 5:19-20 lays out the procedure that should be followed in bringing disqualifying types of accusations against a pastor.

Besides two Scriptural arguments, I believe some God-given common sense comes in play here.   We understand by reading the qualifications that they were for the purpose of keeping the testimony of God and His church, to set apart the church as a unique institution on earth, unlike merely natural organizations.  “Blameless” as a characteristic relates to reputation.  It isn’t saying, “sinless.”  That’s not possible.  It is “blameless,” because when there is enough violation to ruin the reputation of the pastor, he can’t be one and should be disqualified using the ordained process in 1 Timothy 5.  After he is removed, then no man should lay hands upon him suddenly (1 Tim 5:22).  He could prove himself again to fulfill the qualifications if he has not permanently disqualified himself.  Some of the traits in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 seem to be permanent.

Who Are Faithful Children?

The word “faithful” (pistos) always refers to believers, saved people, in the New Testament.  It is never an unconverted person.   It couldn’t be referring to some kind of well-behaved, disciplined unbelieving child.  Certainly it can be used of someone who is loyal or trustworthy as a saved person, but it is always a believer and always someone who is faithful with the truth.  The word is actually a simple one that in its essence means “believing,” the opposite of which is “unbelieving.”

How “faithful” is used in Titus 1:6 is how it is used in Ephesians 1:1,  “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus,” and Colossians 1:2, “To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse.”   The faithful servant of Matthew 24 and Luke 12, the good and faithful servant of Matthew 25 and Luke 19, the faithful person of Luke 16, the faithful mother of Timothy (Acts 16:1), the faithful stewards of 1 Corinthians 4, faithful Timothy (1 Cor 4:17), the faithful ministers of Colossians 1:7 and 4:7, faithful Onesimus (Col 4:9),  faithful Moses (Heb 3:5), faithful Silvanus (1 Pet 5:12), and faithful Antipas (Rev 2) were all believers.  To take “faithful” out of the believing context, isolate it as if it only meant submissive to the father’s leadership without believing what the father taught, would be to distort the word.

The Greek word for “children” (tekna) refers to offspring, not necessarily young.  BDAG says that it is “an offspring of human parents” or “descendants.”  The word doesn’t mean children in the home.  There are words that do mean that, and they could have been used by Paul in Titus, but they weren’t.  If Paul  wanted to talk about little children he could have used teknion.  If he wanted to talk about babies he could have used brephos, that means infants.  It’s not an issue of the age of his children, but that his children believe without dissipation or rebellion, whatever age they are in life.

1 Timothy 3:4 requires that children of a pastor be in submission and that looks like it refers to kids that are still at home. A pastor’s children must operate under the direction of their parents.  They can’t function in rebellion against their pastor parent.  Children of a pastor as a lifestyle must be obedient to him.  Titus 1:6 brings more information to the parenting of the pastor by including that his children must show that they have been obedient by showing their faithfulness to his preaching of the gospel.

The Problems Some Have

Some do not like the idea of having the qualifications of the pastor sort of dependent on other people.  In other words, another person, the pastor’s child, could put him out of his office.  Some of this relates to belief about salvation itself.  Calvinists, for instance, would see a pastor as not having any ability to ensure that his child will receive Christ.  A child’s salvation in many Calvinists’ view is up to the foreordination and predetermination of God regardless of what a pastor does in the way of parenting.  It seems to give trouble to the Calvinist outlook, giving too much to the influence of the leadership of the pastor on his children.  They seem to see a pastor as helpless as to whether his children will be converted or not.  He must wait to see if his children were elect before the foundations of the world.

However, this idea that the conversion of one’s children is so much out of one’s control clashes with so many scriptural texts that relate to human influence on the salvation of sinners.  Matthew 5:16 teaches that you can live a kind of life that results in people glorifying God.  As a consequence of the lifestyle of the first church in Jerusalem, according to Acts 2:41-47, the Lord added to the number that were being saved.  In Romans 11:14, Paul writes that his desire in preaching to the Gentiles was somehow to move to jealousy his fellow countrymen to be saved, so that what he did would have a direct impact on the salvation of others.  In 1 Corinthians 9, Paul said he would become as weak to save the weak, a clear implication that the way he dealt with people would directly relate with whether men would be saved.   Then at the end of chapter 10, he didn’t want to give an offense to a Jew or Grecian, so that his life would lead people to salvation.  In Philippians 2:15 Paul speaks of being above reproach as a light in a wicked world so that in the day of Christ he could find out that he got some salvation impact out of his life.  He says in 1 Timothy 4:12-16 that Timothy’s conduct would ensure salvation to some of those that heard him.  Peter says the same kind of thing in 1 Peter 2:11, when he says that good behavior among unbelieving pagans would result in their glorifying God in the day of judgment.  He instructs women with unsaved husbands in 1 Peter 3:1-2 that their husbands could be won by their own chaste conduct.

We also have texts such as these that apply directly to the parent-child relationship and salvation. In 1 Corinthians 7:12-14, Paul says that one Christian parent could sanctify a home to the degree that the children would become no longer unclean but holy.   Paul intimates that a woman doing proper child training could offset the harmful stigma of the curse on women (1 Tim 2:15).  This is exactly what we see was done by Lois and Eunice with Timothy (2 Tim 1:5) with the holy scriptures they taught him as a child (2 Tim 3:15).

Scripture does not teach a fatalistic approach to child rearing without proper consideration of the impact of a godly life or the responsibility for evangelism.  Salvation comes to people through the faithful witness and godly example of other believers.  All through Scripture we are continually taught that a godly life leads people to salvation.  Election is the issue with God and the issue by which we give Him glory but it is not some explanation to embrace as an explanation for why a pastor’s child didn’t receive Christ.

I don’t apologize for viewing Proverbs 22:6 as a promise to parents:

Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.

If he departs from it, what is our conclusion?  The parents didn’t train up the child in the way he should go.  I’m not saying that every son will be a pastor or missionary.  The qualification is “faithful.”  A pastor must have children who are saved.  I would expect his children to show the behavior fitting of conversion.  If they don’t, he should not be in that office.

What About When They’re Young?

“Are you saying if your children aren’t old enough to be saved you can’t pastor?”  No.  When they’re young, they’re under control and they are being taught to be faithful to the Word of God.  They are guided by a faithful pastor to be faithful themselves to what he is faithful to.  And some day that blooms into saving faith. The church ought to be able to look at that man’s life and see that process taking place, see those little children affirming, believing as much as their simple hearts can believe, progressing toward a saving faith.  When it comes to the point that they’re old enough to believe, they are to be faithful to the truth they have been taught.

In many ways, this becomes an inane game played by those who want to discredit the qualification.  I believe this is why the word “faithful” is used, however.  The children (primaries, juniors, even young teens) don’t have to be converted.  They must be faithful to the truth until they end where everyone does who is faithful to God’s Word—conversion.

So What If a Pastor’s Child Doesn’t Receive Christ?

If the pastor must have faithful children in order to be a pastor, then his children must receive Christ.  They must give evidence they are headed that direction until they actually do believe in Jesus for salvation.  A pastor who has a child who rebels against that teaching should not continue in the office.  He has been disqualified because he has not ruled his house well.  His children did not submit to what he taught.  If they had, then they would have received Christ.

I’ve read polls for why people go to church.   I talk to thousands of people every year about the Lord and church and spiritual matters, and I have heard from them what’s important about the church they attend or are a part of.  Based on what people want in a church, churches have designed their programs to meet those desires.  This is a prescription for church growth.  Some churches and their leaders have modified this a bit, using the church growth methods that attract people while hanging on to various of their core values, attempting to get a bit of the “best of both worlds.”  They mix the attractions with the traditional reasons for church to varying degrees.

If you talk to anyone at all about church, then you know some of what people say they want in a church.  They love the building.  They love the pastor’s preaching.  They love the children’s programs.  They love the people.  They love the school.  They love the pastor and his family.  They feel comfortable there.  It gives them peace to go and be a part.  It helps them to make sense out of life.  It centers them.  They love the programs.  They love the music.  They sing in the choir.  They grew up in the church.  All their friends are there.

In this series, I’ve asked why I’m in the church I’m in.  I’m encouraging you to do the same.  I am giving what the reasons should be.   I started with God.  God is the chief reason for the church we’re in.  Next I said we should consider the belief and practice of the church.   Another one is closely related, that is, what is the preaching and conduct of the church.  I’m differentiating practice from conduct in this way—the practice would be the stated practice of a church and the conduct would be what is actually happening.  I believe the latter would include the discipline of the membership.  Is the church following the proclaimed body life of the New Testament?  Is there admonishing, exhorting, restoring, teaching, provoking, warning, strengthening, bearing, and supporting that is explained and directed by the inspired and authoritative teachings of Jesus, Paul, John, James, Peter, and Jude?  A church can say that it practices a certain way, but is that practice the conduct that someone would actually see?  The way to guarantee that is to follow those commands in the New Testament that are the basis for enforcement.

First though, is the Bible being preached?  All of it?  I don’t think the whole Bible will be preached without expository preaching through the Books of the Bible.   On a root level, the question is:  Is the Word being preached?   A church should preach the Word and the whole counsel of God, all of it.  This is the only way that a man could be throughly furnished unto every good work.  We want the whole Bible preached because we are responsible for all of it.  We don’t want someone to think otherwise.  If we’re to practice it all, then we must preach it all.

Not only must the Words be preached, but the authority of those Words is found in their meaning.  We must be careful to look at Scripture in its context.  We must find the understanding of the Words, how they are used.  Our goal is to comprehend what the people in that day would have understood them to mean.  We are going to be judged by those Words and that judgment will be based upon their plain meaning.  We must take responsibility to understand God’s Word in the context in which it was written and then apply it for today.  Preaching the whole counsel requires preaching what the Bible actually means.

Success doesn’t stop at the Bible being preached.  It must be followed.  The conduct of Scripture should be lived and then enforced.  I’m in the church I’m in because we do hear all the Words preached and the people are responsible to keep all of them.  That doesn’t mean that they always do.  However, when they don’t, they are dealt with according to the Bible.   Our church expects people to conduct themselves in fitting with the doctrine of God.  That’s a reason to be in the church I’m in.

You’d have a hard time ordering in a Greek restaurant with the “Koine Greek.”

— Stephen Carter, Co-Pastor, Landmark Baptist Church, Haines City, Florida

The English-Only Preservationists want us to know that we couldn’t order a pepperoni pizza at Domino’s Pizza using the Koine Greek.   In fact, one preacher, in making this very point, asked for those to stand up who had studied the Biblical Greek.  When one poor, misguided soul had the audacity to stand, this pastor proceeded to ask him, “could you tell me how to order a pepperoni pizza in Koine Greek?”  And we have no doubt that the awkwardness of the resultant silence clarified the issue to said audience perfectly.  We don’t want no Bible in no language that we can’t order no pizza in.  Grunt.  Snort.  Snigger.

And they tell me that attendees were divided as to which happened faster, the Bible tucked high and tite under the preacher’s armpit, or the smug look that plastered itself to the preacher’s face.

And some say that the offending delegate was later overheard muttering “A pepperoni! A pepperoni! My argument for a slice of pepperoni!”

Of course, when they couch the argument in such powerful terms, one can easily see why English-Only Preservationists are winning the day in such astonishing ways.  Why, how does one effectively counter such rigorous reasoning?  Those of us who believe that God actually preserved the Very Words he gave are left befuddled and confused at how to answer such logic.  After all, we had never thought of that ourselves.  They taught us to anticipate the opponents argument, and we must confess that we overlooked it altogether.  We confess, we can’t order a pepperoni pizza in Greek.  And all of a sudden, all our arguments have come crumbling down around our ears, big gooey globs of sauce and melted cheese all over our foreheads.  It runs down upon the beard, even our very own beard, and went to the skirts of our garment.  Leaving behind a trail of tomato sauce and oregano.

After all, consider the ramifications if we can’t order a pepperoni pizza in Koine Greek.  Obviously then, God didn’t preserve the Greek words.  Obviously, God’s Words are only in English, since that is the only language available to me when I order a pepperoni pizza.  Of course, I haven’t stopped to look at how one might order a pepperoni pizza in the King’s English, especially considering that the name “pizza” doesn’t appear in the Sacred Record, or, for that matter, in the English Language until sometime in the 1800’s.  But I assume that since I can order a pizza in English, the Bible must only be preserved in English.  Obviously, I need to stop studying Greek, since it is such a useless language.  After all, I would have a hard time ordering in a Greek restaurant with the “Koine Greek.”  Of course, I would have a hard time ordering in a Greek restaurant in English too, especially if they only speak Greek.  But again, that is beside the point.  Obviously the so-called scholars don’t really know the languages they so often herald.  And that is obvious because they couldn’t order a pepperoni pizza in Greek.

Now, Knock it Off, Please

The ability to order a pepperoni pizza in Greek, or to order food in a Greek restaurant has as much to do with the issue as the length of your middle toe.  For a person to argue that since we can’t order food in the Biblical language, therefore that Biblical language is useless, and (worse yet) God has not preserved those Greek and Hebrew words is sheer lunacy.  One might as well argue that the Greek is useless because I was born with an innie instead of an outie.  Really, folks, your argument is silly.

God promised to preserve the Words He gave.  God gave the Bible in Greek and Hebrew.  The fact that the Koine Greek is no longer in common usage does not undo the fact that God kept this promise.  We have God’s Words, in Hebrew and in Greek.  You can buy a copy for yourself.  I bought my Greek New Testament for just a little over $12 U.S.  Send me an e-mail, and I’ll help you find one.  They somehow manage to still be around.  Probably just a coincidence.  Or perhaps a “Providential” coincidence.  Either way, we’re assuming that this has to do with a little promise God made about His Words, something about heaven and earth passing away, but God’s Words not passing away.

Nor should the fact that you can’t use the Greek language in any sort of utilitarian way in this modern era discourage you from studying the Greek language.  No, you won’t be able to give directions to your house in Koine Greek.  You won’t be able to discuss politics with your co-workers in Koine Greek.  And you won’t be able to do the play-by-play on Monday Night Football in Koine Greek.  But that isn’t the point.  The point is to study the Words God gave, so that we can better understand the sense in which the particular English words of our King James Bible are used.  That is a worthwhile goal — imagine, gaining a better understanding of the Bible by (gasp!) studying. English-Only Preservationists should give study a shot.  It might help them loosen the hayseed that’s been wedged there between their incisors.

Now, you should be warned ahead of time — you won’t be able to order a pizza out of the Bible.  Not sure that God had it in mind that you should be able to in the first place.  But then, we don’t want you to be gettin’ any false impressions.  Your Greek New Testament won’t do your laundry either.  But that doesn’t undo the fact that God has preserved His Words — the very Words of God, in the very Words that were given.

So, wipe that silly smirk off your face, and try to use a little common sense here.  When you deny preservation in the name of the King James Bible, you undo the King James Bible.

Churches today use a lot of different means to get people to join.  They often start with the interests that people have, their carnal desires, hoping that their lust could be a jumping off point for spiritual interest later.   A whole new theology has been built around this, a doctrine to justify talking people into coming to church on their terms.   Fundamentalists, evangelicals, emergents, and even the orthodox use marketing techniques and strategies to lure people in.  This does give one major explanation for why you will hear people offer many different reasons why they attend church or why they go to the church they do.

In my first submission in this series, I contended that God should be the top priority for why you’re in the church you’re in.  God should be what and Who church is about.   This one thought should serve as a baseline for elucidating why we’ve joined the church we have.   In one sense, the thinking about God relates to the subject of eternity.  Since we believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, we make decisions based upon the fact that we will face God some day and that He is our ultimate Judge.   With this in mind, all the following reasons for why I’m in the church I’m in do relate to the first.   All the reasons hence will correlate to the first reason.  All the other reasons consider what will please God, since He is why I’m in church.

With pleasing God as the major grid for my church decision, the doctrine and practice of a church stands as the next two criteria for joining a church.  I want a church that believes and practices according to Scripture.  As long as a church keeps the same, right doctrine and practice, I will stay a part of it.   I see those as the emphasis in the Bible.   We want the right view of God and then to do what He says.  Those both keep God in the highest priority.  We know God exalts His Word.  Jesus said that those Who love Him will keep what He said.  With all other factors considered, belief and practice will determine what church I’m a part of.

If a church continues in the right doctrine and obeys the Bible, I can keep fellowshiping with it.   I may have a personality issue with someone else in the church.  I want to get that resolved.  Of course, that’s what God wants me to do, but it will be worth it to remain in fellowship with a church that believes right and does right.  Even if I’m the one that has been offended, I want to do what it takes to stay in the church.

On some other blog someone asked this kind of question.  I thought it was a good question and something I wanted to explore with everyone for perhaps more than one post, that is, unless we pick a topic and go after it.  I’ll put this on hold then for a little while.  The other two jackhammers can write on this too if they want.   I think we’ll be back to our old schedule sometime soon.

First, I should get to the most basic part of the question, why am I in a church?   Perhaps the first thing you thought of was those people who say that they don’t believe in organized religion.  You get that out there when you’re talking to the lost.   But I’m not going there first.  I’m going to get into something that is even more basic than saying something good about the institution of the church itself.  The reason I’m in a church is because of God.

I want to please God.  I’m not in a church for myself.  I’m in a church for God.  That guides all the other thoughts and actions that I have about a church.  I don’t attend church for myself.  I go to church for God.  I don’t determine whether the church is good by what it does for me.  I make that decision based on what I believe is best for God.  I might have a bad relationship with someone in the church, but that doesn’t stop me from being in church.  Why?  I’m not there for other people.  I’m there for God.  I’m there for other people too, but entirely without one single other person, I would still be there.

God never fails.  He never changes.  He’s always great.  He’s always the best.  He’s amazingly worth it.  What it is that I like about whatever church that I’m going to be a part of starts with who God is.  He loves me.  I love Him.  Every good and perfect gift has come from Him.  I could never repay Him, but this life I’m living is going to be about Him.   So I’m there for Him.  I don’t care if my feelings are hurt.  He didn’t hurt them.   No one or no thing is going to keep me away, because it is all about God.

If you don’t have that as the reason, I feel sorry for you.  If you don’t have it as the reason, I think you’ve got it wrong right off the bat.  You’ll likely have problems because you don’t have that settled.  I also think that not having that as the reason is at the root of most problems with churches and with people toward churches.  Have church first be about God.  It will be the best thing you’ve every done for church is to have it not be about you or about your family, but about God.  It will be the best thing for you and for your family and for everyone else in the world if church would be about God to you.

Thanks to Jack Schaap, the KJVO debate has reached a rolling boil among the ranks.  Right now, on my desk, sits a stack of articles from all sorts of sources, not least of which is the Sword of the Lord, and mostly those representing the various colleges in the Hyles circle.  The articles have titles like “The Inspiration of the King James Bible,” “Is the AV 1611 King James Bible Inspired?” “What Did Jesus Write?” “Siding With the Plowman,” “Editor Makes the Case for Inspired Text,” “The Inspiration of the Scriptures,” and “The Inspiration and Preservation of the King James Bible.”  In each case, the author denies that he believes in “double-inspiration.”  And in each case, the author proclaims a doctrine that is impossible unless God re-inspired the Bible in English. 

Here is what flabbergasts me.  These men claim that they believe in preservation — they claim to believe that God kept every word of Scripture.  And then, they turn around and deny that.  In their attempts to argue that God’s Word is preserved in English only, they make statements like, “God allowed the Greek and Hebrew to go into oblivion.”  They deny that God’s Word is preserved in the languages in which it was given.   They argue that the Originals do not exist, and cast reflexion on the integrity of the various manuscripts of the TR, the basis of our King James Version.

In order to uphold our English Bible, those who claim to be King James Only are now denying that God has preserved the very words that he gave.  I find this mind-boggling.  What purpose does it serve to attack the foundation of the King James Bible? 

When the Psalmist said in Psalm 12:6-7, “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever,” what words was he speaking of?  What words did God promise to keep?  Would David have understood this to mean English words?  Would he have thought that God was promising to keep any words other than the Hebrew words in which the Old Testament was given? 

How about Matthew?  When the Bible says in Matthew 24:35, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away,” how would Matthew have understood this?  Would he have thought that Christ was referring to English words?  Would Paul understand this to mean that God would lose the Greek words, the very words in which this verse and the majority of New Testament verses were given?  Would Peter have understood this to mean that the Greek words would be lost and/or replaced with English words?

To argue that the Greek and Hebrew words were lost or “went into oblivion” is to argue that God failed to keep his promise.  He promised to keep them, as the old Divines would say, “by His singular care and providence.”  Ironically, those who have made the King James Version their first issue are now denying God’s promise in order to maintain their singular loyalty to this version, and subsequent rejection of the Original Languages.

 How sad.

Every year at about this time, I find myself re-amazed at the amount of money and effort people in Utah put into decorating for Halloween. But this year especially, I am beyond re-amazed. In a bad economy, as people lose their shirts and undershirts to the stock market, as businesses fold, and as unemployment rates spike, Halloween Stores are popping up all over town, filling every vacant store they can find.

Is there really that much demand for Styrofoam gravestones and inflatable monsters? As I drive around, I find that yes in fact, there is that much demand for it. Utah has several cultural oddities, but Utah’s fetish with all things Halloween just might be the most glaring obsession of all. What gives with that?

As Christians, we must remember that men become what they worship. People who worship a god that has eyes but see not, that have ears but hear not, that have mouths but speak not, become just like that — sightless eyes, speechless mouths, just like their gods of stone (see Psalm 115 and 135). Only in this case, we are confronted with a god who is the brother of Satan, and who demands from his worshippers, not groveling at the feet of a stone god, but rather a strict adherence to a very rigid set of “traditional values.”

In their system, righteousness comes by the law. And, since righteousness by the law is an impossibility (Galatians 2:16; Acts 13:38-39), it can never produce redemption or rest. The only thing that “traditional values” can possibly produce is guilt (Romans 3:20; James 2:10). What we have then, among the practitioners of the local religion, is a religion that is laden with guilt. One pastor rightly compared it to the Salt Lake — an enormous dead sea of guilt. It is their “traditional values,” their commitment to righteousness by the law that generates this Salt Lake of guilt. Their “values” produce such a weight, such a burden of standards that the load of guilt crushes them.

So, what do we make of Halloween in Utah? Why is it celebrated so furiously? Besides the fact that they are celebrating their lord’s next-of-kin, we can also say that this is their way of dealing with their guilt. I suppose that we could make the same comparison to slavery — men find odd ways to put a positive spin on their condition. Even in slavery, men still found a way to be happy. A man who is enslaved by guilt soon finds a way to enjoy it, even to make it seem like this is the way it is supposed to be.

Bobby Mitchell, pastor of Mid-Coast Baptist Church, Brunswick, Maine, sent me an email in which he and his father chronicled the reasons why churches and their Christian families are losing their children to the world.  He was asked by someone doing research for a book to give his explanation.  I thought they were bullseye at diagnosing the problem, so I asked Pastor Mitchell if we could publish it here or at my blog, What Is Truth. Here is the answer that was authored by his dad and him

1.  Many are not genuinely converted because of the watered down Gospel presentations that are so prevalent.  They are told to acknowledge a few facts, they are led in a prayer, then they are told to never doubt their experience.  Of course, over time, if they are never genuinely converted then they either continue on trying to “fit the mold” of their church, or they just walk away from it when they are able.

2.  Many are told what to do, but not taught why to do it, or what not to do, but not why. They have been told that baptism is by immersion only, that the KJV is the Word of God in English, that women should be modest, etc.  But, these things are not taught to them from the Scriptures.  They grow up just thinking that these are merely the rules of life for independent Baptists.  So, they are not really convinced, or convicted, and it is easy for them to slip into other doctrines and practices.

3.  Many grow up in homes that are plagued with inconsistency.  The standards change based on who the family is around.  The family Bible time is hit-and-miss or non-existent.  Discipline is not consistent.  There is an open or even silent disagreement with what is taught by the church concerning entertainment, dress, roles in the home, etc.  The inconsistency relates to young people that the parents are not really set on doing things the Biblical way.  They become unstable and are easy prey for the world.

4.  Many hear their parents criticize the pastor and other strong Christians in the church.  This can result in confusion.

5.  Many times when the pastor is seeing the young people really embrace the truth and Biblical living the parents become obstacles.  It seems the parents are bothered by their children surpassing them in the things of the Lord.  The parents pull them back and some even express jealousy concerning the influence the pastor has concerning their children.

6.  Many times the parents get their children wrapped up in the things of this world.  The parents are concerned about their children loving the Lord and walking in the light, but they are just as concerned with their kids playing organized sports, becoming popular, being fashionable, seeing the latest movies, making a lot of money, having the newest video game systems, acquiring every type of technology without proper accountability regarding those “toys,” etc.  Through it all the dad and mom seem to be sowing thorns that choke the seed of the Word of God.  This is especially true when the sports, fun, and such ever come before any of the aspects of New Testament ministry.

7.  Many times the young people are not really involved in the ministry of the church until they are pressed to do so in their late teens.  Too many are just observers and not participators.  All that is expected of them is to sit and be entertained instead of training and serving.  They are not taught that we exist to glorify God.  Practically, they are being taught that the ministry exists to make sure that they are having fun.  They are not taught to “buy in” to the work of the ministry.  Eventually, they realize that the world’s entertainment is better and they look for fulfillment in getting involved in worldly groups and activities.

8.  Many Christian young people are not taught to pray, study the Bible, meditate on the Word, memorize the Scriptures and appropriate them practically in real-life situations.  Real life then comes along and they don’t respond Biblically.

9.  Many times young people grow up knowing of all sorts of sin in the church that is not dealt with Scripturally.  Of course, they also see young people leaving the church and that not being dealt with Biblically.  They don’t realize how wicked this is and they have no fear of God concerning it.

10.  The bar is set too low for so many young people.  They are treated as if they are expected to be “silly teens.”  As long as they don’t do a few really bad things and as long as they do a few good things they are treated as if they are Godly.  So many of the young people in churches that I have been familiar with are good (in the commonly used sense of the word) but they are not Godly!  Good kids will eventually get devoured by the world, but truly spiritual ones will develop into mature Christians.   Too many are treated according to the worldly concept of “teenager hood.”  The Bible speaks of infants, children, young men, young women, and older men, and older women.  I think that a lack of teens understanding that they should be Godly young men and young ladies is hurting many.

11.  Many young people have heard very little of the “fear of God.”  They have a warped image of God that magnifies his love and mercy while almost completely ignoring his holiness, majesty, and wrath.  Subsequently, they walk in pride and rebellion.

12.  Too often the preaching to young people is just fluffy and light, and often-times it is just motivational speaking.  Too many young people do not grow up really learning sound doctrine and being taught through books of the Bible.  Too many preachers that are youth-focused are trying to be “cool” and “hip.”

13.  Many kids from good homes and churches graduate high school and are pushed into the Christian college environment.  Sadly, most (prayerfully, not all) of the Bible colleges are anemic in their teaching and practice.  There is almost an idolatry of fun and good times at many schools.  One college has even been heavily promoting a water park with a wave pool and a place for the young ladies to tan (as if that is so important).  When I visited that same school I was awestruck with the amount of money and time put into “fun.”  The young adults are, in a great way, withdrawn from their parents, church, and pastor.  What little time they have with godly teachers and staff is outweighed by the influence of so many worldly students in the dorm rooms and activities.  There is a mixture of doctrinal persuasions among many of the student bodies.   Their parents and pastors are compared to those of the others and often the lowest common denominator is embraced in matters of holiness.  The dating game is played.  Endless debates rage among peers.  The “pillar and ground of the truth,” the local NT church, is downplayed.

14.  The local New Testament church is treated by many parents as optional instead of vital to spiritual growth and New Testament Christianity.  The same goes for the pastor.