June 22, 2004
Lord, please give me words to speak. Be with me continually, constantly throughout every day. Reveal Yourself to me. I pray that You would help me to grow, tall and strong in my faith, in my relationship with You. I pray that You would turn me into a blessing to all I meet. Mold me into Your wonderful creation. I came from dust, You gave me the breath of life, but I am still just clay. Take me away to be with You every day. Fill me up to overflowing with the desire to be with You constantly. Keep my eyes on You. Make me like the girl in the song:
“They say she is loved by the greatest of all who has walked in this world. He lives far away still she spends all her days content with only His words. She often walks alone, but never is she lonely. You can offer her anything her affections are all for Him only. All the day long she sings sweetly, she says He speaks to her mind. She’s only rich with affliction, but a bitter word you won’t find. She lives with assurance He loves her to deeply to let such distance remain. She looks to the sky as if He is coming down from the clouds up above. She’s brimming with longing for Him to come calling and sweep her away. She often walks alone, but never is she lonely. You can offer her anything, her affections are all for Him only.”
Lord, I do long for You to come and take me away to be with You. But I cannot know when that will be, so, please, Lord Jesus, please, make me as close as I can be to You while on this earth. This is my desire, and You said, "He will fulfill the desire of those who fear Him; He also will hear their cry and save them." I pray that You would teach me to fear You properly. Teach me to know Your will, for I know that if the desire of my heart is in Your will, it is certain to be fulfilled!
You are chipping away at me daily. It can be painful and irritating. But just as a diamond, I must be brought down in size, the blackness melted away, and cut to shape in order to be perfect. Take me to You, in the Holy of Holies. Take me to You, where I can lay my heart before You so that it may be free of iniquity. Take me to You, so that I may know Your will and do great work for Your kingdom. Thank You, dear Jesus. Thank You so much.
In Jesus' Precious Name above all names, I pray these things, Amen.
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Saturday, March 25, 2006
The Satanic Influence
Most people don't think about the subject of Satanism unless there is a grizzly murder, and satanic symbols are found at the crime scene. Many who believe in the devil, usually think of him as being the darkest of figures. What they don't realize is that the Bible tells us that he can also manifest himself as an "angel of light." In reference to false converts within the Church, the Bible says:
For such men are false apostles [spurious, counterfeits], deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles (special messengers) of Christ . . . And it is no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light; So it is not surprising if his servants also masquerade as ministers of righteousness... 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 (Amplified Bible)
Satan is incredibly subtle. We are warned that he uses professing men of God (ministers of righteousness) to deceive the Church. The Bible calls him "the god of this world," and says that he blinds the minds of unbelievers. Jesus called him "the prince of this world," and "the father of lies."
The Scriptures continually warn the Church against his wiles (his methods), using words such as "be not deceived," and telling us to "be vigilant." Well, has our Satan had any influence on you and me? Is there any deception with the Church? That's what we are going to look at closely. We are going to look at perhaps the greatest and most subtle of Satan's deceptions.
You may not be familiar with the story Jesus told of the Prodigal Son, so let's take a moment to consider what it says. The Prodigal Son asked his father for his inheritance, then went into a far country and spent all his cash on parties and prostitutes. He enjoyed "the pleasures of sin." But after a famine hit the land, his money ran out, and the only job he could get was feeding pigs. He became so hungry that he found himself desiring the food that the pigs were eating.
Suddenly, he "came to himself"--he came to his senses. Realizing that even his father's servants had it better than he did, he decided to return and say, "Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight. Take me on as a hired servant." So he got up out of the pigsty and went back to his father.
His father was looking for his son's return, and the Bible says that "he saw him while he was yet a great way off." He ran to his son, fell upon him, kissed him, and rejoiced that he had returned. He freely forgave him and returned him to his former state.
This is a picture of every person before they come to Christ. We turned from God to serve the devil and the pleasures of sin. The Bible says that there is a "spirit" that works in the children of disobedience. 1 John 3:8 says "He that commits sin is of the devil..." Jesus even told the religious hypocrites of His day that their father was the devil:
You are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. John 8:44
Unsaved people live in the Kingdom of Darkness. It's as simple as this, if we are serving sin, we are serving Satan. Our appetites are unclean. We desire pig food. Consider what we crave. Think of the contents of the average soap opera or prime time television show --adultery, jealously, lust, fornication, rape, gossip, and greed. Or the average movie today with its violence, filthy language, explicit sex, and graphic murder.
Look at the covers of magazines in bookstores and supermarkets. They are "soft-core" pornography, which a few years ago was considered hard-core and hidden from young eyes. Think of video games that kids crave--they are extremely violent and sexually perverted. Think of most rock music, with its explicit sexuality, its blasphemy, and its dark Satanic side. Consider the Internet's multi-billion dollar hard-core porn industry, or how the average person uses filthy words and blasphemy in every day speech. Life in the dirty pigsty is normal, natural, and completely acceptable.
Yes, Satan is the god of this world, and he has deceived millions. But his deception hasn't stopped there. It has moved into the Church. Despite what the Bible says, that Satan is real, that he's a deceiver, and the god of this world who blinds minds, look at what has happened--according to the Barna Research Group:
In 2004, an incredible 50% of those who profess to be "born again" actually deny Satan's existence.
That's unbelievable! Despite the revelation of Scripture, 50% of those who profess to be born again actually deny Satan's existence. And the scary thing about denying Satan, is that if you deny that he exists, you let your guard down--you let him bring in deception. The place to corrupt the Church is at the point of entry... to poison evangelistic message that brings people into the Kingdom of God.
That's what has happened. We haven't been vigilant. We have allowed Satan to contaminate the biblical method of evangelism. We have allowed certain "ministers of righteousness" within the Church to move away from Scripture. They refuse to use the Law (the Ten Commandments) to bring the knowledge of sin (as Jesus did), and show sin to "be exceedingly sinful." This is despite the fact that even the Apostle Paul said that he didn't know what sin was without the Law. They say that they have found a shortcut to bring people to salvation. They leave out the Law and instead take the prodigal back to the father, without showing him that his appetites are unclean.
Remember that in the story Jesus told, the prodigal "came to his senses" when he realized that he desired pig food. That's what made him want to go back to his father and say "I have sinned against heaven and in yours sight, make me your hired servant." In the name of sensitivity, modern preachers don't let that happen. They shortcut that process. So instead of the professed convert saying to the Father "I have sinned against Heaven. Make me your servant," he goes to God and says, "I have run out of money. Give me some more. You be my servant."
And that's what's wrong with the modern church. It is filled with unconverted people who have never seen that their sinful appetites are unclean. Modern preachers have left out the Law, and so we have multitudes in pulpits and in pews who don't see sin as exceedingly sinful. So they look on God as their servant. Instead of saying, "Make me your servant," they say "Give me more!"
Aleister Crowley (who died in 1947), is considered to be the father of modern Satanism. In his publication called, The Book of the Law, he sums up the essence of Satanism. It is: "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law."
And that sums up the desires of many who profess to have faith in Jesus Christ. Their lack of concern for the lost shows that something is radically wrong. They have never given up their selfish will, and cried, "Not my will but Yours be done." They have never sought to serve God by doing His will by reaching out to the unsaved.
Remember that Bill Bright said that only 2% of the contemporary church in American share their faith regularly with others. All they want is what they can get from God--health, wealth and prosperity. Listen to most modern preaching. It caters to nothing but selfishness. It's self seeking, self serving, and self-centered. The modern church has become the last days Laodicean church, who says that it's rich and in need of nothing, but it is in truth, poor, blind, wretched, miserable and naked.
How can this great multitude be awakened to this deception? Simply by helping them look into the mirror--by seeing themselves under the light of God's Law--the Ten Commandments.
Every professing Christian should obey the admonition to "Examine yourself to see if you are in the faith." But many won't. They think they are saved because they call Jesus Lord, and do miracles in His name. They will wait until the Day of Judgment and cry "Lord, Lord, we did many wonderful works in your name," and Jesus will say to them, "Depart from Me. You worker of Lawlessness. I never knew you." They are still in their sins.
Martin Luther said, "The first duty of the gospel preacher is to declare God's Law and show the nature of sin." Then he said, "This now is the Christian teaching and preaching, which God be praised, we know and possess, and it is not necessary at present to develop it further, but only to offer the admonition that it be maintained in Christendom with all diligence. For Satan has attacked it hard and strong from the beginning until present, and gladly would he completely extinguish it and tread it under foot."
After the Apostle Paul was converted on the Road to Damascus, Jesus said to him,
"But rise, and stand upon your feet: for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to make you a minister and a witness . . . To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins . . . "Acts 16-18
"But rise, and stand upon your feet: for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to make you a minister and a witness . . . To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins . . . "Acts 16-18
If you know this same Jesus, you too have the same commission--"to open their eyes, and to turn [sinners] from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins..." The way to do that is to do it the way Paul did it. The way Jesus did it. Learn to follow the biblical method of using the Law (the Ten Commandments) to show why this sinful world why they need the Savior.
Ray Comfort
Click here to read other editions of Ray's monthly column.
Click here to learn how you can add his column to your website
Click here to learn how you can add his column to your website
Sunday, March 12, 2006
Question and Answer
Q/A from The Berean Call - January, 1995 - Dave Hunt
Question:
Dave, you have been accused lately of undermining the Bible and opposing the authority of God's Word because you don't insist upon using the King James Version exclusively. How do you respond to such indictments?
Answer:
I will publicly defend God's truth and expose false doctrine regardless of who teaches it, without judging hearts and motives. Heresy that is taught publicly must be opposed publicly. But I will not publicly defend myself in response to personal attacks against me, no matter how vicious and false-and there have been some lately. In obedience to Christ I am obliged to pursue Matthew 18:15-17 privately with individuals who make false charges (though publicly) against me personally, and I have done so.
As for undermining the Bible and opposing the authority of God's Word, the falsity of such charges should be apparent to anyone who has read my writings or listened to my talks. Anyone with doubts may read the chapter on Sola Scripture in my latest book, A Woman Rides the Beast, or listen to the tape of my debate with Karl Heating on that same subject, or the five-tape series of messages I preached on the sufficiency, inerrancy and authority of God's Word. Nor is it true that I defend the modern versions and run down the King James Version. I have been living in the KJV for more than 50 years and it is the KJV which I use when I preach and teach. The record speaks for itself. In the past, on occasion, I have quoted a modern version in my books where it seemed to be more understandable to the average reader, particularly the non-Christian.
As for the KJV-only debate, I hesitate to step into that arena because whatever one says only seems to heighten the controversy. However, we have received so much mail on this topic, reflecting confusion from both sides, that I will try once again to bring some balance where I believe it is badly needed. Where doctrinal purity is not involved, we need to respect one another's sincere differences of opinion. We must disagree courteously and in love and deal with the issues rather than attack persons or motives. There are godly and sincere people on both sides of this controversy.
Let both sides remember that all versions are translations. For the KJV to be perfect in every word, the translators must have had the same infallible inspiration of the Holy Spirit in their translating as those who wrote the original Greek and Hebrew documents (2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pe 1:21) had in their writing. Claiming such inspiration for the KJV's translators, some KJV-only advocates even denounce all other translations as New Age or of the Devil. Yet the King James Bible translators themselves, far from claiming inspiration or perfection, confessed that they had consulted other "translators and commentators" to improve their work. They acknowledged that the KJV was not perfect but could be improved, and that there were places where they were uncertain of the exact meaning of some words. They even recommended consulting a variety of translations. Why should I be castigated for agreeing with the KJV translators? The following is from the introduction to the 1611 KJV, titled "The Transla tors to the Reader" (note that in seventeenth- century English the "u" and "v" were reversed):
Neither were we barred or hindered from going over it again, having once done it [the work of translation]...[nor] were we the first that fell in hand with translating the Scripture into English, and consequently destitute of former helps....Neither did we thinke much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrewe, Syrian, Greeke, or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch; neither did we disdaine to reuise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anuill that which we had hammered...vsing as great helps as were needfull....
Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled...[that] it hath pleased God in his diuine prouidence, heere and there, to scatter wordes and sentences of that difficultie and doubtfulnesse, not in doctrinal points that concerne saluation (for in such it hath beene vouched that the Scriptures are plaine) but in matters of lesse moment, that fearfulnesse would better beseeme vs than confidence. . .and to resolue upon modestie....There be many words in Scripture, which be neuer found there but once. ..there be many rare names of certaine birds, beastes and precious stones, &c. concerning which the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves...so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (euen in thejudgement of the iudicious) questionable, can be no lesse than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures; so diuersitie of signification and sense in the margine, where the tex t is not so cleare, must needes doe good, yea, is necessary, as we are perswaded....They that are wise, had rather haue their judgements at libertie in differences of readings, then to be captiuated to one, when it may be the other.
So the KJV translators themselves disagree with those who claim inspiration and inerrancy for the KJV. They admit their own fallibility, the imperfection of their KJV translation, give alternate readings in the margin and recommend consulting a variety of translations! This is only logical. If, as some insist, the KJV is the perfect translation and all others are of the Devil, then the Spanish, German, French, etc. Bibles are not the Bible either! The whole world must learn seventeenth century English and read the 1611 KJV if they would have God's Word. Nor could anyone refer back to the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts behind the KJV; for to do so in order to be more certain of the exact meaning would be to suggest that the KJV was not perfect after all. The unreasonableness of that view is obvious.
In fact, the KJV translators take up many pages of their introduction arguing that the Bible needs to be in every language so that all may read it in their "mother tongue" and thus understand it better. That fact, they say, is the justification for their labors to put it into the daily language of their countrymen. These men even argued that "the very worst translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession...is the word of God." How far they were from what some are claiming today! Of course, the KJV translators had not encountered the deliberately perverted translations of today's cults.
They were confident that while the many translations in English or other languages differed on some words and phrases, no doctrine was affected. (Doctrine is affected, however, in today's perverted versions such as the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses, Joseph Smith's Inspired Version, and a few others.) Thus, to tell the millions of people who were saved through reading the NAS or NIV, for example, and who are edified and growing in faith through daily study of such versions that they are using the Devil's false Bibles, is, in my opinion, extremism and only causes division and confusion. Rather, suggest consulting the KJV as well.
I was reared on the KJV and use it exclusively in all my study and speaking, only rarely consulting other translations for comparison. Why consult other translations at all? The KJV translators did so and recommended the practice! In following their advice we discover that, whereas in some places modern versions are deficient, in other places they excel. For example, the KJV at 2 Thes 2:2 says not to be troubled by rumors that "the day of Christ is at hand." If one believes in a pre-trib rapture which marks the beginning of the Day of Christ, then it is not disturbing but good news if that day is "at hand." Nor need that be disturbing even if one believes in a mid- or post-trib rapture. It would only be disturbing if the day of the Lord had already come, for that would mean one had been left behind at the rapture-which is why it is obvious that Paul had taught a pre-trib rapture to these people. The KJV 1611 edition had many marginal notes elsewhere, but none here. One was added late r: both the Greek and common sense required it. Today's KJV margin suggests "is now present." That changes the meaning entirely, makes sense, and admits that the 1611 edition wasn't perfect. The NAS reads "that the day of the Lord has come," and the NIV, "has already come." So a required later revision (one of many) in the KJV shows that the 1611 edition was not "inspired"-and the revision agrees with the NAS, the NIV and the NKJV!
Furthermore, some modern versions excel in places, even when it comes to declaring the deity of Christ. For example, there are eight verses in the New Testament that clearly declare that Jesus is God: Jn l:l, Acts20:28; Rom9:5; 2Thes 1:12; Ti 2:13; Heb 1:8; 2 Pt 1:1 and Rv 1:8. The KJV is only clear in four of these (Jn 1:1; Acts 20:28; Rom 9 :5 and Heb 1:8), whereas the NAS and NIV are clear in seven of the eight (the same four plus Ti 2:13; 2 Pt 1:1 and Rv 1:8) For example, in Ti 2:13 the KJV says "the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ," while both the NAS and NIV say "our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ," certainly a more definite declaration that Jesus is God. In 2 Pt 1:1 the KJV says "God and our Saviour Jesus Christ," whereas again both the NAS and NIV say "our God and Savior Jesus Christ." (Actually that's what the Textus Receptus says in the Greek-the KJV translators simply made a mistake, which was corrected in the NKJV as well.) At Rv 1:8 the KJV says "the Lord," wh ereas the NAS and NIV say "the Lord God," clearly declaring that Jesus is God.
If the situation were the other way around (i.e., the KJV clearly declared Christ to be God in seven of the eight places and the modern versions in only four), some KJV-only advocates would surely accuse the modern versions of downplaying Christ's deity. Instead, they ignore the weaknesses in the KJV while jumping on those in other versions. It is surely helpful to the church to have the deficiencies in modern versions pointed out, and those using them should beware of such improper renderings . At the same time, however, those championing the KJV should honestly acknowledge those places where the modern versions excel.
The fact is that the KJV, NKJV, NAS, and NIV (in spite of some failings in each) clearly teach that Jesus is God, one with the Father; and all four clearly present the gospel and all of the other cardinal doctrines of the Bible if one reads the entire text and doesn't take an isolated verse here or there to prove a point. Therefore, to suggest that the NAS and NIV are "the Devil's Bibles" and part of a New Age conspiracy to usher in a oneworld religion by destroying God's Word is simply not true and places an unwarranted condemnation upon those who use such versions. Tragically, this faulty perception is causing confusion and division in the church. We must repeat our earlier warning that Gail Riplinger's book, New Age Bible Versions, is literally filled with errors and cannot be relied upon as a defense of the KJV. She even lumps the NKJV in with modern versions, whereas it is based upon the same Hebrew and Greek texts as the 1611 King James Version.
Question:
Dave, you have been accused lately of undermining the Bible and opposing the authority of God's Word because you don't insist upon using the King James Version exclusively. How do you respond to such indictments?
Answer:
I will publicly defend God's truth and expose false doctrine regardless of who teaches it, without judging hearts and motives. Heresy that is taught publicly must be opposed publicly. But I will not publicly defend myself in response to personal attacks against me, no matter how vicious and false-and there have been some lately. In obedience to Christ I am obliged to pursue Matthew 18:15-17 privately with individuals who make false charges (though publicly) against me personally, and I have done so.
As for undermining the Bible and opposing the authority of God's Word, the falsity of such charges should be apparent to anyone who has read my writings or listened to my talks. Anyone with doubts may read the chapter on Sola Scripture in my latest book, A Woman Rides the Beast, or listen to the tape of my debate with Karl Heating on that same subject, or the five-tape series of messages I preached on the sufficiency, inerrancy and authority of God's Word. Nor is it true that I defend the modern versions and run down the King James Version. I have been living in the KJV for more than 50 years and it is the KJV which I use when I preach and teach. The record speaks for itself. In the past, on occasion, I have quoted a modern version in my books where it seemed to be more understandable to the average reader, particularly the non-Christian.
As for the KJV-only debate, I hesitate to step into that arena because whatever one says only seems to heighten the controversy. However, we have received so much mail on this topic, reflecting confusion from both sides, that I will try once again to bring some balance where I believe it is badly needed. Where doctrinal purity is not involved, we need to respect one another's sincere differences of opinion. We must disagree courteously and in love and deal with the issues rather than attack persons or motives. There are godly and sincere people on both sides of this controversy.
Let both sides remember that all versions are translations. For the KJV to be perfect in every word, the translators must have had the same infallible inspiration of the Holy Spirit in their translating as those who wrote the original Greek and Hebrew documents (2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pe 1:21) had in their writing. Claiming such inspiration for the KJV's translators, some KJV-only advocates even denounce all other translations as New Age or of the Devil. Yet the King James Bible translators themselves, far from claiming inspiration or perfection, confessed that they had consulted other "translators and commentators" to improve their work. They acknowledged that the KJV was not perfect but could be improved, and that there were places where they were uncertain of the exact meaning of some words. They even recommended consulting a variety of translations. Why should I be castigated for agreeing with the KJV translators? The following is from the introduction to the 1611 KJV, titled "The Transla tors to the Reader" (note that in seventeenth- century English the "u" and "v" were reversed):
Neither were we barred or hindered from going over it again, having once done it [the work of translation]...[nor] were we the first that fell in hand with translating the Scripture into English, and consequently destitute of former helps....Neither did we thinke much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrewe, Syrian, Greeke, or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch; neither did we disdaine to reuise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anuill that which we had hammered...vsing as great helps as were needfull....
Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled...[that] it hath pleased God in his diuine prouidence, heere and there, to scatter wordes and sentences of that difficultie and doubtfulnesse, not in doctrinal points that concerne saluation (for in such it hath beene vouched that the Scriptures are plaine) but in matters of lesse moment, that fearfulnesse would better beseeme vs than confidence. . .and to resolue upon modestie....There be many words in Scripture, which be neuer found there but once. ..there be many rare names of certaine birds, beastes and precious stones, &c. concerning which the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves...so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (euen in thejudgement of the iudicious) questionable, can be no lesse than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures; so diuersitie of signification and sense in the margine, where the tex t is not so cleare, must needes doe good, yea, is necessary, as we are perswaded....They that are wise, had rather haue their judgements at libertie in differences of readings, then to be captiuated to one, when it may be the other.
So the KJV translators themselves disagree with those who claim inspiration and inerrancy for the KJV. They admit their own fallibility, the imperfection of their KJV translation, give alternate readings in the margin and recommend consulting a variety of translations! This is only logical. If, as some insist, the KJV is the perfect translation and all others are of the Devil, then the Spanish, German, French, etc. Bibles are not the Bible either! The whole world must learn seventeenth century English and read the 1611 KJV if they would have God's Word. Nor could anyone refer back to the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts behind the KJV; for to do so in order to be more certain of the exact meaning would be to suggest that the KJV was not perfect after all. The unreasonableness of that view is obvious.
In fact, the KJV translators take up many pages of their introduction arguing that the Bible needs to be in every language so that all may read it in their "mother tongue" and thus understand it better. That fact, they say, is the justification for their labors to put it into the daily language of their countrymen. These men even argued that "the very worst translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession...is the word of God." How far they were from what some are claiming today! Of course, the KJV translators had not encountered the deliberately perverted translations of today's cults.
They were confident that while the many translations in English or other languages differed on some words and phrases, no doctrine was affected. (Doctrine is affected, however, in today's perverted versions such as the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses, Joseph Smith's Inspired Version, and a few others.) Thus, to tell the millions of people who were saved through reading the NAS or NIV, for example, and who are edified and growing in faith through daily study of such versions that they are using the Devil's false Bibles, is, in my opinion, extremism and only causes division and confusion. Rather, suggest consulting the KJV as well.
I was reared on the KJV and use it exclusively in all my study and speaking, only rarely consulting other translations for comparison. Why consult other translations at all? The KJV translators did so and recommended the practice! In following their advice we discover that, whereas in some places modern versions are deficient, in other places they excel. For example, the KJV at 2 Thes 2:2 says not to be troubled by rumors that "the day of Christ is at hand." If one believes in a pre-trib rapture which marks the beginning of the Day of Christ, then it is not disturbing but good news if that day is "at hand." Nor need that be disturbing even if one believes in a mid- or post-trib rapture. It would only be disturbing if the day of the Lord had already come, for that would mean one had been left behind at the rapture-which is why it is obvious that Paul had taught a pre-trib rapture to these people. The KJV 1611 edition had many marginal notes elsewhere, but none here. One was added late r: both the Greek and common sense required it. Today's KJV margin suggests "is now present." That changes the meaning entirely, makes sense, and admits that the 1611 edition wasn't perfect. The NAS reads "that the day of the Lord has come," and the NIV, "has already come." So a required later revision (one of many) in the KJV shows that the 1611 edition was not "inspired"-and the revision agrees with the NAS, the NIV and the NKJV!
Furthermore, some modern versions excel in places, even when it comes to declaring the deity of Christ. For example, there are eight verses in the New Testament that clearly declare that Jesus is God: Jn l:l, Acts20:28; Rom9:5; 2Thes 1:12; Ti 2:13; Heb 1:8; 2 Pt 1:1 and Rv 1:8. The KJV is only clear in four of these (Jn 1:1; Acts 20:28; Rom 9 :5 and Heb 1:8), whereas the NAS and NIV are clear in seven of the eight (the same four plus Ti 2:13; 2 Pt 1:1 and Rv 1:8) For example, in Ti 2:13 the KJV says "the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ," while both the NAS and NIV say "our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ," certainly a more definite declaration that Jesus is God. In 2 Pt 1:1 the KJV says "God and our Saviour Jesus Christ," whereas again both the NAS and NIV say "our God and Savior Jesus Christ." (Actually that's what the Textus Receptus says in the Greek-the KJV translators simply made a mistake, which was corrected in the NKJV as well.) At Rv 1:8 the KJV says "the Lord," wh ereas the NAS and NIV say "the Lord God," clearly declaring that Jesus is God.
If the situation were the other way around (i.e., the KJV clearly declared Christ to be God in seven of the eight places and the modern versions in only four), some KJV-only advocates would surely accuse the modern versions of downplaying Christ's deity. Instead, they ignore the weaknesses in the KJV while jumping on those in other versions. It is surely helpful to the church to have the deficiencies in modern versions pointed out, and those using them should beware of such improper renderings . At the same time, however, those championing the KJV should honestly acknowledge those places where the modern versions excel.
The fact is that the KJV, NKJV, NAS, and NIV (in spite of some failings in each) clearly teach that Jesus is God, one with the Father; and all four clearly present the gospel and all of the other cardinal doctrines of the Bible if one reads the entire text and doesn't take an isolated verse here or there to prove a point. Therefore, to suggest that the NAS and NIV are "the Devil's Bibles" and part of a New Age conspiracy to usher in a oneworld religion by destroying God's Word is simply not true and places an unwarranted condemnation upon those who use such versions. Tragically, this faulty perception is causing confusion and division in the church. We must repeat our earlier warning that Gail Riplinger's book, New Age Bible Versions, is literally filled with errors and cannot be relied upon as a defense of the KJV. She even lumps the NKJV in with modern versions, whereas it is based upon the same Hebrew and Greek texts as the 1611 King James Version.
Monday, February 27, 2006
Stripes -or- Scourging
Question: You claim that the payment for sins was not through the physical sufferings of Christ inflicted by man, but spiritual sufferings endured at the hands of God. Yet Isaiah 53:5 says “...and by his stripes we are healed.” The NASB has, “...and by his scourging we are healed.” Please admit your error!
Answer: The NASB is wrong. The Hebrew chabburah translated “stripes” occurs six other times (Gn 4:23; Ex 21:25; Ps 38:5; Prv 20:30; Is 1:6) and it never means Roman scourging. Do you really think (as Mel Gibson’s film erroneously attempts to show) that Roman soldiers’ torture of Christ paid the eternal penalty for all of the murders, rapes, wars, hatred, jealousy, and unimaginable evil committed by billions of people during the history of mankind? Sinful soldiers can’t mete out to the Holy Son of God the righteous punishment for the sins of the world!
Peter specifically says Christ paid for our sins on the cross (1 Pt 2:24), not when scourged. It was during those 3 hours of darkness on the Cross that God laid on Christ the infinite penalty for the sins of the world-and only when He had paid for our sins in full did He cry in triumph, “It is finished!” Not because of His scourging, but as a result of what Christ accomplished on the Cross, the rocks were split, the earth quaked and the veil of the temple was ripped open (Mt 27:51).
First Peter 2:24 indicates that the healing by “stripes” is not from disease (as some teach) but from sin: “Who his own self bare our sins....” That this refers to spiritual punishment is clear: “thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin” (Is 53:10). Like the soul, sin itself, though expressed in physical acts, is spiritual: “For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness...” (Mk 7:21,22).
Salvation is spiritual and can only be by faith. To receive forgiveness of sins and eternal life as a gift from God is the greatest spiritual good conceivable. Physical punishment executed by sinful men could never make that gift possible. Thus the physical stripes Christ received in fulfillment of prophecy could not pay the penalty for sin; only God’s spiritual punishment could do that.
Healing from sin and its penalty is what the gospel is all about: “How that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures” (1 Cor 15:3)-not that “Christ died for our physical ailments.” The promise, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved” (Acts 16:31) clearly pertains to salvation from sin, not from disease. Christians in general are neither healthier nor live longer in this life than unbelievers -but we have eternal life.
The Hebrew noun chabburah translated “stripes”is singular in Isaiah 53:5, indicating one blow from God wounding Christ “for our transgressions,” bruising Him “for our iniquities”-not the many stripes of scourging that were a major focus of Mel Gibson’s attempt to show that Christ’s physical sufferings paid for the sins of all mankind. Do you really believe that what Christ physically endured in the scourging and crucifixion was equal to what sinners will endure for all eternity in the lake of fire?
There is nothing in any of the four gospels (other than crowning Him with thorns and mocking Him as a king) to indicate that Christ’s scourging and crucifixion were any worse physically than that suffered by thousands of others. That “Pilate marvelled if he were already dead” (Mk 15:44) contradicts the idea that Christ was scourged and tortured within an inch of His life. Thus the statement that “his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men” (Is 52:14) could not be due to unusual physical beating, but to such intense spiritual agony that His features were so distorted that it was awesome to behold.
The idea that the physical suffering Christ endured at the hands of men paid for the sins of the world is neither biblical nor rational for at least four reasons: 1) Christ didn’t come even close to suffering more physically than any other person. Some men hung in agony for days on crosses, the Assyrians flayed their enemies alive, some victims of the Inquisition were roasted for hours over a slow fire, and the Inquisitors competing to develop the most excruciating torture-sometimes even bringing victims back from the brink of death, letting them heal, and then torturing them again; 2) if the physical “stripes” paid the penalty for sin, Christ’s physical tormenters would have played a vital role in our redemption and would in a sense be our co-redeemers (and what if they failed to torment Him enough to save us?!); 3) the punishment for those who reject Christ is eternal, but those who scourged and crucified Christ were incapable of inflicting eternal punishment; and 4) physical suffering could never adequately cause the moral and spiritual pain which must be involved in the just punishment of sin-in fact, it would obliterate it.
The error that physical scourging paid for our sins is also refuted by Scripture’s declaration that Christ “made peace through the blood of his cross” (Col 1:20), not “the blood of his scourging,” which took place before He was led to Golgotha. We are “justified through his blood” (Rom 5:9), which includes His death. Had he merely bled but not died, we could not be saved. The phrase “shedding of blood” (Lv 17:11; 2 Chr 29:24, etc.) always means death, not wounding as in scourging-and this is the only means of atonement: “without shedding of blood is no remission” (Heb 9:22).
Christ “by himself purged our sins” (Heb 1:3). While this could not be without the shedding of His blood at the hands of others, there was something which He alone had to do to purge us from our sins. That could only have been to endure eternal punishment at the hands of God which no man could exact from Him-something far worse than the “stripes” of scourging.
Christ’s spiritual sufferings for sin are beyond our understanding and Scripture only hints at them: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me...? smitten of God, and afflicted...wounded for our transgressions...bruised for our iniquities...the chastisement of our peace was upon him...the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all...for the transgression of my people was he stricken...it pleased the Lord to bruise him...thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin...the travail of his soul...poured out his soul unto death...he bare the sin of many...he hath made him to be sin for us, [he] who knew no sin...” (Ps 22:1; Is 53:4-6,8,10-12; 2 Cor 5:21), etc.
Christ’s sweating in spiritual agony “as it were great drops of blood” (Lk 22:44) and pleading with His Father in the Garden to be spared “this cup” (Mt 26:39,42) could not have been in dread of the scourging and crucifixion (as implied in the film) which thousands of others also endured. “This cup” from which He shrank could only have been that He would be “made sin for us”-that He would “bear our sins in His own body” and be punished by God to the full extent demanded by His justice for the sins of the entire world. During those three hours of darkness on the Cross, all the “waves and billows” of God’s wrath against the sins of all mankind rolled over Him (Ps 42:7; 88:7; Jon 2:3).
Isaiah declares that Yahweh “bruised [Him] for our iniquities.” It is unbiblical and irrational to suggest that the Roman soldiers were guided by God in each blow as God’s means of punishing Christ for sin. Christ said, “No man taketh it [my life] from me, but I lay it down of myself” (Jn 10:18). It is God’s law which men have broken, He pronounced the penalty and He alone can execute it in righteousness. Therefore, the payment for our sins could only have been through the punishment Christ endured at the hands of God, not men.
Christ had to be more than mere man: He had to be God manifest in the flesh to endure the eternal punishment due for the sins of all mankind in the three hours of darkness. We are told that He “by the grace of God should taste death for every man” (Heb 2:9). That had to include the “second death”-eternity of punishment in the lake of fire which is yet future for the lost. This could not have been at the hands of the Roman soldiers who scourged and mocked Him, but only at the hands of God.
From The Berean Call Newsletter Q&A (date unknown)
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Grace Through Faith † Faith Without Works is Dead
Reading certain verses out of James can seem a bit confusing out of context. For example,
"You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only." James 2:24
But if we read that verse in context, it is a bit more clear,
"And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, 'Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.' And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?" James 2:23-25
But James is talking about pre-Christ people. And besides, verse 23 says that "Abraham believed".
Also, certain sources say that James was not intending his letter to be for unbelievers to become believers, but to existing believers. "My brethren, do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with partiality." James 2:1; "Therefore be patient, brethren, until the coming of the Lord. See how the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth, waiting patiently for it until it receives the early and latter rain." James 5:7
To me, this does not sound like he is talking to unbelievers. This makes a considerable difference. When James says that faith without works is dead, he is not talking about the faith that gets you saved. He is talking about people who are already saved, not showing it outwardly. It's just like the fruit of the Spirit.
"What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, 'Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,' but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, 'You have faith, and I have works.' Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works." James 2:14-18
So, of course, if you do not act upon your faith, then you are not showing it and it doesn't profit anyone.
There is no way that we can be saved by works. At all. So, I conclude that these two subjects do not contradict each other. They are just messages to different people. Obviously someone who is already saved does not need to be told that it is by grace through faith that we are saved. But neither will it do any good to tell an unbeliever that he needs to do good deeds, and have the fruit of the Spirit.
"What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? 'Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.' Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works." Romans 4:1-6
We see here that Paul uses the exact same scripture to promote that you can't be saved by works as James does in James 2:23. So, I believe that James was strictly talking about post-salvation faith/works.
"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law." Romans 3:28
~By Kristy
-July 29, 2003-
Later note by Kristy:
The justification by works talked about in James is merely the sanctification process Christians go through, meaning the process of becoming more like Christ. Obviously Abraham couldn't have become like Christ in the sense post-New Testament believers can, but Christ was in existence at that time, ("Before Abraham was, I AM) and Abraham did go through a type of sanctification process, when he was growing and learning God's ways. SO, we must do work(s) to become more like Christ after we are saved, but it is apart from works (lest we should boast) that we are redeemed and brought into the family of God.
"You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only." James 2:24
But if we read that verse in context, it is a bit more clear,
"And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, 'Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.' And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?" James 2:23-25
But James is talking about pre-Christ people. And besides, verse 23 says that "Abraham believed".
Also, certain sources say that James was not intending his letter to be for unbelievers to become believers, but to existing believers. "My brethren, do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with partiality." James 2:1; "Therefore be patient, brethren, until the coming of the Lord. See how the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth, waiting patiently for it until it receives the early and latter rain." James 5:7
To me, this does not sound like he is talking to unbelievers. This makes a considerable difference. When James says that faith without works is dead, he is not talking about the faith that gets you saved. He is talking about people who are already saved, not showing it outwardly. It's just like the fruit of the Spirit.
"What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, 'Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,' but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, 'You have faith, and I have works.' Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works." James 2:14-18
So, of course, if you do not act upon your faith, then you are not showing it and it doesn't profit anyone.
There is no way that we can be saved by works. At all. So, I conclude that these two subjects do not contradict each other. They are just messages to different people. Obviously someone who is already saved does not need to be told that it is by grace through faith that we are saved. But neither will it do any good to tell an unbeliever that he needs to do good deeds, and have the fruit of the Spirit.
"What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? 'Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.' Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works." Romans 4:1-6
We see here that Paul uses the exact same scripture to promote that you can't be saved by works as James does in James 2:23. So, I believe that James was strictly talking about post-salvation faith/works.
"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law." Romans 3:28
~By Kristy
-July 29, 2003-
Later note by Kristy:
The justification by works talked about in James is merely the sanctification process Christians go through, meaning the process of becoming more like Christ. Obviously Abraham couldn't have become like Christ in the sense post-New Testament believers can, but Christ was in existence at that time, ("Before Abraham was, I AM) and Abraham did go through a type of sanctification process, when he was growing and learning God's ways. SO, we must do work(s) to become more like Christ after we are saved, but it is apart from works (lest we should boast) that we are redeemed and brought into the family of God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
