Sermon Video: Three insights into the will of God - Luke 13:1-9

A question from the crowd about a recent tragedy allows Jesus and opening to clear up one of the biggest false assumptions about the will of God: suffering is the result of specific sin.  Sin certainly causes suffering, there is no doubt about that, but ALL suffering is not the direct result of specific sin on the part of those who are the victims of human wickedness, natural disasters, disease, or accidents.  Jesus rejects the connection that would allow others to blame victims for their own misfortune, and instead Jesus lays the blame for suffering upon the rebellion against God of humanity as a whole by telling the crowd that they too are in danger unless they repent.  Self-righteous attempts to blame victims, and make God the direct cause of every act of human suffering, both great and small, are thus misguided, leading us to wrongly be uncharitable toward those who suffer and painting a picture of a God focused upon vengeance.
Following his comments on the recent tragedy in Jerusalem, Jesus tells a parable to further explain the will of God in which he demonstrates that God's primary focus is not upon judging the Lost, but in finding a way through his patience and grace to save them.  Lastly, the parable ends by reminding us that God's patience is not infinite, there will be a day of judgment if grace is rejected.
Thus in this one passage Jesus has corrected three misconceptions about God's will: (1) That those who suffer are directly connected to specific sin, (2) that God's focus is upon judgment of the wicked and not upon saving them, (3) and that God's focus upon grace negates the judgment that will come in the end.
The next time you hear of a disaster, personal or community, your first thought should be compassion, saying to yourself, "there but for the grace of God go I"; wondering what sin the person(s) committed to have such a tragedy befall shouldn't even enter into our thought process.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

From where does my belief in Christian unity come?

In light of the baptism of my daughter Clara, there are likely some who are wondering where my belief in Christian unity (ecumenism) has its origins.  From a theological footing, I have been heavily influenced by the words of I John and the prayers of Jesus for the unity of his followers.  While I was at college, learning theology and philosophy, I became more certain of the fundamental things, and more generous with the permissible/debatable things.  This maturation of my mind is a natural process when know it all teens are confronted with the truth that the world is larger and more complicated than they once thought.  In my case, it was seeing the ebb and flow of history, secular and church, that taught me humility in the light of those who have served the Church in generations long past.

I had already begun down a path toward a stronger commitment to Christian ecumenism when my beliefs were confirmed by two extraordinary women of faith who evident love of Jesus Christ and staunch faith in him was in no way compromised by their adherence to Catholicism.  The first of the two was the young woman who would eventually become my girlfriend, and then my wife, and the second was her mother.  Through my love for Nicole, I began to attend Mass with her, coming for the first time on a regular basis into contact with Catholics in a religious setting, and witnessing firsthand their faith and their devotion to Christ.

Theology prepared the ground on my ecumenical journey, but experiencing the love of Jesus Christ alive and well within the Catholic Church provided the passion.  Are there still issues between Catholics and Protestants?  Of course there are.  The defensive positions adopted as part of the Counter-Reformation at Trent remain, but the pendulum began to swing back toward the Evangelical position with the Second Vatican Council.  The theologians will still have plenty of room to disagree, most notably upon Transubstantiation, (and on that the Catholics still have Luther on their side, the Reformed theologians could not budge him from that belief) and upon the relevance of tradition and authority to theology, but one thing to me is clear: I have found many whose hope is in faith alone, who trust not in their own works, who wholly depend upon the sacrifice of Christ, among my Catholic brothers and sisters.  If faith is alive there, as it is amongst my church, who am I to deny it?

My mind started me on this path, my heart made gave me joy in the journey.

A father's prayer of thanksgiving to God

This is the closing prayer that I gave at the end of the baptism of our daughter, Clara.  My wife, Nicole is Catholic, I am the pastor of the First Baptist Church of Franklin.  Our marriage is a testament to the spirit of Ecumenism that I have hoped for (and found here in Franklin) in my ministry.  Thus long before Clara was born, we had already decided to honor her mother's tradition, and that of her mother's family, should we have children, through baptism into the Catholic Church.  Clara will be brought up to honor and respect the traditions of the faith of both her mother, and her father, attending as both Nicole and I do, church on Saturday (at St. Pat's) and Sunday (at 1st Baptist).

Sermon Video: "Repent and be baptized, every one of you" - Acts 2:38-39

To commemorate the baptism of seven new members of First Baptist Church, the text for this week's message was Peter's instructions to those who responded to his message at Pentecost.  Peter told the crowd that had been "cut to the heart" by hearing about the death and resurrection of Jesus, that there first response should be to, "repent and be baptized".  Peter links the inward act of repentance with the outward and public act of declaring that repentance through baptism.  In addition, Peter then says that this need is for, "every one of you", and that both the repentance and the baptism are to be done, "in the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins".  Jesus is rightly the focus of our repentance for it is his sacrifice that made our repentance acceptable to God by paining the penalty on our behalf which our sin of rebellion against God had justly earned.  When we accept that act of grace on our behalf, by faith, we the process of transformation that God intends for all his people to cleans them and make them useful, a process made practical when we "receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" to act as our guide, strengthener, and comforter.  In the end, the offer of repentance from God, to man, stands as a lasting offer of hope, hope that those who this day entered the waters of baptism had already committed themselves to, by faith, in Jesus.

To watch the sermon video, click on the link below:

To watch the baptism video, click on the link below:

Back to the basics, what is a Christian?

All of this time spent during the past week defending the modern Biblical text against KJV Only advocates was necessary, but unfortunate when so much work is needed for the kingdom of God.  With that in mind, let me return to a topic that has been close to my heart for years and about which I wrote a book several years ago:  What defines a Christian?  How do we know if someone is a Christian or not?  The source for these thoughts is exclusively the first letter of the Apostle John, one of my favorite portions of Scripture, during which he repeatedly states this three-pronged thesis in a variety of ways.  The three part standard of John is reflected in fifty-two statements in his letter that will confirm or deny that someone is a genuine follower of Jesus Christ.  Those fifty-two statements are easily placed into three categories: (1) Belief, primarily that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, (2) Love, primarily for fellow Christian brothers and sisters, and (3) Obedience, focused on keeping the commandments of God.
In his letter, John makes 17 statements about belief, 14 statements about love, and 19 statements about obedience.  All three are necessary, to be a Christian, one MUST believe in Christ, one MUST love other Christians, and one MUST become obedient to the commands of God.  None of this is optional, none of this can be excused in the name of some other cause.  In other words, to defend Christ by showing hatred to other Christians cannot be the proper path.  Likewise, compromising any one of the three will endanger our ability to have any real confidence in our own salvation.

For a full examination of this issue, as well as an attempted application of it regarding various groups that hang around the fringes of Christianity like the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Mormons, please read my book.  And yes, I know the introduction needs to be updated to reflect my work here in PA and our newly arrived bundle of joy; I'll get to that at some point.

Christianity's Big Tent: The Ecumenism of I John

Sermon Video: "I have come to bring fire on the earth" Luke 12:49-53

Contrary to the expectations of the people that Jesus had come to bring peace, following his parables on the faithfulness needed by the servants of God, Jesus goes on to explain that his mission is actually to bring "fire" to the earth, and not peace but division.  Since we know that he is the Prince of Peace, and that he is the creator of the reconciliation between God and man that is our peace, it seems odd that Jesus would talk of such things resulting from his ministry as fire and division.
The "fire" in this context is closely related to his previous remarks about the faithfulness required of God's servants, a refining fire, that melts away impurities.  Before that process of transformation of God's people can begin, Jesus himself must undergo his own baptism, a time of trial unlike any that other.  Once Jesus' mission is accomplished, his people can begin to be made new by the fire that he will send of the Holy Spirit.  It is because of that transformation process, a process of leaving behind the old life and adopting new life in Christ, that Jesus' mission of reconciliation actually causes division within the families of those who believe.  Why?  Because all those who follow Christ walk upon a path that diverges greatly from those who remain on the path of self-destruction, even if it is their own families.  Father and son, formerly as close as can be, drift apart as one follows Christ and the other remain enslaved to sin.  This same division can occur between spouses, parents and children, siblings, and friends.  It is inevitable, to an extent, as long as one follows Jesus and the other remains apart from God's redemption.  What then do we do, knowing of the fire and division that Christ has brought?  Continue to pray for our Lost loved ones, continue to show them the compassion of Christ, continue to demonstrate to them the righteous living of his disciples, and continue to hope; hope that the same Gospel that saved you and I out of the darkness will one day bring them into the light of the Son as well.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

King James (or TR) Onlyism as a logical syllogism

In order for a logical syllogism to be valid, all premises must be true, and the conclusion must be forced by the premises.  With that in mind, and knowing that many KJV (TR) Only advocates will howl at the idea that something they take on faith is evaluated on the basis of logic, I offer this:

1. The Bible promises that God will preserve his Word

2. The only possible definition of preserve is "perfection"

3. The only text that is "perfect" is the KJV (TR).

The first premise is entirely true.  God did promise to preserve his Word.
The second premise is an interpretation of Scripture, that can be debated, as all interpretations must be, it is not correct by the standards of Church history to say that it MUST be the only interpretation.
The conclusion can no longer be valid, since the 2nd premise is untrue, but even if it was, the conclusion is not a result of the first two premises.  There is nothing different about the KJV (TR) from any other text or translation that sets it apart as "perfect".  Advocates of that position will claim otherwise, will make their chosen favorite the standard by which all others are judged, but they cannot escape the clear facts of history, and must in the end retreat into saying that their position MUST be taken by faith (with all the dire consequences of apostasy heaped upon those who disagree).

There is a lot of confusion, name calling, tangents that have nothing to do with the main issue, and outright lies being spread about this issue within the Church.  It is enough to make the head of an ordinary lay person spin, and not a few pastors as well.  But, in the end, everything comes back to premise #2 and the desperate attempt to prove that the KJV (or TR) satisfies that standard.

The sad thing is, none of this is necessary, we have an amazingly, providentially, preserved Word of God, living and active, powerful and mighty, available to us in English in an array of sound and beneficial choices.  Not only that, but this entire discussion relegates God's work through his Word among the other peoples of the world to sideshow, when in reality God's work among the English speaking peoples, and the Western cultures is but one part of his amazing work all over the world.  Everyday the percentage of Christians reading the Bible in English shrinks because the number of Christians reading it in other languages is growing by leaps and bounds!

An evaluation of the TR (and/or KJV) Only position's presuppositions

The presuppositions of the TR Only position, which for the most part match up with those of the KJV Only position seem to be as follows: (1) That the Bible’s passages on the preservation of Scripture require a “perfect” Bible, anything less makes God a liar and is thus a perversion of Scripture. (2) That the definition of “perfect” envisioned by this viewpoint can allow for no textual criticism, no revisions, no corrections of the text.  {Some of the KJV Only would add “no variants” to this list}(3) That other than the original autographs, this “perfect” example of Scripture exists only in the TR (or KJV). 

Let us for a moment assume each proposition to be true and see what the results would be. (1) If the passages of Scripture about preservation require a “perfect” Bible, they do not in any way indicate which text that would be.  Since it must be available in every generation, it must have first existed in the Hebrew manuscripts (aside from the Dead Sea Scrolls, all of which were lost prior to the Middle Ages), then in the Greek manuscripts, although it could only be in one text type, but without the original autographs there is no basis for choosing one and only one text type as the “perfect” text when the only thing we have to compare them to is each other. (2) If no textual criticism is to be allowed, and how can it be when the text is “perfect”, there is no ability to answer the clear evidence of a text which changed over time, with additions and corrections, throughout its history (NT in particular given the wealth of manuscripts we have of it).  If the text was already “perfect” and needed to remain “perfect” each and every generation, it could not change, at all, not even a single word.  Yet that is not the history of the manuscripts.  By comparing one generation of them to another, in any text type, this becomes clear, copyists made mistakes, both intentional and accidental that became accepted (for at least a time, by an unsuspecting Church).  But if God’s power and veracity stands or falls based upon an unchanging text, the only possible explanation is to ignore history and evidence and claim that the text must be taken on faith no matter what (that’s Sam Gipp’s stated position, any fault in the KJV, even typographical mistakes of the printer, are to be ignored and the result taken on faith). (3)  Who is the authority, Scripture is certainly silent about which future text will be the “perfect” one and which will be the corrupted ones, that determines that the TR, and only the TR (and hence the KJV) are to be deemed perfect over and against the Byzantine text, the Alexandrian, the Majority (which will always represent the Byzantine as the number of those manuscripts is such a clear majority), or the Eclectic blending of all sources?  Who designated Erasmus as the final authority on the preservation of Scripture, who sanctified his work and declared it without error?  Keep in mind, that Erasmus himself made significant changes to his printed editions with each new one, as did Stephanus and Beza after him.

In the end, I see no compelling reason to belief that we MUST believe any of those suppositions, if a TR Only (or KJV Only) advocate wishes to tweak them somewhat, fine, but the primary issues remain.  The Scriptures do promise preservation, but are silent as to how that will occur and by what agency, The text tradition does include many variants, all of them do, there are no perfect manuscript traditions, even within Erasmus’ exceedingly limited number of manuscripts representing one text tradition, there were variants that he had to sort out by doing textual criticism.  Lastly, the only way that the TR, and only the TR, can be elevated to such a status is an appeal to tradition or authority, both of which were supposed to be rejected by the Reformers, to resurrect them now would be a disservice to the ideals of men like Tyndale, Luther, and Calvin.

If you need a good laugh, watch Sam Gipp's, "What the big deal about the KJV?" video

I needed a macabre laugh today so I re-watched "Dr." Sam Gipp's "What's the Big Deal about the KJV?" video.  From the very first scene, this 40 minute video is one ridiculous example after another of the worst KJV Onlyism set in a fake college setting where "professor" Gipp enlightens his students about the "perfect" Word of God.  Straw Men abound, as per usual, as well as illogical argument like this: The KJV is from Antioch through the TR (not actually true, the 6 manuscripts Erasmus had were medieval Byzantine copies, but let that go for a minute), the Eclectic Critical text ("you should know that there's a problem right there when they say their text is critical", as if the term Biblical Criticism was somehow an evil practice, forget that Erasmus, the father of the TR engaged in Biblical Criticism, as did the translation team utilizing Tyndale, the Bishop's Bible, and Erasmus to put together the KJV and every other copyists or translator) is from Alexandria (Of course this too isn't true, the Modern Critical text utilizes all of the manuscripts Western, Alexandrian, and Byzantine, far more of them {5,500+ vs. 6} than the TR, plus Church Fathers, and other early translations).  Gipp then explains that Antioch is where the followers of Jesus were first called Christians, that must mean it is a holy place of all goodness and its manuscripts are perfect (forget that heresies also came from Antioch, such as Monothelitism and Nestorianism), and Egypt is always called a bad place in the Bible (forget for a moment, "Out of Egypt I called my son"), thus Alexandria is written off as a place full of heretics whose manuscripts must therefore be 100% corrupt.  FYI, Guilt by Association, even weak association, is a favorite KJV Only tactic.  (Such as labeling anything they don't like "Catholic" as if that somehow ruins and taints whatever person or manuscript they need to discredit).

Everything goes downhill from there, including a hilarious scene where Gipp has a Bible study group read Psalm 23 in half a dozen different translations to show them the "confusion" that results, as if unison reading not lining up somehow proves anything.  Another favorite "proof" of Gipp is that the Modern Critical Text omits verses from the Bible, thus throwing off the numbering system of the 16th century (What, those guys can't even count, he says).  Don't stop and wonder why those verses are in the margins in the modern text, don't ask why scholars know for certain that they were added later, just go along as Gipp tells you that they're taking things out of the Bible because he has already set up the KJV as the only standard, therefore any "change" in the text from the KJV is what counts, and don't worry about what the original Greek text says regarding the "changes" he points out, he doesn't say so in this particular video but he's said elsewhere that he wouldn't care if original autographs were found, he already has a perfect KJV.

The proof text of any KJV Only fanatic is I John 5:7, a verse that has zero manuscript evidence in Greek before the 16th century, which by the way Gipp accuses the Alexandrians of removing from the Bible because they hate the Trinity (something they couldn't have done, of course because it didn't appear until later Latin copies of the Vulgate), sad for him that none of the Byzantine manuscripts have it either, and that none of the Church Fathers quote the verse despite their blood feud with the Arians.  Thus in this one instance, Gipp is accusing other Christians of denying the Trinity by relying upon an verse addition that comes from the Latin Vulgate, the Bible of the Catholic Church (which Gipp and those like him hate with white hot fury).  Forget for a moment that the trinity is found elsewhere in the NT (in the modern texts as well), forget for a moment the horror if such an important verse could be expunged from the manuscript tradition for 1,600 years, all of this isn't supposed to matter as you feel anger toward those who deny the trinity by changing God's perfectly preserved Bible, the KJV.

In the end, "Dr." Sam Gipp, along with Peter Ruckman, Gail Riplinger, and those who follow in their wake, have faith in a perfect Bible, the same blind faith of the world's Muslims who also allow no variants in their text, and treat any questions as those of heretics, and they have a skeptics doubts about the Early Church, the manuscript copying process, and the preservation of the original text, just like that of Dr. Bart Ehrman who has no faith because the text isn't "perfect".

Keep making your propaganda movies, they're good for a laugh, at least they would be if you weren't trying to destroy Christian fellowship, the reputations of devout men of God whose work as scholars has only increased our knowledge of the real reason why our Bible can be trusted, and making things up as you go to fit a conclusion that you reached long before you started making up your conspiracy theory.  While you're at it, say hi to Dan Brown, he enjoys a good conspiracy theory.

The unexpected agreement between Dr. Bart Ehrman's skepticism and the KJV Only fanatics

"When you subjugate it to the human laboratory for testing and twisting and probing, it takes on a different nature.  If it isn't preserved perfectly, then it lacks in authority, something less than full authority."  This is a quote about the Bible from Kent Brandenburg, and it has something that he might not be happy to hear about in common with the leading agnostic critic of Biblical accuracy alive today, Bart Ehrman.  Bart is a well known critic, with best selling books like Misquoting Jesus and How Jesus Became God to his name.  One of the most crucial conclusions that Dr. Ehrman makes in his rejection of the Bible that we have today is that it isn't the same as the original as penned by the Apostles.  If we don't have the original, God must not have preserved it, if God didn't perfectly preserve it, he must not have given it in the first place.  If the modern Bible isn't a perfect copy of the original autographs, if it has any errors (despite its historically unheard of 97% accuracy), it is no longer the Word of God.  KJV Only fanatics take this same view of the preservation of Scripture.  Their answer to Bart's dilemma is to posit a new revelation from God that occurred in 1611 (don't mention to them the typographical/spelling/printing mistakes of that edition, it won't be welcome).  The King James Bible to them is a perfectly preserved English version of what the Apostles wrote, so much so that many of them have dismissed the relevance of an original autograph should one be found in some cave like the Dead Sea Scrolls, and so much so that some of them (Sam Gipp for example) contend that the only way to hear the Word of God today is for the people of the world to learn English to read the KJV (Don't point out the obvious racist white superiority behind this line of thinking, just because God treats all men equally doesn't mean they have to).  How do we know that the KJV is a perfect edition in every way, especially since in their view that's the only way it will be God's Word?  You'll have to take that on faith.
  Dr. Ehrman yearns for a perfect Bible, doesn't have one, and has lost his faith, the KJV Only crowd yearn for a perfect Bible, so they've pretended they have one.
The sad thing is, we have an amazing Biblical text today.  All of the original readings have been preserved within the manuscript tradition, none of what the Apostles wrote has been lost.  The Bible is more readily available and accessible than ever before all over the world in hundreds of languages with new ones being translated every year.  The Word of God has never been closer to ordinary people, too bad the skeptics and the fanatics can't see it.

* Note * Kent Brandenburg should not be identified with the KJV Only crowd of Ruckman/Gipp/Riplinger (which he rightly dismisses as an untenable position), both groups believe in "perfect preservation", the first as found in the KJV, Kent's group as found in the Textus Receptus (TR definition).  To prefer the TR is a defensible position, just as it is defensible to prefer the KJV, the TR was the Greek text basis for Tyndale, the Bishop's Bible, the KJV, the Geneva Bible, Luther's German NT, and the New King James, but to be TR ONLY is almost as erroneous as the KJV Only position in that it posits a perfect moment in Church history when the text of God's Word needs to be frozen, when all scholarship and textual criticism needs to cease.  The problem with that, is that there is no one TR (it isn't a manuscript, but a published collation of a few late Byzantine texts that were available to Erasmus), there are many published additions of Erasmus/Stephanus/Beza that were the result of their efforts at textual criticism, so why must these men be the only authorities that can offer God's people his Word?  The TR is a good text, but the Majority text is better, and the Critical Eclectic text is better still.  Christians in the 16th century like Erasmus did a great job considering the manuscripts they had available to them at the time, but we have no need to limit ourselves to what they knew then.  God has indeed preserved his Word, in EACH generation, that effort continues to this day through the work of Godly men who continue the work of their ancestors in the faith. 

Sermon Video: "From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded" - Luke 12:35-48

In this passage, Jesus tells two related parables about servants and managers of servants who need to be vigilant and faithful in the completion of their assigned tasks.  In both cases, those servants who do what is expected of them are rewarded and those who neglect their duty are punished.  The meaning of the parables is also related to the return of the Son of Man, a time that Jesus emphasizes once again will be an unexpected hour.  In light of the promised, but unknown time, of the return of Jesus, Christians must needs be prepared to do the work of the kingdom, not putting off till later what we may not then get a chance to accomplish.
The conclusion of Jesus, relating to both parables, is that those who have been given much from God, will in turn have much demanded of them from God.  The judgment of God will fall heaviest upon his own people if they fail to imitate his Son, for they are without the excuse of ignorance, for they know what God expects of them.

To watch the video, click on the link below: