Archive for category Theology
Does This Really Say What I Think It Says?
Posted by Peter in Bible, Christianity, Holy Spirit, Jesus, New Testament, Theology on July 13, 2009
I know that we all come across passages in scripture we have read numerous times, and then one day we read it again and say, “What? I never knew that was in there…”
This is my latest of those:
4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame. Hebrew 6:4-6 (NKJV)
Does this really say what I think it says?
Will There Be an End-Times Revival?
Posted by Peter in Bible, Christianity, Israel, Theology on July 7, 2009
In a friendly discussion with my blogging buddy Polycarp over at The Church of Jesus Christ on his post Charismatic Movement: Alive or Dead?, we each agreed to write posts about whether there will be an end-times revival.
You can find his excellent post here, wherein he very skillfully maintains there will not be an end-times revival. Surprisingly, however, despite my task of demonstrating that there is scriptural authority for an end-times revival, I must confess that there is not much in his post I disagree with, other than the ultimate conclusion, of course.
I think a few issues get confused when discussing this subject matter thereby creating distinctions, whether with or without real differences. First of all, I agree with Polycarp that the last days will be very difficult:
[Paul to Timothy] This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 Timothy 3:1 (KJV)
I do not, however, see these (difficult times and end-times revival) as being mutually exclusive. Whether you believe we are in the midst of the last days or not, I think most would agree that these are perilous times and that there is a considerable revival taking place right now in places like South America, China and other parts of Asia and Africa. So, both are indeed possible.
I think, too, the term “revival” is used loosely suggesting some sort of spiritual resurrection, which I firmly believe will happen (more on that in a moment), but it also gets used to suggest some worldwide mass coming to Jesus. I’m less comfortable with the latter because I’m not entirely sure scripture goes that far, but I don’t negate the possibility. Therefore, to the question of whether the end-times revival will be worldwide or include mass numbers, I must simply answer, “I don’t know.”
With that in mind, the most widely used scripture to support the notion of an end-times revival is found in Joel 2:
28 It will come about after this That I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind; And your sons and daughters will prophesy, Your old men will dream dreams, Your young men will see visions.
29″Even on the male and female servants I will pour out My Spirit in those days. The Day of the LORD
30″I will display wonders in the sky and on the earth,
Blood, fire and columns of smoke.
31″The sun will be turned into darkness
And the moon into blood Before the great and awesome day of the LORD comes.
32″And it will come about that whoever calls on the name of the LORD will be delivered…
My friend correctly points out that in Acts 2 Peter applies this passage in Joel to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit experienced by Peter and the others on the day of Pentecost. However, I see this as the beginning of the outpouring referenced in Joel and not the end.
In support of this, it seems that Joel 2:31 is a parallel prophecy to Revelation 6:12 where, “The sun turned black like sackcloth made of goat hair, the whole moon turned blood red…” (NIV), which suggests to me that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit began, and did not culminate, at Pentecost. The culmination to come “before the great and awesome day” when the Lord comes.
Moreover, I find no where in scripture where this outpouring comes to an end. Lastly, at the time of Pentecost, Peter had no indication yet that the Gentiles were some how going to be a part of God’s plan. His encounter with Cornelius and strange bedclothes had yet to occur, and He specifically addresses “Men of Judea” and “Men of Israel.”
Thus, the pouring out on all mankind, while appropriate to Peter’s sermon as the beginning of said outpouring, must have been still future in its completion.
I have always found that on questions of church theology, the book of Romans seems to provide most of the answers. On this question of theology, Romans 11 I think provides the clearest instruction.
First, and as an aside, albeit an important one, Paul cites Joel 2:32 in eliminating the distinction between Jew and Gentile in Romans 10:13. It is apparent that Paul viewed Joel’s prophecy as continuing and still future. More importantly, Paul explains:
11 I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous. 12 Now if their transgression is riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be!…15 For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?
…
25 For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery-so that you will not be wise in your own estimation-that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; 26 and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written…” (NASB)
If Israel’s rejection of Christ meant my reconciliation, what must their acceptance be? Paul equates it to life from the dead. That sounds like a revival to me. I would love to be around when, “all Israel will be saved.”
Admittedly, I think there are a lot of when, where, and how’s that need to be worked out, but it seems to me that the end-times revival is the answer to the falling away, apostasy and lawlessness to come. Jesus instructs us, “This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.” Matthew 24:14 (NASB)
All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Jesus, and we are to:
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that [He] commanded [us]; and lo, [He] is with [us] always, even to the end of the age.” Matthew 28:19 (NASB)
I see it this way: the prophecied gloom and doom are the symptoms, the end-times, worldwide revival we are charged with carrying is the cure. Sure, some folks will not take their medicine, ignore their ailments, or seek help elsewhere, but among those who find Jesus, there will most definitely be revival.
Book Review-The King James Only Controversy
Posted by Peter in Bible, Bible Translations, Book Reviews, Christianity, God, Greek, Hebrew, New Testament, Old Testament, Theology on June 3, 2009
I want to thank Bethany House for the courtesy copy of The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? (2nd ed.) by James R. White.
Book Details:
The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations?
James R. White
Bethany House, March 2009
ISBN 978-0-7642-0605-4
Buy The King James Only Controversy @ Amazon
I want to begin by sharing two initial thoughts. Well, actually, one thought and secondly a disclaimer. First, The King James Only Controversy is much more than a simple journalistic account of the “King James only” debate. It is a primer for the non-scholar who is, even if only casually, interested in Bible translation and the accompanying philosophies and methodologies.
Second, my only exposure to the controversy has been on the internet (other than a snide remark here or there by television preachers about “watered-down versions” ). I live in an NIV-primarily region of the country. I most frequently read the NASB, but my pastor preaches out of the NKJV, so I carry that with me on Sundays. Thus, I incline toward the author’s conclusions even before reading the book. It is a bias that I don’t think influences my review of the book, but it is a bias I want to disclose.
James R. White’s treatment of the “King James only” debate is thorough, well supported by evidence, and written so as to be easily understood by the casual observer or participant. He begins by dividing the King James only advocates into five distinct and increasingly radical camps: 1) “I like the KJV Best” (which he takes no issue with), 2) “The Textual Argument” (that the Hebrew and Greek texts used by the KJV translators are superior), 3) “Received Text Only” (that the Textus Receptus and Hebrew text utilized by the KJV translators are inerrant), 4) “The Inspired KJV Group” (who believe the KJV is itself an inspired and inerrant translation, the group White identifies as the majority of the KJV only advocates), and 5) “The KJV as New Revelation” (that the KJV is “re-inspired” and the English text is an inerrant revelation superior even to the Hebrew and Greek texts).
White then gives the reader a brief overview of translation history and the translation process, explaining textual vs. translation disputes, translation methods, textual criticism, and the ancient texts used by translators. Then, very systematically, White explains the irony of the KJV onlyists making the exact arguments that were made against the original KJV translators and against Erasmus (whose Textus Receptus was used by the KJV translators) before that. To put it in polite terms, the argument of the KJV only camp, as well as those who opposed the original King James Version (the Authorized Version everywhere except the U.S.), is an argument for traditionalism.
The heart of the book is White’s analysis of many of the verses in controversy and his defense of the various translations’ renderings. Where there are variations in the ancient manuscripts that lead to different translations, White also provides convincing explanations for the textual variants which include simple scribal error, parallel influence (a scribe’s attempt to harmonize scripture), and what White dubs “expansion of piety” (a scribes attempt to make a passage sound a little better, e.g. expanding “the Christ” to “Jesus the Christ”).
White concludes Part One of The King James Only Controversy with a chapter devoted exclusively to questions and answers. Part Two is a 30-page technical treatment of many of the issues raised in Part One for the reader who is proficient in koine Greek and familiar with ancient Biblical texts, although it is not essential for the casual reader to read and understand Part One.
In conclusion, in his effort to counter the KJV only advocates, James R. White is necessarily critical of the King James Version. However, I suspect White would be the first to say to the reader whose preference is the KJV to continue in that preference. White does not advocate for any particular translation, only for an understanding that many modern translation are equally legitimate, and, in some instances, superior to the King James Version with respect to certain translation issues. Whether your particular interest is the “King James only” debate or not, if you are at all interested in Bible translation or the history thereof, The King James Only Controversy is well worth your time.
Other Reviews of The King James Only Controversy
Related Posts:
Thought for the Day On Doctrine and Theology
Posted by Peter in Bible, Christianity, God, Theology on May 13, 2009
I have been contemplating the nature of Christian denominationalism, and it seems to me there are better ways to handle disagreements over doctrine and theology.
Before jumping to label someone a “heretic,” let us remember that even the fathers of the faith had disagreements over fundamental issues. Peter and Paul almost came to blows (probably more than once). How did they deal with this stuff?
They got together at a little meeting we now call the Jerusalem Council and decided issues that effect the Gentile church still today. Not only are the results of that meeting memorialized in scripture, so is the fight.
So, it’s okay to fight over doctrine, theology, how to worship, alcohol or juice, or the color of the carpeting, but we should come together, reach an acceptable resolution, and proceed accordingly.
I think God would honor the results.









Recent Comments