Friday, July 24, 2009

2009 Grace School of the Bible Summer Family Conference

It is always and honor and the privilege to be asked to speak at the summer conference. This year was a bit unique for me. In addition, to preaching Monday morning I was asked to speak to the teens Sunday evening. This invitation was the result of a series of lessons I taught the teens at the 2009 Teen Winter Retreat at Fort Faith Camp in Morley, Michigan. In February I presented 5 lessons entitled Grace Based Apologetics, designed to teach the young people some introductory things about Apologists from a grace view point. The teen's response to these messages was overwhelming positive and ultimately resulted in an invitation to speak to them again at the July conference.

If you haven't noticed we face a serious challenge of keeping second, third, and fourth generation Grace kids in the message. Having been brought up in a Grace church myself I became keenly aware of this problem a couple years ago. The majority of the young people I grew up with in church have long since departed the doctrine for a variety of reason. While in Bible College I witnessed a similar phenomenon as numerous friends of mine abandoned the Grace Message. Some departed the faith through philosophical exploration and confusion, in favor of Atheism. While others left the message through their decision of who to marry. Why would a young person who has been raised in a good Grace home willfully disregard Scripture and marry and unbeliever? One would not be incorrect to offer fleshly desires and worldly wisdom as well as a blatant disregard for the authority of Scripture as the primary reasons for these departures. We know from Paul's letters that many people who were once grounded in the doctrines of Grace and even aided Paul in the work of the ministry departed the faith having loved the world more than the doctrine.

Naturally as a second generation Grace Believer who now has two boys of his own, I have spent much time pondering this subject. First Generation Grace Believers often have a religious epiphany where they come to see the uniqueness of Paul's message and apostleship and it liberates them from the legalistic oppression of the religious system. Consequently, the First Generation has a theological reference point from which they appreciate in an intimate way the liberating freedom that comes from Grace. Having now been set free the constraints of Churchianity, First Generation Grace Believers, rightly devote much time and attention to making sure their kids grow up understanding the message. The children are brought to church, youth group, and conferences in an effort to train them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Meanwhile, the Second Generation grows us knowing nothing but Grace teaching but lacks the comparative theological reference point of their parents. Herein lies the danger, I fear that many of our Grace Young people are making Grace their religion. Our young people are schooled enough in the word and doctrine to answer all of the questions correctly when asked by adults but either lack a depth of understanding or secretly question the veracity of what they have been taught to believe.

As a result, when I spoke to them on Sunday evening I titled my lesson, The Four Great Challenges Facing Grace Young People. I approached this lesson from the vantage of point of seeking to indentify the four central issues that are most responsible for our young people departing the message. After much consideration I settled on the following four issues:

  • Acceptance
  • Decision of who to marry
  • Postmodernism and the questioning of the absolute nature of Grace truth
  • Grace Religion

Perhaps not unexpectedly my presentation was both unexpected and unwanted based upon the fair number of groans I heard when they were informed of the impending study. After making it through their disappointment over having to listen to yet another Bible study they warmed up and asked many good and insightful questions during the question and answer time that followed. Toward the end of my time with them I asked them if the four issues I presented were in fact issues that they struggle with. Ninety five percent of them raised their hands indicating that they have struggled with the subjects discussed in my lesson. Finally, I concluded my talk by asking them the following question, "If you could play your own conference what would be the five topics that you would want to know about?" The following are the topics they suggested:

  1. How to pray not how not to pray?
  2. How to make their faith real in their lives?
  3. How to know for sure that the Bible is the Word of God?
  4. How to know for sure that the King James Bible is the only Word of God for English speaking people?
  5. What about Music?

Personally, I find these suggestions instructive about where our young people are at. They are struggling with some of the fundamental features of the Message of Grace. I hope that as adults we can listen to needs of young people and engage them in an honest dialogue about their questions rather than chastising them for not being as far as we think they ought to be. These young people are lovely, sincere, fun, and bright individuals we need to make every effort to answer their questions so that the propagation of the wonderful message of Grace continues into the next generation.

To view a copy of my notes on The Four Great Challenges Facing Grace Young People
click here.

To view a copy of my notes on Grace and Truth: Grace in the Kingdom Program
click here.

Sunday, July 19, 2009

The Argument For Inerrancy and the King James Bible: Complete Essay

For a complete copy of The Argument for Inerrancy and the King James Bible in PDF format please click here.

If you are finding the information presented on this Blog helpful please let me know. What topics are you interested in reading about?
Bryan

Sunday, July 12, 2009

The Argument For Inerrancy and the King James Bible: Conclusion

Eloquent arguments aside, the prevailing wisdom within Christendom regarding the inerrancy of the Scripture is meaningless because leading theologians only apply the doctrine to the originals which no longer exist. The Bible teaches that God has promised to preserve the inerrant words of his inspiration through a multiplicity to accurate copies that are just as authoritative as the originals. A side by side examination of modern versions with the King James text reveals startling differences that impact the major doctrines of the faith. These differences cannot be attributed to differences in how words are translated out of Greek and Hebrew into English. Rather the underlying manuscripts used by the translators are different thereby resulting in different readings. Logic dictates that when two things are different they cannot be the same thus making it impossible for divergent translations to both be the Word of God. Rather than contravening reason, the King James position is consistent in its application of the doctrine of inerrancy. God did not go through all the trouble to perfectly inspire his word only to have it disappear with the originals.

Skeptics and critics such as Dan Brown and others like him have been part of the Satanic “hath God said society” for centuries. Despite their best efforts, the Bible remains preserved and inerrant in the King James Bible for English-speaking people. It is unfortunate that potential allies in the Evangelical scholar’s union leave the Bible susceptible to skeptical attack by clinging to their unscriptural and incomplete notion of inerrancy.

Monday, July 6, 2009

The Argument For Inerrancy and the King James Bible: Logic Supports the King James Position

Despite the deep appreciation this author has for Dr. Norman Geisler as an apologist he along with the majority of conservative scholarship have argued for the inerrancy of something that by their own admission does not exist. Meanwhile, they have criticized those who believe the King James Version to be God’s perfect inerrant word for English-speaking people as uneducated and backwards. In the introduction to When Critics Ask: Popular Handbook of Bible Difficulties, Geisler and Howe articulate the following definition of error:
By truth we signify that which corresponds to reality. An error,
then, is what does not correspond to reality. Truth is telling it like it
is. Error is not telling like it is. Hence nothing mistaken can be
true, even if the author intended the mistake to be true. An error is a
mistake, not simply something that is misleading. Otherwise, every sincere
utterance ever made is true, even those that were grossly mistaken.
Likewise, something is not true simply because it accomplished its intended
purpose, since many lies succeed.[1]

At this point a couple of questions are in order. Is the NIV mistaken when it teaches that Joseph was the father of Jesus? Are the modern versions making a mistake when they teach that Jesus Christ fell from heaven in Isaiah 14? The obvious answer to both of these questions is yes. Jesus did not have an earthly father nor did he fall from heaven. Any belief to the contrary would be considered heresy by the same Evangelical scholars who teach that there are no real differences in doctrine between various Bible versions.

First principles are the foundation upon which all logical thought is based. Without these fundamental precepts no thought would be possible. One of these first principles is called The Principle of Noncontraction, it asserts, being is not nonbeing (B is Not Non-B)--being cannot be nonbeing, for they are direct opposites, and opposites cannot be the same.[2] A second foundational principle that is pertinent to our discussion is the Principle of Excluded Middle. Excluded middle states, either being or nonbeing (Either B or Non-B)--"Since being and nonbeing are opposites, and opposites cannot be the same, nothing can hide in the cracks between being and nonbeing. The only choices are being and nonbeing."[3]

Their relevance of these principles is paramount as we reach the climax of the argument presented in this essay. The principles of Noncontradiction and Excluded Middle clearly establish that two things that are different cannot be the same. Furthermore, we have already seen that our English Bibles have contradictory readings. Moreover, these divergent readings in modern versions contain mistakes that undermine the fundamentals of the Christian faith irrespective of the average believer’s ignorance of their existence. Therefore, it is the height of absurdity to call all of these Bibles the word of God. They may all contain some of the words of God but cannot legitimately all be the Word of God because they teach opposites. In orders words, basic logic demonstrates when two things are different the only possible options are that one is right and the other is wrong or they are both wrong. Clearly, one cannot conclude that they are both wrong in this case for that would leave us without a Bible and no final authority. Consequently, by default, the only conclusion that logic and revelation will both accept is that one Bible and its readings are correct while those versions which disagree are in error.

How many Bibles did God inerrantly inspire as a reflection of his nature? The obvious answer is only one. Does inerrancy extend merely to the original manuscripts (which no longer exist) or did God promise to providentially persevere the very words of his inspiration? In the final analysis, it is only the King James position that maintains the integrity of inspiration and is consistent with both logic and Scripture. The King James Bible and its translators were not inspired; rather, they made a literal word for word translation of the preserved text into English. Scholars have long ridiculed the notion that a translation can be inerrant. However, for the Bible believer, this is not far fetched. Moses spoke to Pharaoh in Egyptian despite recording his words in Hebrew. The Holy Spirit made a translation that even Evangelical scholars argue was inerrant since the original autographs of the Torah were written in Hebrew. In the end, the scholars union is boxed into admitting on the basis of its own doctrine that a translation can be inerrant.

Endnotes:
[1] Geisler and Howe, When Critics Ask, 13.
[2] Norman L. Geisler. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1999), 250.
[3] Ibid., 251.