This last Sunday I had the privilege of teaching/preaching three times at Reformation Orthodox Presbyterean Church in Apache Junction, Arizona. In the Sunday School hour, I was asked to share something of my personal testimony regarding how the Lord brought me out of the deception of the word of faith movement:
The Apostle Paul’s main theme in the book of Romans is that of the Gospel itself, as heanswers the question, “How can an unjust person ever be acceptable to a just and holy God?” In passages such as Chapter 3:20 to 4:8, he makes it abundantly clear that we are justified (God declaring us right with Him) on the basis of faith alone and not by anything that we do. Other passages where Paul states this are Titus 3:5; Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:8,9; Phil 3:9; to name just a few.
Romans 3:28; 4:3-8 declares, “For we hold that one is justified by
faith apart from works of the law… For what does the Scripture say? ‘Abraham
believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.’ Now to the one who
works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who
does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is
counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one
to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: ‘Blessed are those whose
lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man
against whom the Lord will not count his sin.’”
Having established the case biblically that we are justified by faith
apart from works, we then need to ask the question, “What kind of faith is it that
justifies?” In other words, what does genuine, saving faith look like?
A CLAIM IS NOT ENOUGH
This is precisely the issue that James is addressing in chapter 2 of his
epistle. He writes in verse 14, “What good is it, my brothers, if
someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?”
The obvious answer to James’ rhetorical question is “No, that is not the
kind of faith that saves. True faith will produce works.” It is never enough to
merely make a claim to have faith. No one is ever saved by a mere empty
profession of faith. What is professed, must actually be possessed for justification
to exist.
James teaches us clearly that if genuine faith is present, it necessarily
produces the fruit of works. That’s the nature of true faith. In fact, if works
do not follow from “faith,” then it is proof positive that the
“faith” is not in fact genuine, but a mere claim to it.
There is no discord between what James writes and what we find in Romans
and the rest of Paul’s writings. Faith without works is dead, and a dead faith
never saved anyone. True faith is a living faith, and will inevitably show
itself with accompanying action or works. Yet even if all these good works do
come from genuine faith, these works still have no part in the ground of our
justification. Our works add no merit to us, removing all grounds for boasting.
“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your
own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may
boast.” (Eph 2:8, 9)
The only work that contributes to our justification is the work of Jesus;
not the work of Jesus in us, but the
work of Jesus for us. His merit is
the only merit that counts for us. Paul tells us that it we are justified by
faith apart from works, and James tells us that that kind of faith that
actually saves is a faith that will of necessity produce works.
The Reformers of the 16th Century were very clear about all this. They
described true, saving faith as having three components, which were described
by three Latin words: notitia, assensus and fiducia.
1. CONTENT OR INFORMATION (notitia)
– Like our modern day word “notice”, notitia concerns information or
knowledge of the truth of the gospel. We need to understand the facts of the
Gospel.
What exactly must be believed?
Certainly, a person does not need to be a highly trained theologian to be
saved. The Holy Spirit draws both adults and young children to a saving
knowledge of Christ. Yet when children are converted to Christ, they may not
know every nuance of the faith, or even a detailed understanding of the
atonement – merely that Christ died for our sins. However, I believe it would
be true to say that a truly saved person, although they may not be able to
articulate the content of the Gospel at length, will not reject it when they do
hear it. I believe that’s a very important point to make. Jesus said, “My
sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal
life, and they will never perish.” (John
10: 27, 28) Christ’s true sheep instinctively know the Shepherd’s voice and
follow Him. The regenerate person humbly submits to the faithful teaching of
Scripture when hearing it (Scripture being the Shepherd’s voice), unlike those
who are still in the flesh who remain completely incapable of doing so (Romans
8:7, 8).
This noticia includes belief in one God, in the full humanity (1 John
4:3) and deity of Christ (John 8:24), and His death for sinners on the cross (1
Cor. 15:3), as well as His physical resurrection from the dead. Romans 10:9
tells us, “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe
in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”
I believe the noticia would also include some understanding of God’s
grace in salvation – that is, God saves us because of Christ’s work on behalf
of sinners, not the sinner’s work on behalf of God. Dr. James White writes: God’s grace is powerful, and it brings full
salvation to the soul of the person who despairs of anything other than free,
unmerited grace. Grace cannot clasp the hand that carries within it ideas of
merit, or good works, or any other kind of human addition to grace. “But if it
is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no
longer grace” (Romans 11:6). God’s wondrous grace cannot be mixed with human
merit. The hand that holds onto its own alleged goodness, or attempts to sneak
in a merit here, a good work there, will not find the open hand of God’s grace.
Only the empty hand fits into the powerful hand of grace. Only the person who
finds in Christ his all-in-all will, in so finding, be made right with God.
This is why the Scriptures say it is by faith so that it might be in accordance
with grace: in God’s wisdom, he excludes man’s boasting by making salvation all
of grace.(The Empty Hand of Faith,
tract)
2. BELIEF (assensus)
– It is entirely possible to understand something (the notitia) and yet not believe
it personally (assensus). Therefore, we need to be able to say, “I both
understand and believe the content of the gospel.”
3. COMMITMENT (fiducia)
– The third component of saving faith is a full trust in and commitment to the
One who loved us and died for us. This is of critical importance because it is
possible to understand these truths, believe they are true, and yet pull back
from the necessary personal commitment that will actually enlist us as one of
Christ’s followers. To possess only the first two parts (notitia and assensus),
without the third part (fiducia), merely qualifies us to be demons! James 2:19
declares, “You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons
believe—and shudder!” Even demons
understand and believe, but that does not mean that they have any share in
redemption.
True saving faith will always produce the fruit of good works. That is
its nature. Though our works play no part at all in justifying us before God,
they justify or vindicate our claim
to faith before a watching world. Our lives should demonstrate that the faith
professed was, and is, also possessed.
As you consider your own standing before God, would you say that yours is
based completely upon what the Lord Jesus Christ has done in your place (rather
than what you do for Him)? Can you honestly say you trust Him with your eternal
destiny, and fully believe He carried your sins on the cross, that He rose
again from the dead, and that He indeed is your personal Savior and Lord? Do
you believe He has forgiven your sins and given His righteousness to you, so
that you can stand justified (declared right in His sight) both now and on the
Day of Judgment?
If at the present time you are not able to answer these questions in the
affirmative, I pray that God will indeed give you the gift of true repentance
and faith, turning away from all attempts at self-righteousness and
self-justification and instead transfer all your personal trust to the perfect
Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. Call upon the Name of the Lord and be saved.
Recently, I read a book about profitable Bible reading in which the author suggested, when you read the Scriptures, “Endeavor to learn something new from every verse before you leave it.”
Really? Ok. In other words, make it my aim to discover something new from every verse I read? And stay right there in my reading until I can find something new?
Well, that sounds like a sure-fire way to get stuck. With that approach, I’ll be at a lasting standstill for most of my Bible reading from now on. I know the author means well and wants us to get maximum profit from our Bible reading, and not read casually or inattentively. But I think this suggestion is quite a bit over the top.
I must say, let’s get real here. For one, after you’ve been a believer for a few years, most days it’s going to be rare that you discover something new even in each chapter you read. You may wear yourself out making the effort, but the fact is, you’ve become pretty familiar with a lot of the Scriptures and may not be at all able to spot something new.
I’ll even go so far as to say, if you do find something fresh in every verse you read, well … I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you’re not reading it right. With that approach, chances are, you’ll be making stuff up. If you can find something new in every verse, your imagination is getting carried away and you’ll be seeing what really isn’t there.
May I suggest a few sounder, more realistic goals about what to aim for in Bible reading? A lot more could be said, of course, but my purpose is to state a few goals that are in contrast with the idea that somehow a Bible reader needs to find something new or fresh in every verse he reads. Or that it’s even of benefit to your soul to try. No — how about these goals instead:
1) Ask the Lord to show you what you need for today That’s really more of your need than to see something fresh or new. Why, even if you do find something fresh in a verse that you didn’t see before, how long is that going to stay with you anyway? You know. It’ll slip out of your head in no time. Probably before the day is done.
But the Spirit of God is probably not really interested in enlarging your storehouse of Bible knowledge. He is interested in equipping you for a holy walk with God – today. Ask Him to show you how to walk with Him today. After all, as Jesus said in another context, “each day has enough trouble of its own.” Each of your days has needs of its own, that the Lord knows are coming. Ask Him to prepare you by your reading.
2) Ask the Lord to feed you If a man’s wife cooks him a meal with healthy, nutritious, and tasty foods, is it really important to him whether anything in the meal is new? Isn’t he glad and thankful to have this food again, even if it’s something he’s eaten a hundred times before? And he enjoys it. Again. It may even be a favorite. Much like singing a hymn that you’ve sung a hundred times before, and you love it every time. You need not concern yourself with newness in what you digest from the Word – look to the Lord to feed and nourish you. That’s more of what you need.
3) Ask the Holy Spirit to reveal Christ to you — again If you’re a saved individual, the Spirit of God has already revealed Jesus to you. But what do you need more than to keep seeing Christ? Even if it’s features about Him that you have seen before. So what? You need to see Jesus again and worship Him again. The Spirit seeks to glorify Christ, we’re told in the gospel of John. Even the things you know about Jesus, you haven’t seen sufficient glory in those beautiful, wondrous features of Him. Ask Him to show you Jesus, again and again.
4) Ask the Lord to show you something in the Scriptures that you can serve others with today Something that will help you be a blessing to others. Some light with which you can encourage other believers today. Or something that will provoke you to pray for people in need today. Or something that will help you be more effective in bringing the gospel to unconverted people you will meet, today. Again, this is a much more worthwhile goal than “show me something new I’ve never seen before.” How about, make me a useful instrument of love to others? As Jesus said, to love our neighbor, “This is the Law and the prophets.”
We all know that you’ll have occasions that you read the Word and none of the above will happen. You won’t experience any noticeable, felt edification at the moment. But you know that it’s still been worth your while to read and meditate on the Word. Often the effects and use of a reading are only consciously realized later.
When you’re reading and none of these benefits seem to be coming, you know what? Wait on the Lord to shape your life with His Word at the time of His choosing. And if you have time, keep reading until you have been fed. Years ago, I heard a young, new disciple say “I overcame this idea of getting my Bible reading done and then being satisfied that I did it, by taking a different approach. Now I keep reading until I don’t want to stop.” Not limiting yourself to the chapter numbers on a Bible reading plan or schedule. How about not quitting until you get something nourishing? Be like Jacob, refusing to go away until He blesses you.
Sure, there will be days that won’t work. You won’t have time to keep on reading. You have to get to work. The duties of the day press in on you. In that case, give thanks that you’ve been able to read the Word and know that God will produce fruit from the Word in your life, according to His will and in His time.
So, while more could be said, this is probably enough … for today.
Article: “Hey Calvinist, Enough of Your Revivalism” by Michael Lawrence, original source here: https://www.9marks.org/article/hey-calvinist-enough-of-your-revivalism/
How do you grow your church? It’s a question every pastor or church leader asks, a question in which almost every Christian is interested. And let’s assume the best motive for the question, a sincere desire to see men, women, and children both knowing and growing in the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. The question is how?
HISTORY OF REVIVALISM
Ever since the early 1800s and the apparent success of the Second Great Awakening, the answer for most church leaders has been the techniques of revivalism. Revivalism and revival are not the same thing. Solomon Stoddard, a Puritan minister in western Massachusetts, defined revival as “some special seasons wherein God doth in a remarkable manner revive religion among his people.” [1] His emphasis is on both the surprising and supernatural aspect of revival, and its impact on the church generally. Conversion and discipleship, growth numerically andspiritually, are the result of divinely-wrought revival. His grandson, Jonathan Edwards, a leader of the First Great Awakening and its most able theological defender, would go on to argue that a genuine work of God’s Spirit isn’t “revealed by the quantity or intensity of religious emotions but is rather present where a heart had been changed to love God and seek his pleasure.”[2] In other words, it’s the fruit of the Spirit, not enthusiasm or momentum, that demonstrates God is at work.
Revivalism, on the other hand, is a set of techniques and methods that are assumed to reliably obtain “the external signs of conviction, repentance and rebirth.”[3] As historian Iain Murray notes, while revival preachers of the Great Awakening would have had no idea how “to secure a revival, a system was now popularized by ‘revivalists’ which came near to guaranteeing results.” [4] So much so that ever since the Second Great Awakening, a “revival” could be announced in advance! Today we call it “reverse engineering” results.
From the camp meetings, altar calls, and anxious bench of the Second Great Awakening, to the marriage of emotionally powerful preaching and singing in the ministry of Dwight Moody and Ira Sankey, to the stirring rallies of Billy Graham, the style of revivalism has shifted to match the changing culture. But the techniques have remained largely the same: the context of the mass meeting to encourage a response, the deliberate use of emotion to motivate a response, and the routine of a set prayer or physical action to actuate the response. Underlying all of this is the assumption that conversion can be reduced to, or at least evidenced by, a personal response that the preacher can elicit, observe, and measure.
I don’t mean to imply that the Second Great Awakening, or the ministries of Moody, Graham, and others did not result in true conversions. They certainly did. In fact, most of us probably know someone who came to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ at a Billy Graham rally. But if Scripture is to be our guide, we must never say that people became Christians because of the techniques of these ministries. After all, conversion is the supernatural and sovereign work of God, in which, through the message of the gospel and by the power of the Holy Spirit, he brings about conviction of sin, lasting repentance, and faith in the substitutionary death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Our response of repentance and faith is the unfailing result of God’s necessarily prior work of regeneration. Unless he makes us alive and gives us the gift of repentance and faith, we will remain dead in our sins. And there’s no human technique that can either force his hand or accomplish his work. This is what it means to be a Calvinist. More importantly, this is what it means to hold the same theology as Paul (Eph. 2:1-10) and Jesus (John 6:44–45; 10:27–30)
However, it wasn’t long before revivalist techniques moved from the evangelist’s ad hoc “revival meeting” to the local church’s regular Sunday worship. These revivalistic flourishes have even occurred in churches that confess a Reformed, or Calvinistic, understanding of salvation. And why not? After all, it apparently produced results. If you could gather a crowd (attract), connect with them in an emotionally meaningful way (relate), and remove barriers to response (automate), then you could grow your church without abandoning your theological convictions.
REVIVALISM “WORKS”
From Robert Schuller’s Crystal Cathedral, to Willow Creek and Saddleback, to Mars Hill and Elevation, to your local megachurch, the style and music and branding has changed, but the method tends to be fundamentally the same across the theological spectrum. The pragmatic approach to church growth—attract, relate, and automate—works.
Just ask the Calvinists who pastor large, growing churches. “I like the (attractional) evangelism I do better than the evangelism you don’t do.” “Anybody can be won to Christ if you discover the key to his or her heart.” “All it takes to grow a church is good music, a great children’s program, and sufficient parking.”[5] These comments defend fundamentally pragmatic, attractional approaches to the church, despite the sincerely held belief in the sovereignty of God in salvation by those who said them.
Twenty-five years ago, theologian David Wells published No Place for Truth, or Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology?, the first of his volumes critiquing modern evangelicalism’s love affair with modernity. [6] He concluded that as far back as the Second Great Awakening, evangelicals had begun to use the tools of modernity (marketing, technique, bureaucratization, etc.) to accomplish the work of God. The goals were noble, but the motivation was pragmatic. In the modern world, success is measured by numbers, and the tools of modernity worked. As revivalism was refined and perfected by the methods of the marketplace, churches were growing, the “unchurched” were streaming in, and multitudes were being saved. Blinded by our apparent success, however, Wells revealed what the rest of us had failed to see. The tools of modernity produce the culture of modernity, not the kingdom of God. As survey after survey revealed, our growing churches were not filled with the results of Spirit-wrought revival, genuine converts characterized by the fruit of the Spirit, but were filled instead with the results of modern revivalism, religious consumers characterized by the spirit of the age.
TRUST THE ORDINARY MEANS OF GRACE
So, back to the question: how do you grow your church? I suppose it depends on what you think a church is and who you think people are. If you think a church is just a crowd of people who are fundamentally able, perhaps with help from God, to choose to follow Jesus, so long as he’s attractive and relevant enough, then the tools of revivalism are just the ticket. But if you think a church is a gathering of people who were dead in their sins but have been born again through the sovereign and supernatural work of God through the power of the Holy Spirit, then revivalism just won’t do.
What we want is revival, a genuine work of the Spirit, not a product of human technique. From the very beginning, the work of God has been done by the Spirit of God through the Word of God in a world gone awry. [7] From the first preaching of the gospel at Pentecost, to the recovery of gospel preaching in the Reformation, to the explanation of the gospel that God used to save you, God has always worked through his Word faithfully proclaimed to bring the dead to life.
So, “Calvinist,” enough of your revivalism. Grow your church through the ordinary means of grace that God has always used to grow his church: the right preaching of the gospel, the right administration of the ordinances, and the right use of church discipline. Give yourself to the ministry of word and prayer as the apostles did (Acts 6:4). Stop relying on the tools of modernity to build the kingdom of God because they never have and they never will.
There’s nothing wrong with having culturally appropriate music, adequate parking, attractive signage, and a clear process for joining the church. Those are important matters to which we must attend. But don’t think those tools, and others like them, will build Christ’s church. They won’t because they can’t. It’s not our ability to design an attractive worship experience or authentically relate to people in our sermons that raises the spiritually dead to life. The Spirit alone can and will do that work, and he does it through his Word, not our techniques.
[1] Iain H. Murray, Revival and Revivalism: The Making and Marring of American Evangelicalism 1750-1858(Banner of Truth, 1994), xvii.
[2] Mark Noll, A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada (Eerdmans, 1992), 96.
[5] Rick Warren, The Purpose Driven Church: Growth Without Compromising Your Mission or Message(Zondervan, 1995), 219. Comments one and three from private conversations with pre-2015 Acts 29 pastors.
[6] David Wells, No Place for Truth, or Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology (Eerdmans, 1993).
Article: s the ESV Literal and the NIV Gender Neutral? by Bill Mounce
Original source: https://www.billmounce.com/monday-with-mounce/the-esv-literal-and-the-niv-gender-neutral
This blog is purely on translation and not directly on Greek, but I have been thinking about this a lot lately so thought I would share it.
Most people say there are two translation camps, formal equivalent and functional equivalent (or dynamic equivalent). The longer I am in translation work, the more I see how simplistic this division is. There actually are five methods on translation with three sub-categories for the handling of gender language.
Translations are all on a continuum, overlapping one another, and hence it is misleading to picture them as different points on a line. I am guessing, but for example, about eighty percent of the ESV and the NIV are the same, once you account for different translations of individual words.
1. Literal. The most accurate meaning of the word “literal” when it comes to translation work is “word-for-word.” The only “translations” that do this consistently are interlinears. (I quote the word “translations” because interlinears are not properly translations.) The word “literal” should never be used of any other form of translation since all of them, every single one, despite their marketing, rarely translate word-for-word. They will say they translate word-for-word unless it does not make sense or misinforms, but that is a red herring argument. They are never consistently word-for-word, unless you can find a translation that translates John 3:16 as, “in this way for loved the God the world so that the Son the only he gave in order that each the believing into him not perish but have life eternal.” No Bible on the market is “literal.”
2. Formal equivalent. These translation try to reflect the formal structures of the original text, making the translation “transparent” to the original. This means translating indicative verbs as indicative, participles as participles, idioms with similar English idioms (if possible), and trying to use the same English word for the same Greek word if possible. Not to repeat myself, but please note that this is not “literal” the way most people use the word (and the way marketers present their translations). In every single verse there will be a significant diversity between the Greek and the English. All translations are interpretive; anyone who says otherwise is selling something (to quote the man in black). The ESV and NASB fall into this camp.
3. Functional (or dynamic) Equivalence. These translations argue that the purpose of translation is to convey the meaning of the original text into the target language. It may mean that a participle is translated as an indicative verb, or a few Greek words are passed over (such as conjunctions) to produce proper English style. This introduces an additional amount of interpretation and produces a more fluid, understandable translation. The NIV, CSB, and KJV fit into this camp.
4. Natural Language. This is an extension of functional equivalence, but it sees no value in any of the formal structures and tries to repeat the same message in the full idiom of the target language. Eugene Nida says that the purpose of a translation is to transport “the message of the original text … into the receptor language [such] that the response of the receptor is essentially like that of the original receptors.” The problem is that this camp will often introduce ideas simply not in the text in order to achieve natural English style and readability such that you don’t know if you are reading the Bible or the translators comments. This is the NLT.
5. Paraphrase. This term is used variously, but I use it, along with “thought-for-thought,” to categorize translations that are very loose with the Greek in putting the meaning into English idiom. These are not Bibles, but running commentaries, including the Living Bible, the Message, and J.B. Phillip’s wonderful The New Testament in Modern English. (My mom became a Christian reading this work.)
Formal and Functional translations also have to deal with the gender issue in an ever-changing English language. For millions of people, “man” and “he” are still generic, referring to men and women as a whole. For millions of other people, “man” and “he” only refer to males. We are in the middle of a sea change in language, and “they” is becoming the third person pronoun that can refer to women or men. Many people decry this, but grammar is descriptive, not prescriptive, and this is what is happening to English. A person may not like it, but that doesn’t matter. “They” was not marked for gender in Elizabethan English (check out Shakespeare), and it is coming back in vogue.
Like the five translation camps above, there is frequent misunderstanding about the meaning of these three gender terms. Let’s try to use them accurately.
1. Gender Neutral. This kind of translation would eradicate any and all references to gender. God would be a parent, and a child would not have a mother or father. I am not aware of any translation that does this, but the term “gender neutral” is so used (and misused) that I needed a category for it.
2. Gender Inclusive. This method would make everything inclusive, whether the original makes gender specific statements or not. So biblical statements about women would be translated as if it were true of both men and women. I am also not aware of any translation that does this.
3. Gender Accurate. These are translations that make references to men using male language, women with female language, but they differ on how to refer to a mixed (e.g., a crowd) or indefinite object (e.g., “someone”). The ESV and CBS will refer back to an antecedent such as “anyone” with the anaphoric “he.” The NIV uses “they.” The NRSV has other ways (much like the now defunct TNIV) such as using plurals or second person.
There also is the issue of an historical male referent who stands as an example for men and women, boys and girls. In Proverbs, does the father teach the son (who represents all the siblings), or do the parents teach the children?
The point of this blog is to encourage all of us to use exact language. The ESV is not “literal.” (Note that the ESV does not claim to be “literal” but rather “essentially literal”). The NIV is not “gender neutral.” (The NIV claims to be gender accurate.) But people commenting on these translations are often not as nuanced.
