Does Genesis 6 Actually Prove Total Depravity?

In defending the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity, I’ve seen some pushback on a frequently used prooftext. Genesis 6:5, which describes the reasoning behind God’s decision to destroy the world, reads as follows:

And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Genesis 6:5 (KJV)

The Calvinist point is obvious. The Bible declares that the thought of men are always evil, therefore Total Depravity. However, I’ve seen non-Calvinists point out multiple times that this took place before the flood. The world at that time was at its maximum evil, but you cannot say that this is the same post-flood. Obviously, the world isn’t that evil.

On the face of it they do have a point. Genesis 6:5 in of itself does not say whether men continue to be as evil as they were when God destroyed the world. It’s merely a description of what God saw at that time. However I’d like to point out that the Bible does indeed tell us that nothing has changed post-flood. After the flood has taken place, God’s word tells us:

And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake; for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

Genesis 8:21 (KJV)

God says He will not destroy the world again even though man is still evil and nothing has changed. By using similar language (the imagination of man’s heart is evil), He harkens back to His original declaration of why He would destroy the world and declares that state of man to be a present reality. We don’t get any sense from the text that this state is time bound, but rather that this is a characteristic of man permanently. So if God doesn’t destroy the world again, it isn’t because man is now better than he was, but because God said He wouldn’t.

But how, you may ask, is this possible? “Surely, while there are some wicked men out there, not everyone has an imagination that is evil continuously? This interpretation has to be incorrect,” one might say. I think this response stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of what good and evil are. Jesus declares to His followers in the Sermon on the Mount:

If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

Matthew 7:11 (KJV)

Jesus can call those listening to sermon (including his disciples) evil. This is contrasted with the fact that Jesus recognizes they are doing good by giving good gifts. How can people be both evil and do good at the same time? It is because they do not do the good for the right reasons. Doing a good act doesn’t make you good if you’ve done it for the wrong reasons. All acts must be done for the love of God and the love of neighbor.

36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Matthew 22:36–39 (KJV)

Have you kept the greatest commandment? Have you loved the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind? You couldn’t have possibly loved Him any more than you have? You couldn’t have read your Bible more to guard against the attacks of the enemy, or served Him any more than you already have? You could not have treated your neighbors any better than you already have, or been a better witness to them? As to the thoughts of the heart, God tells us that lust counts as adultery (Matthew 5:27-28) and hatred as murder (Matthew 5:21-22). Impure thoughts are still evil even if they don’t result in the corresponding evil action. The rich young ruler thought he had kept the law but Christ showed him that he loved his money more than God (Matthew 19:16-22). Any thought or action that is not perfect in its love for God and neighbor is sin, and therefore is evil. We may not think of it as evil, because we’re so used to it, and no one else on the earth has perfect love for God, but other men are not the standard for what is evil. God is. God is worthy of every single ounce of love we can produce (and more than that), but we do not give it to Him. Thus, when the world does good without regard for the God who made them, they demonstrate that they are evil.

For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.

Ecclesiastes 7:20 (KJV)
The Good News

I’d be remiss if I left the blogpost there without offering the hope that is found after the condemnation. Despite the fact that we are evil and cannot measure up to God’s standard, God has mercy toward the wicked.

6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. 8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Romans 5:6–8 (KJV)

The wages of sin is the eternal death (Romans 6:23), but Christ died for the ungodly. He took the curse we deserved (Galatians 3:13) and by believing in Him we are credited as righteous (Romans 4:5). If anyone today reading this blogpost feels the weight of their sin toward God for the first time, I urge you, flee to Christ, and you will find Him to be the perfect Savior.

Acts 2 Teaches Credobaptism

Acts 2 (specifically part of verse 39) is a favorite of paedobaptists to bring up in support of their position. I think this is very ironic however, as the passage very clearly teaches credobaptism. In Acts 2 Peter preaches his first sermon after the Spirit is poured out on him (Acts 2:4-5). This causes some of the crowd to become convicted of their sins and repent. After this, the apostles begin baptizing the new converts:

41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Acts 2:41 (KJV)

Whatever our interpretation of the rest of Acts 2, it must be consistent with this fact, that all those who gladly received the word, that is they who believed in the Apostle’s message, are the ones who were baptized. It does not say all that believed with their children were baptized, even though there would indeed have been children there as Deuteronomy 16:11 commands sons and daughters to be brought to the feast. Nor does it say that all the Jews were baptized as if being a Jew automatically meant that they were to be given the sign of baptism. It is only those whom the apostles saw had received the word that were baptized. Now on to the contested verses:

37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. 40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

Acts 2:37–40 (KJV)

As you’ll note verse 39 does indeed say the promise is “to your children”. Before we conclude that this means all believer’s children should be baptized, we should first ask what promise this is. Because Peter has been talking about the Holy Spirit, it is most likely the promise of the pouring out of the Holy Spirit. So the promise of the Spirit is to “you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” Now as we’ve already seen not all the Jews were baptized so clearly the “you” must be conditional in some way. Additionally, no one thinks that “all that are far off”, a reference to the Jews that were dispersed from Israel out into the world and to gentiles, were all going to receive the Holy Spirit. These groups are conditioned by the phrase at the end, “even as many as the Lord our God shall call”. This it those who are called by God who have this promise. Thus is not to everyone who has the word preached to them, but those who receive what is called the inward call of God (see Romans 8:28-30 and John 6:43-48). So if the “You” and the “those far off” are conditioned upon the call of God, should we expect that the “your children” is not also conditioned by this phrase? The promise of the Holy Spirit is to those who are called by God, not merely any children of believers. And this interpretation fits in perfectly with what we see in Acts 2:41, that only believers were baptized.

To attack the pedobaptist interpretation from another angle, why is it that the children of those far off are not explicitly included in the promise? Why is it only the children of the Jews that are mentioned? If we search the scripture there is a connection to what the crowd of Jews said when Pilate was attempting to get them to choose Jesus for release:

25 Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.

Matthew 27:25 (KJV)

We know from verses 23 and 36 of Acts 2 that many people (if not all) to whom Peter was preaching were the same ones who shouted this on that day. Peter says they participated in the crucifixion of Jesus, and the only way that could be true is if they were part of the crowd that asked for Jesus’ execution. So in telling the Jews that their children were included in the promise, he gives them assurance that just because they invoked a curse upon their children, doesn’t mean they were doomed forever. (As a brief aside here, is our God not wonderful that despite such a rebellious act where they desired to be cursed, that God did not give them what they asked but pardoned their sins? What mercy He has.) If Peter’s statement about the children is to reassure the Jews, it explains why the children of those far of were not included in the statement, as they were not under any particular curse. Thus, this isn’t some universal promise to the children of believers anywhere, but rather a recognition that there is no category of person (Jew, Gentile, whatever), that the Lord is not willing to call to himself.

A final point I want to make is that repentance is a precondition for receiving the Holy Spirit (v38). Although it does not explicitly say that repentance must precede baptism, many pedobaptists (although not all), would say that baptism of infants mean they automatically receive the Holy Spirit at that time. This, however, runs contrary to Acts 2. Those who would receive the Holy Spirit must repent. Baptism alone will not do this, and to teach our children that they have received the Holy Spirit when they have not is a terrible thing that may lead to a false assurance. Our children should be urged to examine themselves and repent, not told immediately they are Christians when God has not promised any such thing.

Conclusion

So after looking at this passage in Acts 2, who is it that we are to baptize? Just like the apostles, we should baptize those that receive the word, that is those who repent and believe. This includes any of our children who are believers. We do this when we have reason to think that someone has received the word, not immediately upon birth when we don’t know if they have received the word. The hope that someday they might receive the word is not grounds to baptize them either. We need to follow the apostolic pattern for whom baptism is to be administered.

Believers Are More Blessed than the Mother of God?

My title is somewhat provocative and needs some explanation. Clearly Mary, was immeasurably blessed when she was chosen by God to be the woman that would bear the Messiah. This has lead to many professed Christians to highly elevate her status. For example the Roman Catholic Church states:

“All generations will call me blessed”: “The Church’s devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship.” The Church rightly honors “the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of ‘Mother of God,’ to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs…. This very special devotion … differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly fosters this adoration.” The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the rosary, an “epitome of the whole Gospel,” express this devotion to the Virgin Mary

Roman Catholic Catechism Paragraph 971

The blessing leads Rome to conclude that she should be given “special devotion” and that takes the form of liturgical feasts and Marian Prayer. However, contrary to what Rome and others might teach, the blessing the virgin received was actually a lesser blessing compared to what all believers receive (and we don’t see such devotion to the average believer). The word of the living God tells us:

And it came to pass, as he [Jesus] spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.

Luke 11:27-28

Here we see an example of what many today do. The woman was praising Jesus’ mother and announcing that she must have been blessed. And surely there is nothing wrong with the bear recognition that Mary was indeed blessed for having bore Jesus. However, our Lord wanted this woman to shift her focus for a very important reason. The blessing of hearing the word of God and keeping it is the one we should be focused on because it is the superior blessing. Why is this a better blessing? Because this blessing results in eternal life. Mary, as much of a blessing as it was that she received, would still have gone to Hell had she not also received the blessing of being able to hear the word of God and keep it and the same goes for us. This is a Gospel issue. We as fallen humans (even those in a regenerate state) are inclined to have our eyes stray off the eternal for that which is of lesser value. Our Lord warns us in the Gospel of Mark :

“For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”

Mark 8:36

The eternal soul is of greatest importance, far more valuable than anything this world could offer. Focusing on the wrong things leads unbelievers to fail to realize the fullness of the danger they’re in outside of Christ. Christians are supposed to have their eyes fixed on the eternal (2 Cor 4:18) so we can warn those that aren’t in Christ and thus perhaps they might be saved. Proclaiming the blessings of Mary saves no one.

Conclusion

To those who have engaged in the adoration of Mary because of her Motherhood of our Lord, I implore you, do not exalt Mary more highly than the Lord would have her to be. Why focus on her blessing when the one who believes receives a greater one? Do not treat devotion to her as the “epitome of the whole Gospel” as the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church states (a most vile and blasphemous declaration). The true Gospel of Christ is that, through faith in Him, we are saved from the eternal death we deserve. So instead put your trust in the One that can save you from death, and praise Him for the completely unmerited blessing He has bestowed upon you. God has declared to you in His word:

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Romans 10:9

I pray that anyone apart from Christ will indeed hear those words and keep them.

The Word of God Kept Pure for us to Read in our Language

*Note this was adapted from a paper I wrote from Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary. It includes a partial defense of the Confessional Text position and thus is not representative of the opinions of all the writers on The Particular Baptist.

CLICK HERE to read the response by Daniel Vincent.

The doctrine of the Scripture is one of the most important doctrines of Christianity.  It is by this doctrine that we know how to find God’s will and the knowledge of how we can be reconciled to Him.  However, underpinning this doctrine is the concept that we actually have access to the Scriptures.  If we do not have access to them, it does not matter that they are the sole infallible rule of faith or that they give us the wisdom unto salvation (2Tm. 3:16).  The 2nd London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 in chapter one paragraph eight lays out the details of how we can know we have access to the Scriptures today. The confession reads as follows:

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope.[1]

This paper will defend the statements of the Baptist Confession as being entirely biblical, will discuss the historical conflict with Rome over her authority and the puritan response that every word in the Bible had been kept pure as the reason that this paragraph is in the confession, and finally will demonstrate its disagreement with the assumptions of modern textual criticism. 

Biblical Basis

There are two major unique claims that the LBCF 1.8 makes that require a biblical justification.  First, that the Bible has been kept pure in all ages by God Himself, and second that the Bible should be translated out of the original languages they were written in into the language commonly used by the people reading them.  The other claims of the paragraph are either dealt with in more depth in other paragraphs of the confession (such as the affirmation that the church is to appeal to the Scriptures as the final authority), or are not usually disputed within church history (such as the affirmation that the Old Testament is written in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek).[2] 

Dealing with the first claim, it is important to establish that God desires the scriptures to remain pure.  God cares about His word remaining free from the impurities put there by man.  He gives warnings about adding to or subtracting from His word in both the Old Testament (Dt. 4:2, Prov. 30:6) and the New Testament (Rev. 22:18-19).  The God who desires His words to be unaltered is able to prevent their corruption, as He can thwart the plans of man (Ps. 33:10-11). In various places, the scriptures testify that God has indeed kept them pure.  The confession cites Isaiah 8:20 as a proof text for this, which reads: “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” (Is. 8:20).  In context God, speaking to the prophet Isaiah, tells him that rather than going to seek knowledge from the dead, through mediums, the people of Israel should inquire of God.  Thus, they should go to the law and to the testimony, as that is where God’s will is clearly laid out.  Between the giving of the law and the time of Isaiah several hundred years had passed, and yet God still points them to that law.  Clearly, if the law and testimonies had become corrupt whether by poor copying of manuscripts or by malicious intent, God could not tell Israel to go to them, as they would be unreliable witnesses to His will. Thus, by implication, God has preserved His will even across the centuries in the written word.  Outside of the prooftext used by the confession, there are others that can be appealed to.  Referring to the words of Psalm 82, Jesus says, “If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?” (Jn. 10:35).  Jesus’ argument to the Pharisees rests on the idea that because the scripture calls human judges gods, it is appropriate for Jesus to be called the Son of God. [3]  If scripture could be totally corrupted, His statement that scripture could not be broken would not be true, and thus His argument would fail.  The Pharisees could (in theory) say to Jesus that they did not believe the original version of Psalm 82 had such words, and thus they were not bound by them.  But Jesus reminds them that scripture cannot be broken, and thus they must deal with what they know to be what scripture says.  A final proof text is from Matthew’s Gospel, which reads, Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Matt. 24:35).  Jesus claims that even though something as fixed as heaven and earth will be destroyed, His words will never be destroyed.  In context, He is referring to His words regarding the destruction of the temple and of His coming.  However, the same confidence we put in those words not disappearing we can put in the rest of the scriptures not disappearing, as the same God that preserves them will preserve the rest.

The second major claim, that the scriptures must be translated, rests first on the idea that believers have a right to, an interest in, and a command to read the scriptures.  Because the believer needs and wants to have the scriptures, the confession states they should be translated so they can read them.  The believer desires to read the word because it contains knowledge of how to be saved (2 Tm. 3:15).  They have a have a right to the scriptures, as Jesus condemns those who take away the knowledge of how to enter the Kingdom of God:  “Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered” (Lk. 11:52). For the command to read the scripture, the confession lists John 5:39 as a prooftext, which the King James and Geneva Bibles (the versions the framers of the confession would be most familiar with) do translate as Jesus commanding the Pharisees to search the scriptures.  However, as Gill points out, the verse could easily be translated as an indicative.[4] Another verse that would convey the idea would again be Isaiah 8:20; as demonstrated above, God has commanded people to go to the law and to the testimony in order to find out His will.  Thus, the believer has every desire to have the scriptures.

However, just because the people of God have an interest in knowing what the scriptures teach, does that mean that they should be translated for them?  It would seem obvious that since not everyone is able to read the original languages, that translations should be made, but the Bible also implies this is the case as well.  The confession rightly sites several texts from 1 Corinthians 14 to demonstrate the biblical nature of the idea.  1 Corinthians 14 contains a discussion about speaking in unknown languages by supernatural gifting and its edification to the church.  Here, Paul lays out a problem: “Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me(1 Cor. 14:11).  The fact that the church might not understand what is being said is such a problem that Paul says later, But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God” (1 Cor. 14:28).   Thus, the argument for the translation of the Bible from this passage is as follows: because Paul says that the we need an interpreter, or else no one will know what is being said and be edified, we should provide an interpretation (translation) of the Bible, so the churches can understand what has been said to them by God.  Paul does not seem to be worried that the translation may not fully capture the meaning of the words of another language, so neither should we.  Thus, not only are translations of the scriptures the only reasonable to thing to do, to hinder the making of them would be to harm our brethren and those that would believe through the translations by denying them access to God’s word, which they have a right to.

Historical Background

In comparing the three, there is no difference between the wording of the Westminster,[5] Savoy,[6]  and Second London Baptist confessions of faith in Chapter 1 paragraph 8.  Renihan notes:

When it [the 1689] concurs with these other documents [the Westminster and Savoy], it can be read as an endorsement of the views espoused by those Presbyterian and Independents who subscribed those documents, and of the theological works they published in defense of the Confessional statements.[7]

Additionally, out of the questions debated at the 1689 general assembly, none of them were issues that deal with the preservation or translation of scripture.[8]  Thus, it is safe to conclude that the framers of the Second London believed that they were in line with what their paedobaptist brethren of the time were saying.  We, therefore, can look at both Presbyterian and Congregationalist writings of the period to gain insight into what the Baptists believed about the purity of scripture and its necessity of translation.  

            Protestantism in the 16th and 17th centuries had to respond to attacks by Rome on the source of its authority: the scriptures.  One attack was to claim that Hebrew and Greek texts were corrupt to show that Protestants needed to have the Church to have the scriptures.  Turretin summarizes the issue: “This question is forced upon us by the Roman Catholics, who raise doubts concerning the purity of the sources in order more readily to establish the authority of their Vulgate and lead us to the tribunal of the church.”[9]  Rome had declared that the Latin Vulgate with all its books and parts to be the authentic scripture and anathematized anyone who would say otherwise.[10]  Any other edition of scripture made would have to have the approval of the Catholic Church.  Some Catholics rejected the idea that there should be translations at all.  As Turretin reports: “Arbor says, ‘The translation of the sacred writings into the vulgar tongue is the sole origin of heresies,’ and Soto, Harding, Bayle, and many of the order of Loyola agree.”[11]  The Catholic translators of the Douay Rheims Bible obviously did believe in translations, but also declared that the Greek copies were corrupted by heretics and that the Protestant translations were “corrupting both letter and sense by false translation.”[12]  These ideas, if true, would be devastating to Protestantism, which was built on the bedrock that the word of God was the sole infallible rule of faith.  A compromise on the purity of the scriptures (either in underlying text or perhaps even in translation) could lead people to conclude that they needed an external authority to know God’s word and will, and that would lead to Rome.  John Owen, when confronting the idea that Walton’s Polyglot might lead believers to conclude the scriptures had become corrupt, commented on this idea: “We went from Rome under the conduct of the purity of the originals; I wish none have a mind to return thither again under the pretense of their corruption.”[13]

            Protestants, therefore, began to defend the Scriptures both by evidence that they had been perfectly preserved, and on the biblical mandate that God said they would be.  They also began to defend the veracity of their translations.  The common protestant view of the day was that each individual word of God had remained uncorrupted.  Thomas Cartwright wrote a work defending the preservation of the Bible against what had been said by the translators of the Douay Rheims and said that “no one oracle or sentence of God can fall away,” and “the old and new testament written in their original tongues cannot either by addition, detraction or exchange be corrupted.”[14]  The Westminster Divines made reference to Cartwright and to his work during the assembly, showing his influence.[15]    He also defends the idea that, while the English translations of his day may not have been perfect, more work would improve them.[16]  Thus, translations could accurately communicate the word of God to their readers.  Many of the members of the Westminster assemblies defended perfect preservation in their sermons and writings.  Daniel Featly, a Westminster divine,[17]  held that Matthew 5:18 (a prooftext for the confession) meant God preserved “the smallest parcels of Scripture.”[18]  Thomas Manton, another divine, speaking about the same text stated that “Christ hath promised not a tittle shall fall to the ground.  The word hath been in danger of being lost, the Miracle of Preservation is therefore the greater.”[19] Here an acknowledgment of the reality that while the Greek and Hebrew copies may have had errors in them, God’s word had still not fully passed away.  It was only in danger of being lost, not that it had been.  Thus, Manton was confident he had the word down to the tittle in his day.  John Owen, whom many of the particular Baptists admired, wrote “whole Scripture, entire as given out from God, without any loss, is preserved in the copies of the originals yet remaining … In them all, we say, is every letter and tittle of the word.”[20]  Owen thus explicitly affirmed that every letter of the word existed in the copies of his day.  This was the milieu that the framers of the 1689 Baptist Confession had grown up in.  They no doubt feared an attack on the purity of the scriptures would result into people returning to the kingdom of the great enemy of Christ, and thus felt, like their other protestant brethren, that their confession of faith needed to include a section on the purity of the text and a note on translation to affirm that God had indeed kept His word pure in all ages.

Modern Application

One practical application of this paragraph has remained unchanged from the time of the Reformation;  Rome makes similar claims today about the necessity of its authority in order to know what the scriptures are in their text, and they can be refuted on the same grounds that our protestant forbearers did.  However, a perhaps newer application of this paragraph in the confession is to resolve a modern controversy, namely whether God’s word needs to be reconstructed using modern textual critical methods.  While this may be a controversial opinion, the author of this paper finds that the modern idea that the text of the church has been corrupted and needs to be restored to be unbiblical and unconfessional. 

Modern textual criticism rests on the idea that the text of the Bible has become corrupt and is currently in the process of being restored.  Take the title of one of the books by Bruce Metzger, one of the leading authorities on textual criticism in the 20th century: The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration.[21]  Clearly, he viewed the text as having become corrupt at least at some point and believed that it needed to be restored.  Wescott and Hort, two major forerunners of modern textual criticism, wrote that textual criticism is the “attempt to present exactly the original words of the New Testament, so far as they can now be determined from surviving documents.”[22] Thus, they were not even sure that they could fully restore the original biblical text with the manuscripts in their day.  This has not changed since the days of Wescott and Hort, as some modern biblical scholars define New Testament textual criticism as “the art and science of reconstruction the original Greek autographs as closely as possible.”[23]  Even if the texts produced by modern textual criticism do not disagree in core doctrine from the text of the framers of the confession, they clearly are not certain of the faithfulness of specific words in parts of the Bible.

These ideas do not appear to be in line with either the biblical data discussed in this paper or the views of the protestant orthodox.  If it is true that the Bible was corrupt, then at best we could say that is was kept pure in some ages, but not that it was kept pure in all ages.  This is not to ignore the fact that the manuscript copies of the Bible do contain variances from one another, and clear deviations from the original text.  However, that fact does not mean the true church as a whole had a completely corrupted textual transmission.  We would expect by God’s providence that, even if only in a minority of manuscripts, the correct words of any part of scripture would be preserved somewhere in the Greek and Hebrew and at least some of the church would have access to it.  Any idea that part of the text has been completely lost to the church (even if only for a certain amount of time) should be rejected on its unbiblical nature.  If it were true, Jesus’ words in John 10:35 that “scripture cannot be broken” would be wrong.  Scripture could be broken, as we might not have its correct reading, and even if we did, we might not know it.  Thus, any power it would have over us would be null.  Finally, if our protestant forebearers could say they had the complete and uncorrupted word of God down to the letter in their day and be wrong, then likewise, we would not be able to say with full confidence that we have the uncorrupted version today.  This leaves the believer in a precarious spot indeed, and susceptible to Rome or anyone else would seek to undermine the authority of the scriptures. 

So, if modern textual critical methods are unable to help us identify the true text, how do we know what it is?  We should expect based on the wording of the confession and the scripture that we should have the text that the true church of Christ has always had.  While it may be harder to see what the state of the text in the manuscripts was in earlier centuries, even with new manuscript finds, we do know what the text looked like that was available to Protestantism in the 16th century when the text became solidified with the help of the printing press. The Hebrew text of the Old Testament that was available was known as the Masoretic Text, and the Greek text of the New is commonly called the Textus Receptus (TR).  Although there are variances between the printed editions of the TR, the variances are minor,[24] and based on our faith in God’s word being preserved, we should expect that the TR editions should have the true reading somewhere and that it should be possible to identify which are true and which are false on theological or other grounds.  Thus, we can say that every letter of God’s word is available to us complete and pure.  Ultimately, as the Baptist Confession says, “our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our heart”,[25] and thus it is the Spirit who gives us true assurance of the word of God, not a scientific reconstructionist textual methodology.  While this view is not held by the majority of the reformed today, the author of this paper does find it to be biblical, and that it would help strengthen the faith of many by assuring them they have the true text of the Bible and would help us in our efforts to witness to Rome or any other group that claims infallible authority.

[1] 2LBCF (1677/89) I.8

[2] It should be noted that there are a very few places where the Old Testament uses Aramaic instead of Hebrew, and there is a dispute about whether Matthew may have been originally written in Hebrew instead of Greek.  Overall, however, the statement of the confession about the original languages of the Bible is without controversy. 

[3] There is a popular interpretation of the Psalm that holds the gods being referenced are heavenly beings.  The author of this paper holds that they are human judges, although either view would not invalidate the point being made.

[4] John Gill, An Exposition of the New Testament (1746–48; reprint, London: Mathews and Leigh, 1809), 1:807.

[5] WCF I:8

[6] Savoy Declaration I:8

[7] James M. Renihan, Edification and Beauty: The Practical Ecclesiology of the English Particular Baptists, 1675-1705 (Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2009), 20.

[8] James M. Renihan, Faith and Life for Baptists (Palmdale: RBAP, 2016), 37-43.

[9] Francis Turretin, Institutio Theologiae Elencticae., ed. & trans J. Beardslee (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981), II, 21 Questions, Q 10, accessed August 26, 2020. https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/21%20Questions%20on%20Doctrine%20of%20Scripture.pdf

[10] Council of Trent, Session IV, First Decree

[11] Francis Turretin, Institutio Theologiae Elencticae., ed. & trans J. Beardslee (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981), II, 21 Questions, Q 13, accessed August 26, 2020. https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/21%20Questions%20on%20Doctrine%20of%20Scripture.pdf

[12] John Fogny, Rheims New Testament, preface, accessed August 25, 2020. http://www.u.arizona.edu/~aversa/rheims_intro.pdf

[13] John Owen, The works of John Owen. W. H. Goold, Ed. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, n.d.), Vol. 16:370.

[14] Garnet Howard Milne, Has the Bible been kept pure? The Westminster Confession of Faith and the providential preservation of Scripture (self-pub., 2017), 73.

[15] Ibid, 68.

[16] Ibid, 70.

[17] Although he would eventually withdraw from the assembly before its conclusion

[18] Ibid, 138.

[19] Ibid, 126.

[20] Ibid, 195.

[21] Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament (New York, Oxford University Press, 2005).

[22] Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts, Fundamentals of New Testament Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids: Wm. B Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2015), 2.

[23] Ibid, 1.

[24] James R. White, The King James Only Controversy. 2nd ed.  (Bloomington: Bethany House Publishers 2009), 113.

[25] 2LBCF (1677/89) I.5

Can Rome Even Identify the Word of God?

A frequent claim by Roman Catholics is that Protestants need Rome to know what the Bible is. After all, how could we infallibly know the contents of the Bible? We need an infallible authority, and Rome is just that authority they claim. However, I’d like to pose a question: Can Rome actually identify what the contents of the Bible are? I know they claim they can, but their official pronouncements are contradictory, which leads me to conclude that even on their own terms Rome cannot tell us what the word of God is.

I’d like to investigate the difference between what the Reformation-era Roman Catholic Church says is contained in the Bible, and what modern Rome says. The first thing to understand is that the Latin Vulgate was affirmed as the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church at the council of Trent.[1] However, in the 20th century the Nova Vulgata (New Vulgate) was adopted as the official Latin text of the church.[2] So the question is: are there significant differences between these two editions of the Vulgate? I’d like to look at two texts to demonstrate that Rome can’t even identify the true contents of the bible.

Acts 8:37

Acts 8:37 is a contested verse because it is not well represented in the Greek manuscripts we have that survived to this day[3]. It reads as follows in the New King James Version:

Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.”
And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

The New King James Version. (1982). (Ac 8:37). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

This verse was included in the Latin Vulgate of the Reformation era. An easy way for an English speaker to see this is to look at the Douay-Rheims version of the Bible, which was an approved Catholic translation of the Vulgate into English[4]:

And Philip said: If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answering, said: I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Acts 8:37, The Holy Bible Douay Rheims Version.

However, this verse is not included in the Nova Vulgata. As you can see from the Vatican’s website, the verse itself missing. All that remains is the verse number in parenthesis.

1 John 5:7

1 John 5:7 (known as the Comma Johanneum) is a hotly contested verse, because it doesn’t appear in very many Greek manuscripts, and the ones it does appear in were made very late[5]. Again, this verse is included in the Latin Vulgate of the day:

And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one

1 John 5:7, The Holy Bible Douay Rheims Version.

So is it in the Nova Vulgata? This will be a little more difficult for non-Latin readers, as it does include a verse 7. However, it does not have the same contents as the verse 7 from the Old Latin Vulgate. A modern Roman Catholic translation will show the difference:

So there are three that testify,

1 John 5:7, New American Bible

There is a significant portion of the verse that is gone. So how much does this really matter for the Roman Catholic? It matters a great deal because as the Council of Trent declared:

But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.

Council of Trent, Session IV, First Decree

Note that is says the “books entire with all their parts”. This would include Acts 8:37 and 1 John 5:7. So what are we to make of this then? Has Trent condemned modern Rome saying it is anathema for holding different parts of the Bible? Is modern Rome correct, and Trent mistaken? If Trent can be mistaken about this, can it be mistaken about other things, most importantly justification by faith alone?

To get back to my original question, it does not appear that Rome is able to tell us what the word of God is. Roman Catholics might say that, while perhaps they don’t know what the exact words of the books of the Bible are, we still need Rome to tell us what books should be in the Bible. However, this is nonsensical. Should we trust Rome on the macro level when it comes to the canon, when it cannot tell us even the littlest part of it?

Now, the Roman Catholic may ask at this point how I, as a Reformed Baptist, know what the word of God is. And this is a very fair question to ask. To quote from my confession of faith:

We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church of God to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scriptures; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, and the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, and many other incomparable excellencies, and entire perfections thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, Chapter 1, Paragraph 5.

The testimony of the Church may indeed be helpful for identifying the word of God. However, ultimately it is the Holy Spirit that gives us testimony that the Bible is the word of God, and he being God is able to communicate us this knowledge infallibly. Does this mean that every true Christian is always knows exactly what the word of God is? No it does not, but it does mean it is possible in this life to know exactly what the word of God is. So I invite my Roman Catholic readers to come out of the institution that is the Roman Catholic Church, which makes enormous claims about the certainty it can provide, but ultimately cannot deliver. I’ll close with a passage from the word of the living God:

My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.  And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand.

The New King James Version. (1982). (Jn 10:27–28). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

[1] https://banneroftruth.org/us/resources/articles/2014/nine-things-know-council-trent/?fbclid=IwAR2ATiRhKQFnkyshmUo4gX8w4g0iLCaACR5SfnWUWrRvJl7S4LjCNnZ3zq0

[2] https://m.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/is-the-vulgate-the-catholic-churchs-official-bible?fbclid=IwAR2D69Eibl2XQH7hDdzKwTcdoVevN1XDC9pGbs3a-Qf3Q92bWVTz1suTWZw

[3] It should be noted that author of this post considers Acts 8:37 to be part of the inspired word of God

[4] https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/uncomfortable-facts-about-the-douay-rheims?fbclid=IwAR2XyGlB6LOHRO6RiTFfl563p14d_7jg2OqjoAFUUlgm0tdh46fOxMU9xjk

[5] It should be noted that author of this post considers 1 John 5:7 as found in the majority of editions of the Textus Receptus to be part of the inspired word of God

Should Each Local Church Have Multiple Bishops?

This is part 2 in a series on ecclesiology. Click here for part 1.

Anyone unfamiliar with the debates about church government probably will be confused by the title of this post. When we think of bishops, what usually comes to mind is a man with long and ornate robes that sits and rules over many individual churches (or parishes to use the correct term). Most people wouldn’t consider them as part of a local congregation, and many protestants wouldn’t want anything to do with them, as their various denominations don’t have any office called bishop. However, the Greek word for bishop, ἐπίσκοπος, (also translated as overseer), actually does appear in the New Testament, so Bible believers should be OK with using the term. The question, of course, is does the New Testament description of the office of bishops actually match what many today claim it should? Let’s take a look.

The first major point is to demonstrate that the term bishop and elder are used as synonyms, because then we can also use the passages that describe elders to know how many bishops an individual church should have. Paul, writing to Titus says the following:

For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you—6 if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. 7 For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money

The New King James Version. (1982). (Tt 1:5–7). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

Note the fact that Paul here uses the words elder and bishop interchangeably. He starts off with the word elder, but then uses to word bishop to continue talking about the office.

Next up, we have Luke’s description of Paul talking to the Ephesian Church’s leadership in Acts 20. At the opening of the section he writes;

From Miletus he [Paul] sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the church.

The New King James Version. (1982). (Ac 20:17). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

After reminding them of his time among them, Paul tells those he’s sent for:

Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

The New King James Version. (1982). (Ac 20:28). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

So here once again Paul is indicating the office of elder is the same thing as the office of bishop/overseer. He tells the Ephesian elders that the Holy Spirit has made them overseers. This was not any sort of promotion, as nothing in the context would suggest that. It’s a declaration of what the elders already are. As a passing note, the verb to shepherd in Greek is where we get the word pastor. So not only are the elders bishops, but they’re also pastors. All three of these titles are synonymous (see also 1 Peter 5:2)

So now that we’ve established that elders and bishops are the same, can we say where in relation to local congregations the bishop is, and how many there should be? At the very least as we’ve seen already the church of the Ephesians had a plurality of elders. Additionally as we saw in Titus 1:5, Paul had told Titus in every city to appoint elders (plural), implying that each church should have at least two of them. This idea of multiple bishops per church is also seen of the Church at Philippi (Philippians 1:1) and interestingly enough, Jerusalem:

And when they had come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders; and they reported all things that God had done with them.

The New King James Version. (1982). (Ac 15:4). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

Even the church at Jerusalem, the mother church of all, had a plurality of elders. If these bishops are at every church in every city, clearly they do not rule over multiple churches. Nowhere in the New Testament do we see elders exercising authority over multiple churches at the same time. Bishops perform functions in the local congregation like visiting the sick (James 5:14), which would be hard to do if they were not around for each church. They both rule and teach (1 Tim 5:17) and teaching must happen in the context of the local church, or else how will the members hear the teaching? Additionally, the only two offices in the New Testament that have qualifications laid out for them are elders and deacons. If elders are meant to rule over many churches, there’s a missing office of local church leadership, as deacons aren’t a teaching/ruling office.

To close, I’d like to go through why God in His almighty wisdom would determine to have the local church governed with a multiplicity of elders. I can think of 3 good reasons:

1. It protects the preacher

Even the best of men are inclined towards puffing themselves up. Having a plurality of elders reminds preachers that they are not the only man the church depends on, and that others can do their job. Additionally, the burdens of the ministry of shepherding souls is hard, and having other men to share that burden is helpful to prevent any one man from burning out, or succumbing to sin.

2. It protects the church from ungodly men, or true believers that have fallen into gross sin

If one of the elders in the church falls into sin (whether because they were a true believer or not), there are men around with the same level of authority who can offer correction. With just one man in authority, its harder to bring a charge against that one man. Also, certain men might have a blind spot (say in dealing with sin in a family member), but with many pastors there are other more unbiased perspectives that can win the day.

3. It provides continuity if there’s an issue with the leadership

If one of the elders (even the primary preaching elder) dies, when there’s a plurality of elders there’s already men that can continue to guide the church. In a church with a single pastor, when that man dies or falls into sin and has to be removed, there is no one immediately to lead the church and provide teaching and preaching. This can lead to churches getting bad shepherds, as in their desperation to find someone to fill the void, they may pick someone who isn’t nearly as qualified or doctrinally sound as they ought. Or they may pick someone from the congregation who is qualified, but doesn’t have the experience of leading. Finally, for some churches that lose their pastor, they may disintegrate as they no longer have a preacher, and the members would be forced to go to other churches, if there are any good ones around.

Next in this series we’ll move onto looking specifically at what authority that the local church has. Stay tuned.

Does Biblical Ecclesiology Matter?

The word ecclesiology means theology as applied to the nature and structure of the Christian Church. There are many institutions calling themselves churches that look very different from each other. Some have a hierarchy of bishops and are headed by a Pope or a King. Others groups believe there is no institution higher than the local church. The question for us is: which, if any of these, are correct? Or does it not matter how Christians are organized together? I’d like to start a series investigating how the Church should be structured while on earth and what powers it has, but to begin we need to address where we can go to find out these things about the Church.

It is my contention that everything needed to be known about how the church should be organized is contained in the Bible, whether by command or example. Many in church history have disagreed with such a supposition. For example, the 19th century theologian John Tulloch writes:

The Christian Scriptures are a revelation of divine truth, and not a revelation of church polity. They not only do not lay down the outline of such a polity, but they do not even give the adequate and conclusive hints of one.

Leaders of the Reformation: Luther, Calvin, Latimer, Knox

Are we to believe that Jesus, who gave His life for the Church, has not left us with any idea of how we are to be ordered while on earth? Or even worse, does He not care particularly how we are ordered, and it is up to learned men to figure out for themselves the best way to do it? The classic passage on the sufficiency of scripture demonstrates that Jesus has left us with guidance:

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

The New King James Version. (1982). (2 Ti 3:16–17). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

The phrase, “man of God,” refers not merely to an ordinary believer, but someone in an official ministry position among God’s people.1 So, if those in the ministry are to be equipped by the Scriptures, surely it should teach them how the Church is to be organized. After all, is not the organization of the Church a good work, one that the man of God would need to be equipped for? God has left the knowledge of what the visible church should look like and how it should behave by giving us a series of commands and examples in His word, the Bible.2

A further (although more subtle) example of this is the fact that in two separate instances, 1 Tim 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9, the qualifications for a local church office called “elder” or “presbyter” are laid out. Are we to say that God felt the need to preserve the qualifications for an office in not one, but two places in His word, but that this doesn’t apply, as we are able to decide how to organize ourselves any which way we want? I think that is an absurd idea, God’s word is always relevant (Romans 15:4, Isaiah 40:8).

Now, I do imagine some would like to posit an alternate place to find out how the Church should be structured: Church Tradition. After all, if the Church has faithfully transmitted the original instructions of the Apostles on how the Church should be organized, we don’t need to worry about what the Scriptures say. I think this is a bad idea for two reasons. First, as we know, the Pharisees developed ungodly traditions while claiming they were true doctrines, and Jesus used the word of God to demonstrate their falsity (Mark 7:1-13). Thus, we also should use the Scriptures to determine what is and isn’t true tradition. Secondly, what is more traditional than what the Apostles practiced? Would we say the way the Church was organized in the 1st century is not traditional? Surely, it would be more traditional then any other type of organization that comes after it.

So why study the ecclesiology of the Bible? If God has told us how He desires His Church to be set up and we ignore it, are we not saying that we are wiser than God? God has the ultimate right to establish how His Church should look. He has given it the authority that it has and we dare not step outside the prescribed limits of that authority. As we go through this series, I hope that you will see just how wise God is in how He has laid out His Church. We all have seen some of the scandals regarding gross sin committed by church leaders in America. A biblically set up church is a guard against error and sin, and effective for the propagation of the Gospel. I’ll close with this thought from Psalm 119:

Direct my steps by Your word,
And let no iniquity have dominion over me.

The New King James Version. (1982). (Ps 119:133). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

[1] See A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith 5th edition page 57-58 for a discussion of the phrase man of God in 2 Tim 3:17

[2] For a proof of how the Bible is the word of God here is a previous blog article of mine: https://theparticularbaptist.net/2020/03/16/is-the-bible-the-word-of-god/

“Love Your Enemy” in Exodus and Leviticus

We’ve all heard someone espouse the idea that somehow “the God of the Old Testament” is different than “the God of the New Testament.” This is claimed because they say that in the New Testament God is so loving and caring while in the Old Testament God is wrathful and mean. This is extremely frustrating because it’s obviously not true to anyone who has any passing familiarity with the Gospels. Jesus talks about coming judgement and how terrible it will be (Matthew 25:31-46, for example). However, while I think it’s easy to demonstrate from the New Testament that God’s wrath is indeed still present, I’d like to do the converse today. I’d like to show that God, in the Old Testament, was commanding the exact same things that Jesus was in the New. There is no disharmony in the teachings at all.

One of the supposedly more radical teachings of Jesus is that we should love and do good to our enemies. Surely, this idea was never taught before! I think this short passage from Exodus will put that to rest:

4 “If you meet your enemy’s ox or his donkey going astray, you shall surely bring it back to him again.  5 If you see the donkey of one who hates you lying under its burden, and you would refrain from helping it, you shall surely help him with it.

The New King James Version. (1982). (Ex 23:4–5). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

Here God is commanding the Israelites to do good to their enemy, even the “one who hates you.” Is this not the exact same sentiment that Jesus taught in the Gospels? God commands good to our enemies, regardless of what they’ve done to us. It is only out of ignorance that people can claim Jesus diverges from Old Testament moral teaching.

Another thing Jesus said was to “love your neighbor as yourself” (see Matthew 22:39). Surely, that teaching can’t be found in the Old Testament? Except, when Jesus says this, He is literally quoting from Leviticus 19:18

17 ‘You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall surely rebuke your neighbor, and not bear sin because of him. 18 You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.

The New King James Version. (1982). (Le 19:17–18). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

“You shall love your neighbor as yourself” is an Old Testament teaching. There should have been nothing radical in Jesus teaching to His Jewish hearers. They should have already been exposed to the idea. Even in this passage the Israelites are commanded to not take vengeance, once again showing they were to love their enemies and not persecute them. In God’s law, wrongs were to be overlooked and people were not to be treated in accordance with their wicked deeds against you. It’s time to lay the slander against God to rest.

Application

Before closing out this article, I want to make some application for the Christian. We’ve heard the teachings of Jesus so many times we’re liable to not remember just how radical (from a worldly perspective) His statements are. Hopefully, looking at the same idea presented in the Old Testament has encouraged you to remember how we should live in this world. We should love our enemies and do good to them. It doesn’t matter if they’ve cheated, stolen from, oppressed, slandered, microaggressed, or even done actual violence to us. We are still to love them and do good to them. If you don’t want to do this, can you say you truly believe in Christ? If you don’t believe in Him, then you will see His wrathful side on the Day of Judgement. Repent and believe in Him, and you will find Him to be just as merciful as the New Testament portrays Him.

The Pope Is NOT A Christian

The Pope stands against Christ. He is in no way to be considered a Christian man. Why do I say this? Consider the following text of a tweet from him on May 11:

I would like to remind you that on 14 May, believers of every religion are invited to unite themselves spiritually in a day of prayer, fasting and works of charity, to implore God to help humanity overcome the coronavirus

-Pope Francis

As of the moment of the writing of this article, there has been no retraction or clarification of this tweet, so I will take it at face value that this is what the Pope meant to communicate. There are two major problems I see with this tweet:

  1. It makes people of other religions think they’re right with God.
  2. It gets the Gospel wrong.

1. It makes people of other religions think they’re right with God.

By inviting “believers of every religion” to pray that humanity would overcome COVID 19, it implies that God would would act on prayers by these people. This is furthered by the call to unite spiritually, after all you would not want to unite with someone who wouldn’t be heard by God, as it would put your prayers in jeopardy. There is no call for these people to repent and become Christians before praying, just to pray. Therefore, we must conclude the Pope is affirming those who do not know or acknowledge Christ to pray to God. But what does God tell us? In Isaiah 59:2 He tells us, “But your iniquities have separated you from your God; And your sins have hidden His face from you, So that He will not hear.” I will note that, in context, this message is being delivered to Israel, so if God will not listen to His covenant people in their sin, why should we expect those of other religions to be heard? John 9:31 makes this more clear. One of the men whom Jesus healed defended Him by saying, “Now we know that God does not hear sinners; but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does His will, He hears him.” This is laid out plainly. If you are not a worshiper of God, dear reader, God will not hear you, there is a separation between you and Him because of your sins. And the result of this is far worse than a pandemic. God tells us that “He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” (John 3:36). So the Pope very much leads people astray by letting them think they are alright and can petition God, when really they are under the wrath of God.

2. It gets the Gospel wrong.

Pope Francis not only gets the state of unbelievers before God wrong, but he also misidentifies the solution. He lists prayer, fasting, and works of charity as the means that he believes will make God remove the pandemic from us. My question is: Will these things alone do this? We know that this virus is ultimately from God (Amos 3:6). If Pope Francis thinks this will take God’s curse away from the nations he is sorely mistaken. First, there is no mention of faith. We know from the Bible that “But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.” (Hebrews 11:6) Second, there is no mention of Christ. We’re told that there is only one mediator between God and men (1 Timothy 2:5), and that’s Jesus Christ. Is the Pope trying tell unbelievers they can go before God without going through His appointed mediator? Jesus himself tells us that no one comes to the Father except by Him (John 14:6). By coming to God by doing works of charity and fasting apart from Christ, they’re coming to Him without their sin being dealt with by God’s appointed means. They’re trying to bribe God by doing good things without having dealt with the fundamental problems in their relationship to Him. Doing good deeds cannot make you right with God (Titus 3:5, Ephesians 2:8-9).

And here is the most tragic thing of all. This pandemic may kill some physically, it’s true, but there is a death far worse than this. Jesus tells us, “And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Matthew 10:28). The eternal death in hell is far more to be feared than just mere dying. By failing to warn those who are going to their eternal death, and by failing to proclaim the Good News that Jesus has made an atonement for sin for all who will believe in Him (Hebrews 2:17, John 3:16), he does not present the true Gospel. We’re told by the apostle Paul in Galatians 1:8, “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.” Pope Francis has a false Gospel, and thus is accursed by God. Would you say someone who is accursed is a Christian? This man claims to be the head of the universal Church of Christ (a blasphemy, as Christ Himself is the true head of the Church), can he not even warn the world of what they face apart from Christ?

Conclusion

I know there will be may who are angry at this post because they feel that I’m being mean. After all, isn’t the Pope trying to do a good thing in all of this? The answer is that, while he may think he’s doing something good, in reality he is harming those who listen to him, by giving them the wrong solution to the problem. Thus, it would actually be cruel to not call out the Pope for what he has said. There may be others who say it’s wrong to criticize the Pope for his religious beliefs. I would then ask that person: Are you not criticizing me for my religious beliefs, and would that not make you a hypocrite? I implore anyone who thinks I’m being mean to reconsider based on what God has said in the Scripture, your soul may indeed depend on it. God still holds out His hands to those who have sinned wickedly against Him. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will find Him to be the perfect savior.

Scripture taken from the New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

A Plea To The Mocking Atheist

There are many types of atheists out there, both in terms of beliefs and attitudes. I’ve run into some polite atheists during my time as a Christian. However, in this post I want to focus mainly on what I call the mocking atheist. This is the atheist that Christians encounter that doesn’t seem to actually be interested in discussing the issues, but just wants to mock Christians for beliefs they think are absurd. They get a sense of superiority, it seems, from mocking those they see as stupid. It may be foolish to make this plea, as it is an opportunity for them to attempt more mockery, but I will do it for the glory of God, and in hope of their eternal well being.

You who mock, do you not realize how foolish it is to rebel against the God you know exists? The Bible says in Romans chapter one that all men have perceived the existence of the true God:

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:18-20)

Therefore, you know God exists; He has left you with no excuse. I could go through the arguments about how it is that you’ve perceived God exists (as I’m sure many of you would want to), but in a sense I don’t need to, because you have perceived it. Now, I imagine this claim will invite mockery, as I’m relying on an ancient book written by a “magical sky fairy” to make my point about what you know. And if it is true that you have never perceived that God exists, then I can safely be ignored as a crazy person. But I have never met a professed atheist who was willing to do so. They’ve always felt the need to fight back as if I were truly a threat to their beliefs. So my next question is: what will the God that you know exists do to you for your mockery and other sins against Him?

Your mockery may entertain you for a while, but it will give way to shame. The Bible says also that every knee shall bow to God one day (Romans 14:10-11), and that includes you. One day you will explicitly have to recognize that Jesus is Lord, and you are not. You will not be able to stand by any mockery, as it will have been shown to be untrue. Even if you have encountered Christians or professed Christians that were your intellectual inferiors or were hypocrites, on that day you will find the One who made you and knows you better than yourself. The Bible also says that on the day of judgement there will be “weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Luke 13:27-28) for those outside of Christ. Many say Hell will be a party, but Jesus says otherwise. Know, dear reader, that despite what you desire, you will have to deal with the truth one day.

So, my final question is: is your mockery worth it? Is it a worthwhile trade to get a few years in this earth of fun laughing, for an eternity of shame for what you’ve done, and the accordingly just punishment? No, only a fool would think so. So, to you I make a plea, even if it may invite more mockery towards me. God, the One whom you know exists, has provided a way of escape for your sins. I assume many of you have heard this before, but I plead with you to listen to it one more time. Jesus Christ, God the Son, became man and lived a perfect life. He then took the penalty for sin, the full wrath of God, when He died on the cross. Thus, God is able to forgive anyone because an atonement has been made for sin. By believing in Him, you have access to this forgiveness of sin and eternal life. And this belief is not a mere acknowledgement that He exists, but is putting your trust in Him, believing what He has said and therefore repenting of your ways. Do this, and you will find Him to be exactly what He is: the perfect Savior.

If this seems like an absurd message from your perspective, good; that’s what the Bible says it will sound like (1 Corinthians 1:18-25). So, it is no shock to me if you continue in your mockery and rebellion. But I do hope and pray that you will turn from your ways and find the true joy that comes from the God that you know exists.

Scripture taken from the New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Website Powered by WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: