church decisions

So, after a lot of discussion and thought, I have come to some conclusions. I am still uncertain if I'm beginning with those, or with the the recent church experiences. Yeah, let's start with those.

We heard that we should try a church that was another 35-40 minutes away. So, we did. We went in the morning. We sat in the back. Another man sat in front of us. He noticed several other people greeting us, and so he turned around to greet us too. He was also a visitor he said. He was the original pastor of the church we were at which he started some several years ago. In the conversation we mentioned we were from MI. I'm assuming that was the reason that he then did something surprising. He recommended another church. He was talking in a whispered voice. More along the humorous tone than a hushed secretive tone. He assumed we were "independent," then went on to say he was part of the Southern Baptist Convention. "Heretics" he said, then chuckled. He was a nice guy. The service was horrible. The preaching was just a mess. The pastor's kid I had seen and recognized from MBBC. He recognized us too. The pastor's wife was a talker...took us a while to get out. It was a mess.

In the evening service, we went to the church recommended by the pastor at the other one. It was better. Preaching was some of the best we had heard in a long while. (Not to say it was great. It wasn't. Just better than some.) The music wasn't bad. Wasn't exactly traditional; wasn't real modern either. The beat was not at all heavy. The melody was fine. The words however were new, and on a screen. I am not opposed to a screen all the time. However, when they are new songs, and there is no music to follow, it makes it very weird. I was not able to take part in the worship. I wanted to sing. I didn't know the tune. The words were on the screen, but I could not sing and make a joyful noise unto the Lord. That was the same tonight. I don't like screens. I like reading music.

The preaching Sunday was ok. Like I said, not great. It was satisfactory for the last Sunday night of the year. It was understandable with much application. But it was not deep. It was not something that would be good if it typified the regular messages at the church. My fear is it did. We will have to wait to find out. Tonight was not good. There are two screens. One behind the pastor; one behind the congregation. The pastor's notes on the screen. Well, tonight he couldn't keep a sentence together without referencing the wall. It interrupted his sentences, and his thought patterns. Now, he did have two funerals today with graveside services. So, he had an exhausting day. So, again, I am giving him the benefit of the doubt. That has been our church experience this week.

Now, on to my conclusions regarding churches, and memberships, and all that good stuff that drives a man insane. We have been looking for a long time. Over a year. We have been disgusted, discouraged, and downhearted. We have talked to a lot of people. We have thought this through from many different angles. Different things have appealed to us. We have bent on things we didn't want to.

The question is really, "How important is church attendance and/or membership?" If, attendance is really really really important, than maybe that outweighs the importance of some other doctrine, preference, etc. If membership is important, that changes things too.

The Bible places importance on fellowship and joining to a local church. This importance is not to be neglected nor is it voided by the importance the Bible places on other things.

Important things: (1) If we find a Baptist church, we are less likely to encounter stuff like baby baptizing, or elder rule. (2) If they hold to the KJV then the Word of God will go forth. It never returns void, and so God's Word will accomplish what He wills it to accomplish. (3) Arielle needs to be in church. She needs to get into the habit of being there. She needs to know it is important for her parents to be in church and on time. She needs to know we understand the importance of the Word of God. She won't get a lot of that in the beginning. But she will get the habit. She will learn to sit still and listen. And, by the age of three, she will have some of the habit. (4) It is important for us to be around the saints too. We need it even when we think we don't. Praising God, singing, giving, and hearing the Word preached is something we can't measure in a tangible way. It is amazing how much difference it makes to be in God's house. (5) If we are in church, we can make a difference. We can serve. We can be active. We can be an encouragement to others. We can do those things. The stories I have heard of the Calvinists being the most active witnesses at the church could not have taken place if they had not joined the church where such a thing like that would be noticed. I need to be faithful in the smaller things. I need to go on visitation. I need to go door-to-door. I haven't done that before. I need to be involved. Before, I was thinking I needed to teach, and so I wouldn't join a church where that wouldn't happen. Maybe I shouldn't be starting by asking and telling the stance on Calvinism. Oh well.

Anyway, so there is our decision. Maybe I'll post some of it on facebook, so all the others with some input can read our reasoning.

friends, pride, family, debate, emotions

Well, its been over a month since I blogged last (again.) What's new? Lots of stuff; and lots is old. Lots are old? "Lots is" does not sound right, but of course, that's because I am skipping words. Much remains the same. There.

I realized recently that I wanted someone to talk to about what was going on. I thought many times of the people I could call, or just see and talk to, and yet, time constraints, and my hesitation prevented me. It is good to talk to friends and family of the events of my life. What I have been hesitant about is that things aren't going so great, and I am not looking for pity. Compassion? maybe. Understanding, and encouragement: definitely.

I have a hard time accepting things from others. People are kind. They are generous. I just have a hard time accepting it. Maybe it is a foolish self-reliance (though, I would admit I am not reliant on myself). In the end, I understand that it is probably my pride, in that I can care and provide for myself. Asking for and accepting help means that I am not capable. Of course, writing/thinking it out, I see the foolishness in it. What difference does it make, if God provides through an extra tutoring session this week, and through my family next week. God is providing either way. But, I can claim some form of involvement in the first. Perhaps that is why my pride gets in the way.

It is Christmas time. I am out of school. I have two weeks off. The librarian walked by today and asked if I was heading to MI. I had to say no. Then I had to think about it. I try to avoid that. I do a pretty good job about it. This year doesn't seem like Christmas is real anyway. I'm trying to snap out of that. No snow. No cold. I'm still wearing shorts and flip-flops. I did wear jeans a few times...but that's not enough. We have done some Christmas shopping, but we were not able to get people as much as we would have liked.

Here is a bah-humbug section. I don't like the exchanging of gifts. Perhaps I don't like it because I can't afford to give something that really shows thought. If the thought is what counts, what thought does it really show to buy a giftcard? I mean, I have some stuff that I would have liked to give people; they probably would have liked it. I couldn't. That frustrates me. We exchange gifts, because it is expected. Now, this isn't everyone. But it isn't because I found THIS and I wanted to give it to you because I thought you would like it.

What do I want for Christmas? I want to be with family and relax, and have fun. I want the people around me to be happy. I don't want some "thing."

This will be my first Christmas I am not with all my family. Well, I am with MY family, but I think you know what I mean. It will be my first Christmas where I am not in MI. I will miss all the people. Everyone knows I would be there if I could. Because we had to come to this conclusion several months ago, it seems odd that it is just getting here now. I have kinda already gone through the disappointment of not being in MI, and now its actually here. . .and I will not be seeing my parents, my brother, my sisters, my cousins. /sigh. God is good.

That brings up more frustrations. Family Christmas just got canceled. I better not blog about it. . . . . .It might be too touchy; but it hurt.

Let me segue from that into something else touchy. Debate and personal feelings. When debating about Scripture, and therefore absolute truth, we are not talking about what hurts your feelings. Just because the Bible teaches election and you are offended because now God is not fair in your eyes, or because now you feel a sense of robotics affecting you. It does not matter how you feel one bit. What matters is truth. So what if you think that God is too loving to not save the "good" [insert denomination here]. Does that matter one bit? I have been in discussions with people where it becomes personal too fast and their view is dictated on their experience. At MBBC, I said something (don't even remember what, sorry) and some kid got very upset (he was the emotional type) because his dad was a pastor and what I said disagreed with something his dad did. It was an immediate abandoning of the Scripture presented. We had to stop the discussion because he was too caught up in it. I didn't understand it.

Obviously, there are things that are hard to discuss. There are things that are hard to deal with, and proper timing is important. But really, I think we are fools if we think we can discuss things without them affecting our lives. It matters where we put our trust. Is our trust in these people? Our dad? Our mom? Our pastor? Our college professor? Our husband? Our wife? If we put our trust in these people, we will be in turmoil if it can be shown that they are wrong. It will destroy our erroneous world view. If our worldview rests on the notion of someone or something being correct and that is not the Scripture, then we are foolish.

Too often however, we think we are resting on Scripture and instead are resting on Scripture plus that other something. I am not talking about our faith, but about what we know of life, and our worldview. It is not enough for me to rest on Scripture and my parents, so why would I do so, or be inclined to do so? (I am not, fyi.) Here is why people feel inclined that way. Well, there may be more than one reason. Here is one.

"In ignorance, people idolize the intelligent." (Yes, once I started that sentence I realized what a point could be made, and would be by many attempting to be neat, when in fact it truly seems lousy to me. I only finished it to be able to point out that hearing stuff like that in a sermon makes me just wish that he would "preach the word.") People look up to their parents and pastor because they have learned all they know from them. These people are like sponges. (By the way, a sponge lacks discernment.) They sit in front of their dad and are wrongfully in awe. They sit in class with their mouths hanging open at the professor's supposed genius. They, like hungry puppies, follow the pastor around the church snatching at every scrap. So, yes, they place undo importance on their teachers. (I shouldn't have to put this disclaimer here, but I do anyway...(that itself bothers me in church, when pastors have to put disclaimers on stuff. . .sad day we are living in.)So, here is the actual disclaimer: I am not saying we shouldn't respect our parents, pastors, professors. Indeed, we owe them much because they have given their time and their knowledge to help us grow. But we are not to come to depend on them. We are to grow, and mature so that we no longer need them in for our every move, but rather as counselors. And the wise will make use of his counselors.)

Well, I have strayed from the path, but in this case, the path was not absolute, and so no harm was done. One of my friends in seminary shared some of his notes with me. It was great to read them. Made me miss it. I often do, when I read the issues of deep doctrine. Some people do not need to know. Others do not want to know. I crave it.

On that note, I have been reminded often lately of how we are all to crave it. We are to crave God's Word. I'm not saying we should all love to try to figure out what logical order there was to four of God's decrees (creation, fall, salvation, election). No, not for everyone, but we should all desire the sincere milk of the Word that we may grow thereby. It is a huge encouragement to me when I read, or hear others talking about Scripture. When I see application of it. I see it in my life, and it helps seeing it in others. Not to say I'm perfect, or anywhere near it. There are just some things I do because I should.

Continuing, it is interesting to see how my generation has turned out. Some I talk to and hear about God working in their lives. I see and hear the struggles they are going through, and the blessings they encounter. Others, I know little. It is when you know little that the mind can be most dangerous. Of those that I know little, I generally, being the cynic I am, do not think good without reason. It doesn't necessarily mean I think bad, BUT its much easier to get a reason to think bad. I have to be careful.

I am looking at getting my teaching certificate. I have to take some general knowledge test where I have to answer questions and write an essay. Then I have to take some Math test to be able to teach math 6th-12th. I'm guessing it isn't too hard. The only cost I've seen so far is fingerprinting, which I have already done, so that's good. But, I will probably have to pay something when it is actually time to take the tests.

I won KOTOR twice. Once as dark, once as light. Dark was more fun. I found a cheating mod where I could edit my gear, stats, skills, feats, powers, etc. Made the second game a bit easier, but also it may have made it boring...or that could have been me playing the same thing I had a week back. I've been thinking of getting Kingdom hearts 2, mostly because I was wanting a game. That kinda died though. A game doesn't sound too appealing right now. Maybe I just need a better game. I heard assassin's creed was pretty good. I haven't played any of the neverwinter night, oblivion, elder scrolls stuff. (I don't even know if those are the same games, or related or what.) We were really thinking of getting an xbox/wii for christmas. That was when we thought we could afford something more.

I really want to get a piano. Kaylynn would like to play, and I would like to hear her. I also have been wishing for a musical instrument lately, and if we have to buy one, it might as well be something we can both play (at least a little for me).

I have been thinking of writing a book again. Yes, I do that regularly. This time, I kept thinking about it and thinking about it. Finally, a story came to me. Then I get online to see what money we might be talking about. Probably a penny an hour. Writers don't get much, unless they sell huge. Harry Potter, and Twilight made those ladies rich. I can't write to a crowd that I can't really appreciate though. And I can't appreciate twilight, and the writing of HP just seemed childish (well, duh! It was for kids).

Anyway, most writers get paid twice a year. From what I saw, it might be reasonable to expect $1 a book for every hardcover book that sells. And it might be reasonable to expect $.40 for every softcover. If I want to live on that, I'm going to have to sell a LOT of books. Of course, there are billions of people and if only 60,000 want my book, I could live with that. HA! Anyway, I know I don't have what Tolkien had. I don't have what Jordan had. I don't think I even have close to Rothfuss. I don't know about Martin. Could never make it through the beginning of his series.

The other problem I have is knowledge base. Rothfuss said in one of his early interviews that he has read around 10,000 novels. I was not an English major, nor did I teach English, nor work with literature for a living. I have read WoT, NotW, and LotR. Go me? I think not. I've read more I'm sure, but not in the non-sci-fi fantasy genre. Every bookstore and library has shelf after shelf of fantasy. I don't even know where to start for fear of being disappointed. I'm not going to pay $8 to read something that I'm going to regret. That's why I wait for Matt to tell me to read something.

Regardless, it has been an outlet for my mind the last two days to continue to build this story. To work around the pitfalls. I try to think of what I would want to happen were I reading the book, then I plan conflict before that can happen. I don't like the way things work out luckily. But I want the protagonist to get the break he needs. Kvothe met Abenthy early on, but that was not considered too lucky since the conflict had not yet begun. Further, the next noticable break that he gets (that I recall) is when his loot gets broken and he gets a lot of money from Ambrose. Anyway, I am working on some stuff.

I need to go, this has been long and my wife has been far too patient. Since it is unlikely I will blog again, Merry Christmas to all, and a Ho Ho Ho!!

backlogged

So, its been a week and a half since I've been back. Enough time to finish my left over grading, to do something many teachers do, but take the other side and get yelled at, to start a tutoring session four times a week, to start a computer programming club, and to head up a group of teachers trying to get some consistency brought to the uniform rules. Busy week.

Yes, I am tutoring a student 1v1 at school, during my free 8th period. She missed almost the entire first quarter, and needed to catch up. I was asked, and couldn't really turn it down when I'm going to be at school anyway, and now I'm getting paid for those 4 hours twice. I do lose my free 8th period.

Then, I began to setup for a computer club. I was asked, by students, prior to going to MI, and I was happy to start. Then I was asked about the tutoring, so the conclusion then, is that during one 8th period, probably Tuesday, I will be doing the computer club, which means that on that day, my tutoring will move to 3rd period, so I lose 1 3rd period a week too. My time is slipping away from me.

Yes, I got in trouble. I should have probably known better, but at the same time I was not the only one, just that when I did it, it was "inflammatory." /shrug. Its over and I will just be more careful in the future.


In addition, I've been doing more thinking about everything previously blogged. While in MI I heard a Sunday school lesson that was very applicable to this stuff. 1 Cor. 7 and Romans 14. "Knowledge puffeth up." "Charity edifieth." "All things are lawful." "All things are not expedient."

So, let's go hypothetical for a bit. I have knowledge that I can eat meat, but that is not what matters. The other guy has knowledge that eating meat offered to idols is not expedient. Now, they both have knowledge and I think we as fundamentalists have capitalized on the "knowledge" that we have and made rules out of it. Let me go on.

It is not wrong to play poker, or to smoke a cigar. Yes, it is lawful, and within my Christian rights, I may do that. However, it is often not expedient. [Is this the Galatians dilemma, liberty vs. license? We have liberty to do whatever (within the context here...we are not talking liberty to steal, etc.)] It is not expedient. That is, it does not further the Gospel as other things would do. It does not glorify Christ in the best manner possible. When we talk expedient or not, we are talking best or not. So, yes, old time fundamentalists took these things they were sure were the expedients and instead of teaching "Charity edifieth," they made and taught rules.

Why? Do we blame them? Not really. You can teach rules. You CAN'T teach charity. Charity comes from a relationship with Christ. Charity comes from spending TIME, lots and lots of time in the Word of God and talking to God.

Anecdotal experience. I've been working out regularly for a while now. I was convinced however, my first year at MBBC that I could hit 300 by Christmas of my second year. I took too many breaks to know if I actually could have or not, but now that I am regular at it, and have been for almost a year, I realize I was probably wrong. I am making progress. I can lift more than ever before; I look better; but I am not huge, nor can I bench 300 (that I know of).

Back to charity and a relationship. And then, the other thing I have been considering for a long time: being God's friend. Abraham was God's friend. God's friend. It wasn't that God was Abraham's friend. God is the friend to many. But how many are God's friend? Think about it. How do you become God's friend?

When I was told I could not talk to my wife (back before she was) I drove out to WI to explain to her dad that our relationship could not move forward without spending time together and communicating. The same applies to God and us. We need time and communication with Him. Well, I really shouldn't lecture about it. Especially since nothing can be done about it.

That is another thing. It was my turn to do faculty devos last week. I debated for some time what do to, but I ended up talking for just a couple minutes and then reading all of Psalms 9. The fact is, I am nothing, and my words are nothing; but I had God's Word, so I used that.

Nothing we say can do anything. The only thing that changes anything is the Word of God. This is why every chapel lecture, every devotional, every message, every Bible study, is worthless without Scripture. It does no good for me to lecture people on doing right, without including the words of Holy God. My words are not alive. My words are not transcendent. My words are not sharper than a two-edged sword. They do not discern the thoughts and intents of the heart. Only God's word does that. If we dare try to assume that our words will be ok; that our words can approximate what God's words do; that our words could in someway move the heart; we have then made ourselves God. That really is just what Satan did. . .people don't like it when I draw analogies like that.

Anyway, the music thing can probably fall into something like this. Maybe they had it right back before and the modern is all wrong, but knowledge puffeth up, and charity edifieth. Maybe, they have it right now; knowledge puffeth up and charity edifieth. Lastly, all things are lawful, but all things are not expedient.

On to something else about worship and being in awe of God. We aren't often in awe of God as we should be. Think about Isaiah. Ezekiel. Jesus in the garden. "Jesus saith unto them, I am he. . .As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground." With the brief glimpse of who Christ was, whatever He showed them at that time, they fell to the ground. When Isaiah beheld God's glory, he did not jump up and down and wave his hands, he fell to his face and said "Woe is me." The elders in Heaven do continually bow before the throne. Do we ever prostrate ourselves before Him? We have become too comfortable with a "god" that we do not need to stand in awe and fear of. God is referenced as the "fear of Isaac." Yes, we have lost Godly fear.

Then, lastly, what is worship? How do we define worship? Is worship reading the Bible? Is worship always corporate? Is worship praying? Can you read the Bible, and pray without it being worship? I mean actually talking to God and building a relationship, but not worshiping? Or is it worship? How would you define it? Something that my wife and I were discussing tonight.

Anyway, its late so I should go. We have found Bones an interesting show lately.

part 3. . .

So, I have had a bit of interest in this topic. Obviously.

I made my conclusion and then the church we attended today had different music. Music different than I would hear up north. Different than what I hear in chapel. Different than all of that. It had a beat. It was not hugely obvious. They played canned music. But the beat was not the focal point. It was not wrong.

Then I started thinking, maybe it would be wrong in some churches. One song would have driven some people crazy. The piano played a nice offertory but it was backed with canned music that was different. The question that would be asked by many is, "Why add that to that beautiful song?" Does that make it wrong? To add that? I can't say it does. But, if that song was played up north, then the purpose would have driven many to question the purpose, and they would not have been driven to worship or glorify God. Does that mean that in the right setting it is "ok" and in others it isn't? Is the fact that we can't appreciate the music a problem on our part? Are we not eating meat that we could be eating?


On to other things. I'm a chicken. I sat at a table listening to people talking about stuff and said very little. I don't know how to interact with people. It isn't that I'm really chicken. It is more that I honestly am not sure when to start talking when someone else is. They sit there and say something and someone else says something and they say something again, and it goes back and forth and I just don't pipe up unless I have an obvious space. It bothers me. What is the difference between that setting and sitting in the basement arguing anything? I feel more comfortable to say what I want? Maybe.

It also bothers me that I seem to be dumbfounded when I hear some things. I am good at arguing the intricacies of our doctrines, but the bigger picture I'm finding myself just quiet. This guy at work argues things I would never have imagined hearing, and I find I'm unsure how to respond. It makes me feel slow. I hate that.

I read a verse the other day that seemed to fit very well with some conversations I have been having. A little leaven, leaveneth the whole lump. A little false doctrine or a few poor choices can ruin all the worship. Every false step in any systematic lends itself to a heretical doctrine down the road.

I've been reading Galatians a lot lately. I have been studying it as if I was going to preach through it. I figured I needed to study something Bible related in addition to just reading something Bible related. So, I've been spending time reading Galatians with that mind set. I hope to start writing on it soon. But one thing that keeps occuring to me as I read it is that Paul pronounces cursing on any that preaches any other Gospel. We want to ignore those things and go with them to conferences. We want to think that those Methodists, Lutherans, non-denominationalists, Catholics, etc, are just a little misinformed. Not cursed. Well, Paul says it twice, just in case someone thinks he might be exaggerating. Hes not. Then he says the leaven thing.

We fight with these two principles. We are to love the brethren. We are to strive for unity. We are to bear others' burdens. We are to separate ourselves from heresy. Doctrine is divisive. Because these things can be hard decisions, we must be close to the Lord. We must walk with God if we are to make the right decision in each instance.

If you are a Calvinist, say it. It just means you believe those 5 points. If you are a Baptist, say it. Don't hide behind bland labels. Biblicist. Non-denominational. What are these things? I don't get it. I want you to tell me what you believe. These labels tell me you are too chicken to name what you believe; OR, you really have no stance on some of this and you need to start reading your Bible and come to decisions on what it says.

I was talking to someone else this week and I mentioned that I love reading God's Word and studying it and he said, "You know that every believer should be able to say that?" He's right. Every believer should be able to say that. They should mean it with all of their hearts that they desire and long for God's Word and love spending time in it.


My wife cheers for the Steelers. I cheer for the Vikings. Next week they play. The Vikings are undefeated. Go them. Still don't like Favre though.

Stubbornness and ignorance and . . . rhyme?

The young generation is ignorant of the why behind the rules.
We don't know. We weren't taught.
The rules were hammered in, and too often the "why" was left to rot.
And so we throw the rules out, we can't stand to have them, baseless as they are.
And we continue anew, finding our standards now are very few.
We forge ourselves a path hoping it is near the truth.
Our closest counselors, those others of our youth.

The old generation is too stubborn to admit they could be wrong.
When asked the reason "why", they wax long and long.
They tell us to be safe. They tell us it is worldly.
And yet when the principle has left, they still hold those standards strong.
Despite the nonsense they then preach, they still preach it as a jewel.
And when they have young folks to teach, they hammer in the rule.

The middle ground is hard to see, the observer can't be sure.
He hates to ask his friends of glee; he sees their nonsense sure.
He sighs to ask the elderly, he doesn't want a liturgy.
He seeks the Truth unabridged. He wants the principle and rule.
And so he talks to old and young, with the Bible as his tool.
He counts on the Holy Spirit to show him the truth.



Well, there is some more poor rhyme, but I think it kinda expresses my frustrations. Of course, I need the disclaimer that not every young person is like that and not every old person is either. I have heard elderly get sharply harsh because of something that the young person says when that person needs to be guided to the truth instead of force-fed it. At the same time, I have seen young people abandon what they had been taught because of one rule that did not have basis.

I hate to be Rehoboam. It scares me to be one of those "wise" kids that doesn't need to listen to the elderly and all they have. But then I hesitate because sometimes I don't get very Biblical or logical responses. It is more of practiced rhetoric. Both are scary. The young wise kids and the old ones who quote the same thing over and over.


Another poem I wrote at school today. You may not care for the content...I'm not sure what I think about all the content myself. But a lot of it I do. So, here it is for your pleasure or not. For those that read it already, I didn't mean to repeat that one section. . .I got distracted when copying it, so here it is as is should have been.

Out with the Old

The old fashioned is gone
In with the new
We don't need a tie
Or a suit in a pew

A worship team with a screen
We'll clap to the beat
We'll sway back and forth
When Holy God we meet

We'll critique His Word
It isn't quite right
Though we rest upon it
The end of our soul's plight

No more humble awed reverence
We need to fix church to win the lost
The past church had it all wrong
We will fix church whatever the cost.

What will bring that poor soul in?
Surely, not "thees" "thous" and preaching on sin.
No, not old fashioned hymns nor words.
They've lost their fire, their zeal, their "in."

God understands when we edit His plan.
We must be modern to win the modern man.

part 2

More thoughts. And while they all tend one way, the conclusion tends the other.

We think "how sad" that hymns are considered in such low-esteem, and they think it is sad that these non-hymns are considered the same way by us. Is their culture truly wrong? Will we condemn many cultures? The big thing here, is that though they don't use hymns, they don't condemn them either. We do. We condemn everyone and anyone that is not like us. This is part of our fundamentalist nature. I understand being separate. But what are we being separate from? What is the "world"? Is it the Hispanic culture? We can't do that.

Yes, I understand that many chapels are not to be times of worship, but this man that I share an office with truly wants to worship God and encourage the kids to do so. Whether anyone else is, he is trying to worship.

I agree that hymns are sung with enthusiasm and that it ministers and edifies, but that also mimics our music preferences and that of those around us. Because the Hispanic culture, which is everywhere down here, is always more active and involved, our English old fashioned services may not in their minds provide ample opportunity to worship. This is what missionaries come back and tell us. They tell us that in adapting to the culture of the people things that are fine here are not there, and things that are not here are there. It is a part of the culture. America is not just English anymore, with the traditional services. Is God American? We know Hes not. Is this bad, to leave the traditional? I don't know. Of course we must be extremely careful when leaving, yet, it may be necessary to include other things. I'm not talking about a complete abandoning even on this narrow topic, but rather an inclusion of some other things.

We aren't Israel. We don't have the straightforward law to tell us how to worship. We have principles. Further, we aren't pulling from the Muslims, or Catholics, etc. This type of music I am speaking from is not a denominational difference as much as it is a cultural difference. Just being down south, I have heard things in independent fundamental baptist churches that I wouldn't hear up there. The social aspect of the south is integrated into the church. God doesn't say that in Jerusalem is the way we ought to worship. He says in spirit and in Truth. We have the southern aspect and then the cross-cultural aspect with the Hispanics.

Then we have the rock bands/culture. And here is the kicker for me. For some reason I wanted to hear/see the song again. So, I remembered the words to a song and a quick google search revealed several different youtube videos of the people who did the song singing it.

What I came up with is that I am far to ignorant about the other cultures, but after a tiny bit of discussion, I realized that what takes place in our chapel with these songs, is not cultural. It is something else. And, that something else I cannot agree with. Now, can I justify condemning it? Well...let's see.

The actions, atmosphere, and attitude (yes, three "a"s; good for me) of the people who "perform" these songs is not what we should be wanting or expecting. Rather, the actions are performance based. The atmosphere is that of the rock-and-roll world. This is an anti-christian world. If you wanted to argue that it is not "anti-" you still could not come to the solid conclusion that it is "pro-". If it is not strong Christianity, than we are conforming to the world, are we not? Are we to live apart from the world? We are not to be "of" the world. Is rock and roll of the world? I'm pretty sure. It is not of the church. It is not "of God." The attitude is not the attitude of solemn, holy, and reverent worship of almighty God. Rather, it is the attitude of a star.

Of course, there are obstacles.

Is all worship supposed to be done in solemnity? I think here, we must be extremely careful with the differences between joy and light-heartedness. The difference between celebrating God's greatness and forgetting God is holy and is only approached through Christ. In much of the music from chapel and the same type, even though the words may talk about God's holiness, that thought is not in mind during the song. We don't see evidence that the song is meant to actually consider God's holiness.

Can we say that Classical or Jazz or Country is "of God?" We would admit that music is "of God." Why is classical ok?

What is the reasoning behind the music appealing to the body over the soul? We know that different music does appeal differently. Do we find Scripture backing up the thought that one is wrong though? God knew that this music debate would come up. He knew that we would be discussing this. What parameters did he leave us with? Psalms and hymns, and spiritual songs. Singing and making *melody* in our hearts to the Lord. Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. Perhaps the emphasis could be on melody? If the beat outweighs the melody, then it should be avoided in the house of God?

Consider another fact. It is a fact that Godly people (generally the older generation) tend to have a problem with rock, rap, metal, etc. Why is this? Is it because they are old? Why is it that Christians who we would say are close to the Lord tend to shun those things?

I recently had a discussion with someone about the Bible issue. We were discussing the self-authentication characteristic and the comparison that I make is that the saints that look into the aspect and are not pushing away from the "rules" of the "old generation" tend to find this chapel music the wrong fit. I don't want to say "The more spiritual recognize that this is bad music." However, there is truth to the fact that those closer to God see their sin and those things that displease God much easier and clearer. Why should we be debating the music in our churches when we aren't doing our devotions regularly, or handing our tracts on a regular basis, or giving to the poor we drive by weekly, etc. Is our worship music really the big debate? I could say the same thing about all sorts of things we debate. Is it really worth discussing?

Well, YES! Let me clarify, that YES it is worth debating. The problem is, that we cannot often see clearly the issues on this stuff because we aren't even walking with God. It is like walking through the woods completely avoiding the path and then trying to argue with three other people in the woods about what to do about the tree in the way. The guy on the path sees that he can just step over it. The other guys think they need to chop it up, or go way around. (Bad analogy? Maybe.)

So, my conclusion as of now, is the same as it has been for years. That is basically that unless we have good and weighing reasons to abandon the standards and principles of our parents and grandparents and the saints before us, then we should instead uphold those. If in upholding those, we come to a place of oppressing the saints then it needs to be evaluated. For this discussion then, those genres that I listed several times should probably not be used in church, or to attempt worship. The logic, and reason behind this is not a simple verse, and bang you are done. Instead we have a long row of questions and complicated issues in order to try to arrive at a simple conclusion.

Compare this to the argument for wearing a suit to church. Why? Does the Bible say to? No. We say that we should wear our best into the house of God. People hear that and say "It doesn't matter. It shouldn't matter. God doesn't care about the clothes, but about our hearts." Yes, but we respond that it is not a rule. But for me, to enter the house of almighty, holy, God, I should shave, do my hair, and look my best. We do the same for any person of importance. We dress up for special occasions. Anyway, it is a matter of people with a heart attitude desiring to please God. We don't look down on people who don't wear a suit. We just try our best to do right and please God.

I got tons more to say, but blogging while I'm watching Numbers with my wife tends to take more time than I wanted to plan on blogging to begin with. Maybe later.

So much other stuff though...

I am tired of being where I am. I was in a meeting that made me think I wasn't sticking around much longer. Of course, the problem with the meeting was fixed soon after, but I hate being in that spot where it is so bad that that thought occurs to me. Of course, that is misunderstandings, and that is expected.

I talked to Joe. He's frustrated. He told me that we know that several of us all think that we should be doing something bigger, and since we all think that, maybe we should. It obviously isn't coincidence. It is preordained that we are where we are knowledge-wise, positionally, etc. We are all somewhere, and lots of us are wondering why we are where we are. We are wondering where we should go. We are wondering what to do. We don't know what to do, but we want to do more. Much more!! It drives me crazy. I want more than this. I don't know what it is I should do. I don't know what it is God wants for me. Yet, I feel the tug of discontentment. And I am content here. Grandma told me that God uses discontentment to get us to move. To prevent us from settling somewhere for longer than He wants. It was a good reminder.

Mike VK says we don't have time for degrees. He says we don't have time to teach the saints. He says our churches are too full of itching-ears and the wheat and the tares are too close that all we can do is preach. Indeed. I second that. But WHERE!?! I don't have a church. None of us do. What church would take us with our old-fashioned preaching, with our stand on God's sovereignty and man's wickedness, and our believe in the self-authenticating Scriptures? Are there people out there? I was asked that this weekend. I was asked if there are people left. We can't find them. I work at a "Christian" school, and I don't see a lot of Christ-likeness there. I see what I might see anywhere else. People are human. I am torn.

When we come to the end, will I stop going to church? Will I fear what man can do unto me? What will my daughter do? Will she be old enough to understand, or will it come too quickly? Do we have another 60 years where I might see my grandchildren? The state of the world, the country, and the church, and there is nothing worth saving. God would have spared Sodom and Gomorrah for 10. 10! How many left does America have? Israel had thousands and yet the famine came. Israel had thousands and yet was rules by wicked leaders who cursed God. Israel was the chosen nation of God. We are heathen. lol, what are our chances? Will God spare America for 100? There have to be 100 true Christians, right? I mean, we should be able to count them if we really try. . .Can I count 100 Christians? I remember at a big family gathering -- don't remember which, but it was a big one -- we counted 80 people. 80. I wish that I could write with 100% certainty that they were all saved. In fact, I would say with most certainty, that apart from God's future working, we should assume some are not saved. That leaves us with -80. Start adding Christian friends from states far and wide, and you start to hope. You start to count families, and see another 5 there, and another 7 there. But, then you wonder -- can you really be sure about them all? Or just the ones you know? How many families seemed all saved and then one, two, or more abandoned the faith? 100. It doesn't seem like too much to ask for 100 souls that belong to Christ. What if we expand, maybe God would spare a state for 100, but the whole country? How about 100 families? 100 families dedicated to God. We know we aren't the only ones. If Elijah teaches us nothing else, it is that even when we feel alone, not only is God present, but God has a remnant. 100 families. Maybe. Maybe there are 100 families. Maybe they love God and will die for him. What about us? The questions isn't even so much do we love Christ? The question is, are we walking so close to Christ that when threatened with death and our families death we would not deny Him? The disciples failed. I don't know if we can do much better. How hard to turn from your family to die at the stake!

One of the saddest things I can ever remember reading was when a husband was going to the stake, his wife was crying and begging him to deny Christ. What could be worse for that man than to hear his wife abandon him during that time? Yes, it was sad and emotional, but when he did the right thing, one of the hardest things a man with a family could do, she begged him to sin.

Often, I have wondered if America would turn that way. I read some Nietzsche today. "Great Philosopher." lol. Supposedly, this stuff is can be so deep that it frustrated the faith of Christians. It was horrible stuff. It really was. But, this is what the world is reading regularly. This is why our scholars in seminary say that you can deny the virgin birth and go to Heaven. They say that God can die. Really. This is where America is. And I'm not talking about mainstream liberal democratic America. I'm talking about the theology of the scholars that teach almost every pastor standing in a pulpit. They are all wack. Currently, I am in direct opposition to degrees. I want nothing to do with them. Here, I see where Baptists went astray in the past. Baptists shunned the false teaching of higher learning. They found the heresy there to be more than they could bear and they exalted the unlearned minister. Ah, the fault there. Fault can be found everywhere.

I got off topic. 100 families. That's in America. Think of the rest of the world. I think that this is where I would hope to guess America is. I think from Elijah's point of view that I should be estimating way higher. From Abraham's point of view, I am too high. We see two individuals that estimated the number of saints. Both were off. And both had lessons to learn. Abraham arose and saw the smoke and PRAYED. Prayer still works. Prayer is what we need. And to remember that God is here. God is always here. But, what can we say/do? Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is.

35Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning:

36Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping.

37And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.

"Even so come Lord Jesus. Amen."

long time ago in a state far far away. . .

I blogged.

I have missed blogging. I have wanted to blog for some time. I have ideas and strands of thoughts throughout the day and yet I cannot remember them when I am home. Blogger is blocked at school for some odd reason, and so my "brilliant" ideas are just lost.

Music has been on my mind for some time. Chapel here is. . .different. We listen to and "sing" music that I grew up calling "bad music." Now, there was nothing morally wrong with it, and I understand that, but I also understand the principle of the music. At the same time, the guy who leads the music would probably find our type of hymns and traditional worship music lacking the energy and the excitement that he currently expresses and wants to express in worship. So, is he wrong? Can I say he is wrong? Back in the (I think I have my dates right here) late 1600's people first started singing in Baptist churches. That was not included in church services. Then, people began singing things that were not the psalms. Imagine the controversy! People writing songs and them being sung in the church. What now? We accept a piano and organ. That is all I grew up with in church. What about a orchestra? Sure, we accept that too. Well, at least some of us. What about a guitar? What makes a guitar different than other stringed instruments? What about drums? I remember church shopping and not even staying for the service because there were drums and the sanctuary was darkened. Maybe there were more reasons...I was young.

So, what music should be in church? Is music one of those things that is determined within a social context? The pronunciation of words and the use of hand/head gestures here and around the world do not mean the same nor have the same offense to each one. Music is different within different cultures. The man who leads the music here also teaches Spanish. He told his class that almost all Spanish music was the same. Dances just changed moves. That was in general, but think about the cultural difference. They always have an upbeat music, and their culture is energetic and more colorful than northern MI. Does this mean it is bad? /shrug What are we looking at to determine "bad" music? And now, when I say "bad" I mean morally wicked music? Is there a music line between home and worship? We listen to some mannheim steamroller, and snoopy jazz at home. Why don't we listen to that to truly good lyrics in church? Why is one right and another not? We (used loosely) we're brought up this way. We listened to different things at home and at church. We were told and taught that once the music in a church goes, so does the Bible and all forms of separation. I can sympathize. That is experiential truth. We have heard about and seen that happen. But is it because of what the music symbolized then? It was rebellious to hear or play rock. Is it still? Isn't the rebellious stuff rap and heavy metal? Or is rock still bad? Why was rock bad? Because of the inherent wickedness in the melodies? Or because of the rebellion that it represented?

What is safe? It is safer to not listen to rock, rap, etc? If it is only safer, then we should not be condemning others for listening to and utilizing it in worship. Are we naive enough to think that David really danced to no beat? That in the worship of God, it is not so much the beat as it is the heart? Of course, it has always been the heart. But does God condemn music with off beats? We aren't told that. We are told to make a joyful noise. Sing. Praise. Songs and Hymns. What defines a hymn? Does the inclusion of the word hymn negate or qualify the word song? I don't think so. What are we left with? Do we have warrant from Scripture to say that this other type of music is bad? What type of music is right? Where are the morals? Where is the chapter and verse?

Practicality. Some music is not meant to be sung by a group(congregational). The song is not written that way. Some songs aren't. We "sing" things in chapel that are really not congregational songs. We don't know where he is going with the song. It is a solo, or band number. That type of thing is not practical. Is it wrong to have that song as a special though? What about music preferences? Everyone has them. I dislike much of the music I hear on TV or radio. It annoys me and I can't stand it. I dislike the music played during chapel. It gets under my skin. It bothers me. It is not my preference. But hymns may not be others preferences. Must they conform? Culture makes a big difference in music taste.

Thoughts...but no conclusion, I apologize. I can't condemn it. I think in practicality that certain types of songs need to be avoided in congregational worship because they do not lend themselves to being sung together. But other than that, I have nothing at the moment.

Addendum

After more contemplation, I realized that the faith factor of this discussion must be considered with further magnification. For while both sides of this discussion have access to a large battery of questions, and logical complications, both sides also require faith. It is at this point where this argument becomes simpler. Let us then examine these focal points.

Let us begin with the tradition of the Reformation and the Textus Receptus. Those who hold to the position of the TR believe that God has promised to preserve His word. We believe that without the Word of God we would be lost. We believe that God used the Reformation, the TR tradition, and people like Erasmus to compile the Greek text we have before us today (I only make mention of Erasmus because the other side is sure to, and we need to have an idea in our mind of the proper role he did and did not play). Here is the focal point we have come to see. We accept by faith that God used these men, this tradition, and the Spirit working in the revived church to preserve this Text, between two covers, without error. This was done without inspiring any of those working on the texts, or anyone who was translating.

Those along the CT side follow much the same formula. They believe that God has promised to preserve His word. They believe that without this Word, we cannot be saved. They will admit that God worked in and through the Reformation, the TR tradition, and people like Erasmus. (Most, if not all, do call the TR a corrupt text though.) This side believes that the TR is not perfect. They believe God has kept His promise by preserving for us all His words spread throughout all the MSS. With this form of preservation, God’s word is not and cannot be between two covers. Instead it is found in all the MSS. Since it is found in all the MSS, then in order to know which words are God’s words in Greek, the CT person must trust that the translation committees of today will find God’s words for them. This is their point of faith.

The foremost factor here is faith. Do you trust that God worked in the Reformation and TR tradition to give us His complete Word between two covers? Or, do you believe that God preserved His word for us in all the MSS and that He uses dozens of different translation committees to show it to us? Obviously, we have a point of faith in each argument. Which is more believable? Which conforms to the Scriptural definition of preservation? That is the key.

Remember, everything must be tested with Scripture. The passages mentioned previously leave no room for doubting that the church will have the complete Scripture. Not spread throughout the world, but always in its possession. Further, the Great Commission requires that we teach all nations. This requires that we be able to consistently and faithfully translate this Greek text into languages spoken by the common people. Notice however, that in order to be able to translate with any certainty the words of God, that one must in fact have those words before him. If those words are spread far and wide, no person can truly undertake the necessary job of translating into the common tongue. We are then stuck waiting on the words from the scholars who cannot agree amongst themselves.

If we accept by faith that God worked in the TR tradition and the reformation to bring together His perfect word, then we do not have a problem understanding and accepting that some words in our Greek text have their support in the Latin. We don’t have a problem understanding that words that have miniscule support are given by inspiration of God. Just as the unregenerate looks at Scripture and says, “It isn’t possible that the church really found all the right books. You don’t even claim inspiration for them!” So, the textual critic of today looks at the TR and says, “It isn’t possible that the Reformers /TR tradition /Holy-Spirit-lead-church really found all the words God intended.”

Yes!! It is possible! The literal exegesis of the Scriptures requires it! We accept it by faith that God has kept His promises!


Addendum 2.

Note that the method and argumentation for the determination of the canon is virtually the same as the method and argumentation for the authority of the TR tradition. The canon was brought together to conform to that which God had already determined by the early church. This is a fact accepted by both sides, and often argued by both together against the unregenerate. This is the history of the formulation of the canon. As discussed briefly before, the canon was not simply given to the church as the canon, but holy men of God by the Spirit of God were lead to reject the false books, and accept those that God had truly spoken. These men were not inspired, nor were they perfect. But as men of God desiring to follow truth, they were lead by God to that truth; we now have the canon of the 27 NT books today. Then after the dark ages, God used the Reformers to reawaken His people and caused them to pursue and compile the TR tradition.

Addendum 3.

It is worth mentioning that there is a difference between the arguments of scholars/theologians and the common layperson. Not to differentiate at all in matters of importance, or intelligence, but rather, we should understand that these groups argue the same topic at different layers. In order to understand when/where they interact it becomes necessary to recognize them. This is not something that I will endeavor to do here. But the level of this discussion in most churches rarely reaches the depth of our discussion.

Addendum 4.

I have endeavored to define the above positions as those whose views align with the most conservative, and exegetically sound. Both sides have authors and proponents that are not consistent, and misrepresent Scripture. I have attempted to not represent either side by those in the outer fringe.

complicated stuff

So, just like theologians struggle with the order of regeneration: Faith, justification, sanctification, imputation, regeneration. What is the order, and can we determine that one must precede another, etc. Hard questions debated for a long time.


The hard question that occurs to me this morning further surrounds the Bible issue which has been foremost in my thoughts lately. The aspect of faith in this issue is necessary. The "majority" opinion is not built on a flimsy case. It isn't at its roots, horrible. We see the destruction that has been caused by veering from the straight and narrow just a bit in defense of the faith. (Recall that the majority of the straying that has affected the church was done by Christians fighting for the Bible.)

But, our hard question boils down to a matter of faith. Why do we defend the Scriptures against the lost who ask how it could possibly be God's Word? How do we defend against those unregenerate scholars that ask how we can be sure we have the complete canon? We do not assign inspiration or infallibility to those men and churches that came to the conclusion that God had written Hebrews and not the Gospel of Thomas. In the same way that the lost look at this and say that we are arguing for the Scriptures based on faith in the Scriptures and it is circular, we are susceptible to the same argumentation when arguing the KJV. They say "You are saying Erasmus was inspired; and the KJV translators." No, we accept by faith the promises God made to us, and so that when Erasmus continued the tradition of the church which lead to the KJV we see the hand of God in keeping His promise.

Reading the opposing side, however, without the proper background can be very convincing. I did some reading last night, and the guy was pretty good. He wasn't saying anything anti-Scriptural. They usually don't. He admitted we need preservation; and said we had it. This is the toughest crowd to beat. The guys who are closet to us, yet arrive at different conclusions.

The crux of the whole matter comes back to our interpretation of Scripture, and our need for certainty. What does it mean to say we have the words of God, and not just the ideas conveyed into some words? "To admit error in one part is to admit error in the whole." -- Turretin (paraphrase) This is really our trumpet. A logical fallacy committed by the other side. But that can be scary. Because logic is NOT the final authority when it comes to things of faith.

Can we admit we do not have the each specific word in English? Can we admit we do not have each specific word in Greek? Many prefer not to have thoughts of the original languages, but they must be considered.

I'm going to lay out some of their argument for a bit...I'll let you know when I am done with them.

***
God says He will preserve His Word.
History shows the MSS being changed and copied, and errors abounding.
Yet, through Providence, today we still have spread throughout all the MSS the perfect Word of God.
We can't know exactly which words are Gods, but it doesn't matter because of all the MSS, the differences are so few and so minuscule that in the end we DO still know what God was saying.
Nothing was lost.
Nothing of importance is under question. It is just differences of opinions on a fraction of the MSS.
***

I'm done with them...this is spawning another idea for an essay. Two options: the option of men deciding the truth, or trusting that we have it.

You see, the above argumentation leaves us with a whole pile of MSS evidence and the fact that somewhere inside it consists everything God has/had for us. This means we must rely on a committee of translators to decide where it is, and which words fit and which don't. It comes down to faith, again. They must have faith that the translators on their committees can find God's words, and share them with everyone else. We believe that God used the tradition of the TR/reformation, to leave us with God's words. If I can find a good way to write it up, and recall enough information about it, then maybe I will write it as a solid paper. Maybe it won't be long though. Maybe 1 page will be enough. It would be a good addendum.

That is my next project...because, as much reading as anyone can do on the subject, and as much disagreement as can be found, it seems that it MUST come down to one of the above options. Both of which leave the other saying "You are acting like the Catholic church." One can only be right, however.

I will of course follow up with that here when it is done.

because I lack imagination

You have probably noticed that my title skills are severely lacking. Notice also the link of the blog: unintriguing. Yeah.

Disclaimer from my last blog: I was informed, and I already knew that NOT everyone in our family holds to the previously mentioned view of the Bible issue. Perhaps I had forgotten last night, or perhaps I felt it easier to neglect the small minority for my purposes. (I hate saying that...it feels like I've been saying it a lot lating "my purposes." bleah.) But to be accurate, not everyone in our family does believe it. For whatever reason.

I have a lot on my mind again. I hope that I will be able to recall it all. As I worked out tonight I wasn't able to keep my counting going between sets because I was writing in my head. Of course, I lose it that way...that's why I need to write it down.

First, I have mentioned on more than one occasion (probably so much so that you guys are tired of it) how this is my online journal. Well, I have been rethinking that. I love writing about stuff. I also have been having the urge to enlarge my sphere. There is nothing that says this has to be my journal except me. Many of the other people that blog don't necessarily use theirs this way. So, something I am considering.

Another thought along these lines is to make another blog where I can write the things that I feel like writing. The problem is, that in my past I rarely write just something essayish. Instead, I write essay stuff mixed in with my life stuff. To upkeep two blogs is more than I want. At the same time, I would need to drop off all my stuff on eating tuna three times a day, etc. You guys will miss out on a lot. /rolleyes

Something else. Using my blog to vent/journal keep can lead me into excusing sin. It is easy for me to get angry, to gossip, and to just say I am clearing my head. I am not sure, but I think my last blog may have been wrong. Not all of it of course, but there may have been things that should not have been said. Perhaps not, but I need to be really careful and I need to not excuse myself because of my blog.

And as I was afraid of, I have lost most of anything else I wanted to blog about. There was quite a bit too. . .

Also, as my sphere increases a bit, I find that I must already keep more in. Things that I might say to most all of you in person, or hope you eventually find out, the sparse few I am unsure about prevent me from divulging. Not to say to any of you that I regret that you are here or reading. Just a fact.

The pastor called me back. We can't meet tomorrow, but he said that we can meet sometime after a church service or perhaps another Saturday if I really wanted. Maybe after a church service will have to do.

I'm in the MPR (multi-purpose room) instead of the library at school. Unfortunately, I don't have internet access there, and so I can't get on and enter grades and that is a big problem for me. I often did grading and lesson plans in the library. Now we are three days into the year and I am behind. I have lots of grading and it isn't all done. Even the stuff that is done is not in the computer because of the bad setup. I need to make sure I am disciplined. I hate working on the weekends, but if I can work hard this weekend I can be setup to not have to worry about this type of thing again this year (I figure).

Psych is on now. Good night. Sorry it wasn't as great a blog as it shoulda been.

always stuff

Lots to blog about. Let's get started.

I have been getting up early and so going to bed early.

So, there was a huge mess made by about 16 people who painted themselves blue and gold, and had to wash up, but they left the locker room in disarray. Well, I see Mrs. Coney getting the mop bucket out. This bothers me. First, a middle aged lady should not be mopping, and second she is the principal. She should NOT be doing that. So, I walk over, because I'm going to do the mopping. So, she tells me where she is going, and I start following her. Stupid me, I never think I should push the mop bucket as we walk over and through the gym. Well, Matt shows up and (thankfully) takes the mop and bucket from her, so she doesn't have to do that. Makes me feel like a moron though. This is like the second time in two weeks where I have offered and wanted to help and miss the most obvious. My wife suggests that I am too self-centered and I get focused on one thing and just overlook the obvious. It drives me crazy. It shouldn't have taken someone else for me to realize I should have taken the mop. I recognize that help is needed, but I'm so....frustrated with myself. It just makes me feel awful. =/ Something I need to work on. (I did end up mopping though...something to make me not feel wasted.)

I want to clarify that I mean no offense to anyone in the following. I am not looking down on anyone. These are thoughts and things that I have been having problems with lately.

I posted my TR/KJV post on Facebook and tagged a bunch of people because I figured it would be good for people to read. Anyway, this has started a bit of a dilemma for me. Due to my own error, I neglected to think through the facebook restrictions and my page is mostly open, and so people that I didn't know were able to read it. One such person who is anti-KJV and has been "rescued from the cult" saw fit to post multiple times. Now the point of my post was to inform those who might know some of the issue, or who have forgotten, or maybe never knew to begin with. It was not full of quotes and citations, and yet I think those who I knew and tagged would know that it wasn't just me spouting, but that I was just shortening for the sake of clarity and conciseness. I thought I made it clear. I posted just what I posted here. Maybe it was only clear in my mind, but alas.

Well, I offer this person at first politely to choose a different place to debate this. He refuses and repeats almost the exact thing. After some more back and forth I'm finding him rude and I'm frustrated (whether I should be or not, I have not yet decided as I rethink things). So, I realize what my initial error was and restrict access. He contacts me privately and we begin a brief discussion regarding our conduct, rather than on the issue.

At this time I get a reproof in an email regarding how I handled the situation. Some of it was very applicable. And I wonder if I did overreact. At the same time, I also think that my purpose should be taken into account. Regarding all of this, I am thinking it may be best for me to reopen access to my note, and allow and resume the debate there. I have not yet decided on this.

Now, on to the next part. How does someone more knowledgeable instruct others? As much as we are proud of the knowledge in our family it isn't that great.

Note: I have blogged previously about hearing people I respected saying things plain false, and quite illogical because they didn't appear to know what to say to that part of the opposition. I couldn't believe it. They didn't have an answer and so they said the opposing side made it up. It was fact and history. It really doesn't even add much opposition, they just thought it did.

The point is that we as individuals know far far less than we know as a group. We look at our group knowledge and feel great about it. Perhaps not, and perhaps I have a misshapen view of these things. There are lots of people in our family that would have a hard time proving something or arguing for/against something that they know we/they hold dogmatically. They aren't experienced enough; they haven't taken the time to learn it; they haven't been taught that issue specifically. What is the role of someone who knows those things?

I don't know near as much as Uncle Pete, or even younger generation Peter on the Bible issue. I also don't know if there is anyone else in the family who knows that much; I would also venture to guess (and I don't do this proudly) that I really don't know anyone else who knows the topic like I do after those two.

Note: There are too many things in the Scriptures to know them all. Even if you study one topic for your whole 3 score and 10, you will know all there is to know about that topic. My point is that we have much we can gain from one another. I would love to, and do immensely enjoy when its possible, delve the depths of knowledge/wisdom contained in each one in our family. I went up north for a graduation and spoke with a cousin briefly. I purposed to listen to what he would say, because I see him rarely and I wanted to gain wisdom from him. I didn't recognize it when it came out of his mouth, but within a few weeks I did. It made me happy. It was wise. Wisdom does not mean it must be profound; too often we skip over it, in my opinion.

Continuing, I know things you don't, and you know things I don't. Perhaps we don't all crave that knowledge the same way. But, we all must believe the truth. So here is the dilemma. We are going to use the Bible issue as our example. Everyone in our family believes it. But I wonder how many people really know why. And, in the end, even the ones that have more of a foundation than others, are basing much of it off 1. the Scripture they know, and 2. someone they trust. We all listen to someone we trust, and intuitively compare it to the Scripture we know. If it fits, than we keep it.

NOTE: Here my computer crashed and I lost stuff.

So, using the Bible issue as our example, we all believe this stuff. I doubt few have solid reasoning behind it besides, it is what the entire family believes. It isn't possible for everyone to know all the reasons. It isn't. It isn't required in Scripture either. But, it seems that in some ways, those that know more should be and are responsible for instructing those that are not. Does this just apply to parents and their kids? I don't think so. My paper was not forced upon anyone. They could skip it if they wanted. I just wanted to help if I could. But the reproof I received ignored this problem of ignorance. The people who don't know all the quotes and technical intricacies don't need to. They will not be writing books, or facing PhDs. What is the harm in writing what I wrote?

Now, the problem is that it was open for anyone. And it is true, that if I put something on the internet I should expect both positive and negative feedback AND be willing to discuss it. My problem was that I am/was willing to discuss it, but I just didn't want to on my wall. Was that not appropriate?

Note: I am eating a cold can of salmon mixed with cold white rice. Not the best. . .but, I may also eat some Mac and Cheese when my wife is done making it. heheheh.

We that don't know things, need others to tell us. Not to cram it down our throats; not to force it upon us; but to be willing and offer to help. It is a failure when those that do know things abandon those that do not because they see them as "ignorant" and "uninformed." Because they don't have the time they are viewed as lazy. When they try to convey what they do know, the more learned immediately take the other side, because they want to point out how insufficient and weak the knowledge of the other is. AUGHS! This drives me insane. Those that don't have the time/knowledge aren't trying to debate. They want to learn. Those attempting to do the teaching aren't claiming omniscience. They are just trying to help. So, don't jump in and pick apart these arguments and try to point out all the flaws. That is counter-productive. There is a time and place to pick apart, and help people realize their weaknesses. But if you can't recognize when that is, you best keep your mouth shut, because more often than not people just want to learn and be treated as real people with some respect.

I honestly don't claim omniscience. I learn something all the time. I am bothered by how much sin and foolishness that I find in my life. I didn't mean to insult anyone by trying to analyze people's knowledge, and estimating. I could be far off on all of it. I often do speak in fact. I am trying to temper my bluntness when it is negative, but as Matt said last time I did that "you mean, he is wrong?" And yeah, he is/was. Anyway, there is my blog.

I do always appreciate your thoughts.

Congratulations to my brother and his wife!! Great news; I was so happy to hear it!

My wife is the best. She is amazing, patient, and kind. I couldn't/wouldn't be who I am without her. Thanks darling, love you!

2009

So, it is 2009 and I have already out blogged 2008, but I blogged over 100 times in 2007. I don't know if I can beat that. I'm not on track to do so. I am nearing 30, but it is nearing the end of August. It doesn't help that I can't blog during After School Care. That would be my traditional blogging time. I thrive on getting paid to blog.

Life is life. There is not much else to say. FB/Twitter do not hold enough space in their little updates to convey what I feel. Can a blog do better? Perhaps, after much rambling.

I have been pretty cynical and perfectionist lately. Not about a lot of stuff that has no real set standard, but about stuff that does have meaning...and that mostly boils down to grammar and words. Try this one: "I enjoy Sundays after church." Yeah, but that just makes me wonder if you don't like church. "Can you guess . . . ?" Yes, or no, and since most of us are capable, then yes. Don't guess; we weren't asked to do that.

Spelling mistakes everyone makes...but they shouldn't; seems more so when they are the head of the English department and giving a handout to the entire upper school, but again, it happens. I don't teach English, so I shouldn't criticize. Too late I guess.

Truth project might get moved to a Thursday. Don't hold your breath, but it might. For those who were unaware, the Truth Project was scheduled 3:30 on Mondays. That conflicted with my After School Care. The one in January was scheduled for Wednesdays. Yeah, I still go to church on Wednesday. Apparently Idlewild has done something with their Wednesday services that meant the school could do this.

(I will forgo the note about "Idle" "wild" tonight...I need to get to bed soon. Yes, I understand the history, but still, it could warrant a note if I had the time.)

So, there were jokes about me losing my job next year since I won't be going to either of those. My principle made it clear today that it didn't matter how long you had been saved, or how smart you were, you were expected to go. I asked someone that was currently going how it was and he said "simple." He said that the discussion afterward was pretty good. But what that means I think I have discussed enough before. Besides, people tend to be abrasive to the person that acts like he is right, and knows he is right. It generally doesn't make any difference if he really is or not, they just go to auto-oppose. Just because I know I'm right doesn't make me less right. . .and I don't want to do this thing. Of course, she knew I was going to sign up and its on Wednesday anyway and I spoke to her about it, so if it doesn't change then next year she will really really encourage me to do it. /grin

"On purpose" AND "By accident" NOT "By purpose" AND NOT "On accident"

"Raise animals" AND "Bring up children" DO NOT "Raise children."

Technically, this means you can "raise 'kids.'" But really, that just gets messy.

I suppose that there are others, that I commit regularly. I apologize. Let me know, too. I find that I am comma happy sometimes. And I use ellipses far too often. But that is my conversational style of writing -- meh.

Have I gone through all those before? Probably.

School starts in the morning. I'm scared and nervous. I am still missing a book, and I don't have a computer. On top of it all, I have extra responsibilities that are new to me that will leech my time. Yet, here is where God put me, and I better to what I do with all my might.

My wife was a big help with decorating my room. My sister-in-law helped too. Thanks so much!

No news from MBBC. How am I supposed to finish my MA this way?

Time to go. Goodnight.

more and more

Well, when I blogged this afternoon it wasn't long since I needed a nap. But here I go again. Back to work tomorrow. Different after being off for so long.

I love writing about things that matter. I love having the time and resources to research those things, and convey them to others. I wonder if I love it so much because I don't have an unlimited amount of either time or resources. When I had time off work this summer I was on vacation and around places, and didn't have access to lots of resources. Anyway, the thought there is that perhaps I would become tired and exhausted from doing it if it is all I did.

What type of occupation would I find enjoyable all the time? I don't think it is teaching. As I prep for this year, I don't think I am made to be a teacher. What that means for me and my family I don't know.

Side note: Are you familiar with the feeling of disgust at the sound of someones voice? You hear it and you just start to feel all the feelings you associate with it? Even if none of those should logically be present at the moment. It just drives me crazy.

I like to write. I greatly enjoyed writing up my last long blog. I enjoy spending time thinking through those things. There is comfort for me in having things completely settled in my own mind and not having to depend on someone else. I have seen empty headed-people soak up like a sponge whatever they heard. I don't want to be like that. I'm not like that. But in its place I questions what I hear. I need to have a deep-seeded trust in that person but what they say must also be grounded in the principles I already know to be true.

I like to know how things work together. When I was reading my Apologetics book, he mentioned that in his first edition he thought every Christian should read a book like that. Whatever edition I had he mentioned that this is not the case. He wrote of two different sets of people: one basically was the one that had a hard time believing anything that could not be proved, so for example, why should we believe the Bible? We need to prove its necessity and validity without using it before we can rely on it. My real life example is concerning the Bible issue. I know people who don't really have a firm grasp on the subject and yet cling to it even arguing against those that are have a better grasp. These don't have the time or resources to actually study the issue and so they go on what they have heard from those they trust. The other group is the group that needs to have every nuance explained to them and examined before they accept anything.

I tend to believe that I am of the second group. I like to have things researched out and examined. I think that I need to make sure I utilize myself wisely this year. I have a lot I would like to accomplish, and potential I see in myself. I don't know what God has for me. I don't. I wish I did. I wish I knew that if I make it through the next 1, 2, 3, or even 5-10 years that I would achieve my goal. But, no, there is no guarantee. The guarantee is that God will provide for me and mine. He will work everything out for our good. There is no occupational guarantee. There is no guarantee of blessings in a job that I will enjoy for the rest of my life.

There is none of that. Calvin hated Geneva. He said he wished himself dead 100 times a day, yet he would not leave because that is what God had for him. Yet, the things he did enjoy, he did while there. He wrote tons and tons. His Institutes achieved their final form while there. He wrote several commentaries, and wrote to several kings, queens, and other royalty. He was brilliant. I am not Calvin however. However much I desire such a mind; I am thankful for what I have.

I am thankful for my wife. Through all these thoughts and struggles within me she has been a great support. She is willing to follow me what/where-ever God will send us. She has always encouraged me, and I love her dearly.

Then I have been thinking about my church situation which I blogged about briefly earlier. We heard 18 stanzas of something again tonight. So much stuff wrong here, and yet some stuff right, and it seems like God has lead us here in some way. Yet, I don't know. I can't know. . . . . . . . . . . .AUGHAUAHUGAUHAHUGA! /sigh. Ok. So I finally became facebook friends with some of the people at the church. My profile states that I'm a Calvinist. So, there it is. My sphere of influence has been enlarged by me becoming acquainted with the people here at the church, yet, now I have more opportunity to be shunned and viewed as a heretic.

I have heard that it is very possible that an Armenian pastor will not even let me be an usher, nor serve in the church in any way. That would stink.

I thought about starting my own church again. My wife vetod that idea. Which makes sense since I am working 11 hour days and she is pregnant. When would I canvass? When would I prep messages? Where would we hold church? What would I do for music? Yet, the idea is there again.

I have been thinking about writing a commentary this semester. Depending on how classes go and what I can take and how much work it involves I may try to get one done. I think I can do it. With lots of work it should be solid. I need a good book to do. I was thinking Galatians for various reasons.

Anyway, it is time for me to go to bed now. Goodnight.

update

School starts Wednesday.

I saw District 9 last night with Matt. It was good. Tons of swearing though. I talked to Kaylynn afterward and decided that we need to get a clearplay. I have mentioned them before, but it just makes things so much easier, especially considering the fact that we are going to be parents soon. Oh yeah, if any of you read this, but don't keep in touch any other way, we are expecting! =D

I am in a huge dilemma with church again. I understand the need to join myself to a local church. It has been weighing on me for some time. We look and look. We have been to several and thought we had the one a few times. Now we are traveling 40-45 minutes to church where he is Armenian, has an erroneous view of Baptist history, believes very very strongly on the dichotomy or trichotomy of humans (I don't remember which), tends to talk down about Protestants, and doesn't believe in the universal church. Some of these things are very minor, except that the pastor feels the need to hammer everything that may be controversial and so we get a 10 min shpeel on it. We were really thinking of joining. We were going to by now. I think I should sit down and talk to him about some of these things...because I don't want to join if he won't let me serve in any way. I want to preach/teach, and at the very least I want to usher. . .oh well.

I need to take a nap now.

TR/KJV argument. . .as clearly as I have ever done

I had recently been having some conversations with some people and one of them resulted in me volunteering to write some information up on the TR/KJV issue, and they affirming they would read it. So today I sat and wrote for several hours. My goal was to try to summarize the necessary points of our argument as much as possible. I did not dive into every little detail, nor did I quote. As it stands it is a summary. Forgive the length, this one is almost 8 pages.

This is quite a task I am attempting to undertake here. To summarize this position may be able to be done, but often the main points make little sense without the background. Sometimes this background is simple, and sometimes it covers all of church history. I will try to keep the main points obvious, while only including the necessary information. There will of course be much remaining, that may need to be covered if you have questions, or if you are aware of certain arguments raised against the position. Please do not hesitate to ask anything. I should add that I do have references and quotes for almost everything here. It would have extended this by several pages. If you are curious about quotes on something in particular please let me know. I do not at this time have a simple compilation of all quotes, so I cannot simply add that. Perhaps I will one day.

So, the end argument is that the KJB is the Word of God for English speaking people. By saying this we are saying that we have in our possession the perfect inspired transcendent Word of God. Those who disagree do not think it is possible to have the perfect inspired Word (though they may not admit that).

This is where the problem comes. If we do not have God’s Word, then we are of all men most miserable. We must have the Word of God, or everything we do is in vain. If we don’t we should eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die. This is the argument for certainty. There are hosts of quotes to say that certainty is not something new to the church, but that the church has always required certainty. It seems logical and reasonable to me that we must have certainty without citing any of the quotes. If we admit there may be error in part of the Scripture, than we cannot be 100% sure that there is not error elsewhere. So, we must have certainty. Again, the other side disagrees. Recognizing the need for certainty is our first step.

The second step is to correctly understand God’s Word. What we mean by this is the many verses pertaining to preservation. No matter what we ever talk about or argue, we must always start with proper exegesis of the Scripture. This is the second step. Here is one of the most difficult parts. It is like arguing with an Arminian about Calvinism and referencing foreknowledge. No matter how right you are on the proper definition they always say it means something else. The Scriptures that we use to support preservation have for a 100 years been twisted so that anyone even slightly anti-KJV will say “That just means – .“ Here is a list of Scripture: 2 Tim. 3:16; Ps. 12:6, 7; 19:8, 9; Heb. 6:18; Matt. 5:18; 1 Peter 1:25; John 17:17. Without going through each verse what you need to know is that we have to interpret these verses understanding that they were written to the people of that day and those people would have expected the words to mean what they say. These verses point to always having God’s inspired inerrant Word here among the church, i.e. preservation. That these verses support the preservation of the perfect Word of God has been the position held for centuries down through the church.

The third step is arguing for the TR. Our argument is not based in the KJV. Our argument goes back centuries, and then the only logical conclusion is the KJV. We can’t start with it; we end with it. Where do we go next then? In order to understand what we must now argue, we must understand the other possibilities. When we argue for certainty, the other possibility is uncertainty. When we argue for the Textus Receptus (TR), the other possibilities are what we call the critical text and the majority text. We must further understand where these come from.

Brief History.

Previous to Christ, around the 3^rd-1^st centuries, the Hebrew OT was translated into Greek. It is said that it was done by 70 men, and thus the Septuagint is abbreviated the LXX.

Recall that when the epistles, gospels, etc. were written they were not instantly in every church. They had to be passed from church to church and copied from page to page as the parchment began to wear thin, and as more churches and individuals wanted their own copies. Copies happened. People made copies of copies. The canon (the 27 books of the NT) was not closed, and people were unsure what was Scripture and what was not. (This is a different history lesson entirely.) However, by 397 AD, the canon was closed. God had lead in the church to ensure that the apocryphal books were rejected, along with other similar titles, and God had also made certain that the 27 books were settled. While the Scriptures were now together, they still continued to be copied. Somewhere around the 5^th century, Rome commissioned the Latin Vulgate (Also known as Jerome’s Vulgate). This was to be the Bible of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) for the next thousand years and the reformers wrote many things against it.

The copies remained however in libraries. It was very rare to find entire copies of the Scriptures, but rather pieces and fragments were found of different books, verses, and passages (called Papyri, Uncials, and Minuscules).

As early as 640 AD people were attempting to translate parts of the Scriptures into English. The first well-known complete translation was in the 14^th century by John Wycliffe. Wycliffe’s bible appeared in two editions. Tyndale’s translation in the 16^th century differed from Wycliffe in that he used the Hebrew and Greek texts, and used the Latin to help. In all likelihood, he also probably used/referred to Wycliffe’s translation as well. This could probably be assumed for most translators during this time. After the Tyndale 1526 came the “Coverdale” 1535, the “Matthews” 1537, the “Great” 1539, the “Geneva” (first divided into verses) 1560, the “Bishop’s” 1568, and the “King James” 1611. These translations continued to follow much the same MSS as the previous. Unlike today where each version sits on the shelf next to each other, the previous was removed as the latter was accepted by the church as the authentic Word of God.

We must also understand that this is the same period that ends the dark age. This is the time frame which hosted great men like Luther, Zwingli, Huss, and Calvin. Luther posted his 95 theses in 1517. As the Reformation swept over all Europe, the need and desire for the Scriptures in the common tongue was understood and catered too. Thus we have these translations moving from the false piety of the Catholic church and back to the Greek texts for their translation into the English language.

It was during this time of translations that MSS were being collected and catalogued for the purpose of assembling a complete Greek text. This was not an easy process. Communication was immensely limited, and safe transportation of these MSS was neither quick nor easy.

Erasmus was one such person attempting to collate a Greek text. Erasmus was a Catholic who believed in reforming the church from within and so he never left. He was a scholar and was well learned. He mastered both Latin and Greek and was determined to provide a new Latin translation. When he published it however, it included the Greek translation alongside his Latin work. When Erasmus was missing pieces of either Greek or Latin from his sources, he would go to the other to find the pieces in that language and transfer them over. Thus, his two languages published together were in agreement, and though written in Greek and Latin their respective basis was not pure Greek nor pure Latin. It was his second edition that Martin Luther used to translate the Scriptures into German. It was his third edition that Tyndale used to translate into English. The 3^rd edition was also the basis of another Greek Text: the 1550 Robert Stephanus edition. This was the text used by the Geneva and King James Bibles. It is Erasmus’ last edition that is often referred to as the TR.

Theodore Beza, who studied under Calvin and assumed his role in Geneva when Calvin passed away also published a Greek text in 1565. This text was also indebted to Erasmus’ editions. After this time period, it was not until the 1880’s that another prominent Greek text appeared. Several continued to gather MSS and translate, but nothing prominent was published until after the Enlightenment.

The extant (=known existing) MSS are categorized based on their family type. Today we see three main family types: the Byzantine, the Alexandrian, and the Western. We hear the most regarding the first two. In brief, the Byzantine family contains those texts found within the byzantine empire. The text-type and location where they were found groups them together. It is the same for the Alexandrian family: they contain the Alexandrian text-type and were generally found near Alexandria. The majority of all extant MSS are from the Byzantine family. There are around 5000+ pieces from this family. These could be anything from a phrase to entire books, or multiple books. These are often dated from the 5^th to the 12^th centuries.

The Alexandrian family is considerable smaller. The force behind the Alexandrian family is that the 2 main MSS both supposedly date to around 400 BC, and they contain very full texts, rather than pieces. The early dating of these MSS causes some to place much more emphasis on them than on the majority. Among these are the texts found in a monastery in a burn-barrel. There is debate over their value. One side claims that they are extremely valuable, and the other says they were in the burn-barrel for a reason. The discussion further breaks down in that the one who found them (Constantin von Tischendorf) originally claimed they were in the trash. This may have been because they were worthless or he was lying to excuse his sudden possession of them. Or they were not in the trash at all, as his son later claimed in his father’s biography. Tischendorf himself is reported as saying that the MSS. contained 15,000 changes made by contemporary or later hands. This should discredit it from having any true significance.

I present this history not for your memorization but rather for your understanding. These things need to be somewhat familiar to your mind as we continue our argument. I previously mentioned three text options when choosing a Greek text: the TR, the majority text, and the critical text (CT). The TR is that tradition that ended with the Greek text of Erasmus/Stephanus/Beza and the English text of the King James Bible. It should be mentioned that this text did not arise from pure Greek MSS support, but also some Latin. It contains readings that do not appear to be well supported. It is from this Greek Text tradition that the KJB is translated. The KJB is the only Bible today translated from this Greek Text.

The majority text is held by a minority who think that both other sides have valid points. Instead of accepting the few readings in the TR that are less obvious, or have Latin support, they opt for a text that is completely among the Byzantine family. This “text” however does not exist. Two men, Hodges and Farstad, attempted to compile a majority text. However, the MSS they worked with to complete this text came mostly from one individual. Further, this portion they used was only a small portion of the Byzantine family, and they only cited a small portion of what they had access too. Their Greek text was published with the admission that it was incomplete and not a true majority. It was compiled from a fraction of a fraction of all extant Byzantine MSS. Farstad was on the committee translating the NKJV and he was impacted by his previous work. The NKJV is the closest thing to a modern version translated from this supposed Majority text. This position is generally thought to be “safe.” It avoids many of the problems the CT guys point out about the TR position and it makes most TR guys happy because it is closer to them than the CT. Recall however that we started with the necessity for certainty. With no true majority reading, we have no true certainty, even supposing that this argument had weight.

The critical text is that which came about (through a similar process) but which originated from the 1880 Greek text of Westcott and Hort. Among the first English translations from this text was the English Revised Version in 1901.

Our argument for the TR at this point is rather simple. We understand we need certainty. We know that Scripture promises that we will have God’s perfect transcendent Word for us to live by. Lastly, we follow the Holy Spirit guided church as it searched for the Word of God. God uses human means. He did so in the assembly of the canon after the writing of the NT. He did so in bringing the Reformation and their emphasis on returning to the Scriptures to Europe. It was here that the church recognized the need for it to be in the common tongue and so it was here that the church looked for and sought out the Word of God. The brilliant “scholars” of the Reformation’s day were pastors called of God to minister. How did they know which MSS to use, and which to ignore? God worked in much the same way of the collecting of the canon. This resulted in a text which was used to translate. Another text and another were published. Each one correcting the mistakes of the past text. The Holy Spirit led the bride of Christ accepting each in turn until the TR and the King James Version. After this however, there was not another publicly and universally accepted Greek text, nor an English version. Today, there are over a dozen versions sitting alongside each other and not one has obtained widespread public and undisputable acceptance among the Holy Spirit lead church. These are the positive reasons we argue for the TR, and come to the conclusion of the KJV. We have a host of negative reasons against the CT as well; this is our last step.

There are striking differences between the CT and the TR. The CT as known today began in the 1800’s and has continued changing and evolving. The CT has been in development for over 100 years and does not have a final form. Nor does the current CT as of yet have an English version translated from it. While the TR tradition began in the rise of the Reformation and the brilliant minds that accompanied it, the CT arose from the Enlightenment. The mindset of the Enlightenment was that man was the measure for all things. It was a turning from the Scriptures rather than too them. The Enlightenment rejected inspiration and divinity. The standard of faith is recorded by Kant as that which man’s reason finds morally profitable. It was this environment which fostered Westcott and Hort.

Westcott and Hort (hereafter WH) published their Greek text in 1881. This was the first popular critical text. WH put great stock in Sinaiticus (one of the Alexandrian texts; claimed to be found in the trash), and especially Vaticanus (MSS contained in the Vatican library). These two MSS were judged as the best MSS and their readings were taken above others – primarily Vaticanus. While the CT has evolved today so that the current version is not near as blatant in its dismissal of the previous Holy Spirit guided tradition, it follows strongly in WH footsteps. Two reasons drive us to further analyze these men. 1. This tradition began with WH. 2. They abandoned the church tradition of the previous 300 years.

While none of the men through the TR tradition were perfect nor inspired, it can be seen through history how God used each to lead the church to the acceptance of the TR text. WH however called the TR a “corrupt text.” They set the standard for preferring two MSS over 1,000’s. They valued the text of the RCC over the text of the Reformation. (This is completely opposite to that of the Reformation which took the church away from the heresy of the RCC and towards the Scriptures.) Further, these men were not orthodox and could easily be labeled heretics. Note the following beliefs drawn from their own writings:

They believed in and agreed with:

1. Baptismal Regeneration

2. Necessity of the Sacraments

3. Mary Worship

4. Purgatory

5. Prayers for the dead

6. Communism

7. Darwin

They did not believe in:

1. Literal Heaven

2. Literal 2^nd coming of Christ

3. Literal 1,000 year reign of Christ on Earth

4. Reality of Angles

5. The oneness of the Trinity

6. Literal Devil

7. Soul’s existence apart from the body.

8. Power of the atonement

9. Inspiration of Scripture

These are the men with whom the CT position originated. Those that follow in their path have problems of their own.

History of the CT:

The CT path following WH includes the publication of several other Greek texts: Tischendorf’s text (containing almost entirely Sinaiticus, published prior to WH), and the popular Nestle text in 1898. Nestle’s text would undergo 27 editions and would be the main underlying text for almost every new English translation. Nestle published his edition using Tischendorf’s, WH, and other less-well-known text. The 13^th edition was published by his son in 1927 using the same texts for its basis. When considering further editions Nestle enlisted the help of Kurt Aland who would then make the 26-27 editions “Nestle-Aland.” Aland also happened to be on the committee of the United Bible Society (UBS). The first Bible society in the early 1800’s supported the RCC. As the Bible societies around the world joined to form the UBS, the support and participation of the RCC continued. The UBS produced 4 editions of a Greek text to be used for translating the Gospel around the world. Edition 3 and 4 are exact replicas of the Nestle-Aland 26 and 27. The only differences are their apparatus. The texts are identical.

Though the UBS may have seemed to some to have started with good intentions, it was involved with heretical views from the first. Constantly involving the RCC in each committee and decision, the UBS extended farther by inviting “representatives from 46 different denominations, including Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, and even a Christian Scientist!” – Plains Baptist Challenger, Sept. 1982. The goal of the UBS was to “prepare a ‘common text’ of the Bible in the original languages, acceptable to all Churches, including Roman Catholics; and to explore the possibility of preparing a ‘common translation’ in certain languages, which could be used by Protestants and Roman Catholics alike.” – Andrew Brown, The Word of God among All Nations, p. 122).

There is no current English version from this text; every English translation besides the NKJV since the KJV has however been based on the CT tradition begun by WH. In the process of creating these texts the translators admit that they will not come to a perfect text but it will hopefully just be better than before. In creating an English translation the do not rely on one published Greek text but rather upon multiple. Even with all this work towards a solid Greek text, no English Bible has been translated from it.

We have noted then that the CT tradition began in a time of departure from the truth. It was started by heretics who denied the doctrine of inspiration. It has continued by one of the most ecumenical groups whose published goal has always been ecumenical acceptance. There is no English version that is based solely on this text. The Holy Spirit lead church has not publicly and universally left the TR for any new Greek text. Rather, the influx of multiple Greek texts and English versions has seen the almost universal weakening of the church, doubt in the authority of Scriptures, the support of Evolution, and the dismissal of God from our nation. It has witnessed pastors standing in the pulpit and throwing their Bible away since it is no longer relevant nor needed.

What I have not covered are the arguments against the KJV being perfect. Often those are the arguments raised, and they do take up quite some space. They include trouble accepting the work of the KJV translators without applying to them the doctrine of inspiration (which we don’t). These things should be handled similar to any unsaved person claiming problems with the Gospels or different numbers recorded dying at such-and-such battle. We begin those thoughts with the truth from God’s Word that it is accurate and inerrant. Then we look at the “difficulties” and answer them as best we can. We do not admit of error because God says it is not. Whether we can explain it thoroughly enough is not a test of God’s truth. The same applies to the KJV argument. Just because one word may see inaccurate to someone, does not mean we throw out our previous argumentation. We begin with the conclusion we have reached that we have the inerrant Word of God and then answer the translation issue accordingly: never giving up our ground.

As we have covered quite a bit, I have included an outline of the main points as well as tried to highlight those things that are necessary to the argument

1. Need for Certainty.

2. Proper Exegesis of Scriptures leads us to the doctrine of Preservation.

3. 3 texts possible: TR, Majority, and CT; Majority text not a viable option.

4. We fight for the TR

It was the accepted Greek text as seen in the Holy Spirit guided Church.

The tradition began in the glory of the Reformation;

The theme of the Reformation was by grace alone, though faith alone, in Christ alone.

The Reformation was lead by Pastors who called the church back to the Scriptures.

This tradition leads us to the KJB in English.

5. We fight against the new tradition.

The tradition began under the thinking of the Enlightenment.

Man is the measure.

Inspiration and divinity are nonexistent.

WH were heretics; they introduced this tradition; they didn’t even believe in inspiration.

Main MSS of this tradition found under questionable circumstances; or in the heart of the RCC.

WH completely discarded the TR tradition. The tradition accepted by the chuch for over 300 years they called “corrupt.”

Ecumenical tradition.

Translation committees providing the new Text to the world are full of apostasy. They are ecumenical and are bringing all of “Christianity” back to Rome.

The scholars of today are translators who sit on committees, rather than men called of God to oversee His flock.