I just finished reading an unbelievable transcript of John MacArthur (JMac) and three of his Grace for You ministry acolytes discussing their Calvinist beliefs. Their language reads like the jabbering of a covey of teenagers.
I counted the superfluous, conversational teenage phrases “I mean..” 26 times and “You know” 50 times
If there was ever a doubt that the king of Lordship Salvation, John MacArthur, is a sly Calvinist who links Lordship “salvation” with Calvinism and vise-versa, then this article will erase all doubts for any reasonable, thinking person. [Footnote 1]
Quotes from the panel discussion
“JMac: Well, the doctrine of election simply means that God, uninfluenced and before creation, predetermined certain people to be saved.”
My observation: If the god of Calvinists “predetermined certain people to be saved” and has ascribed saving faith to an individual from the foundation of the world — then by logic, they would have to say that their god also ascribes “no faith” or “false faith” to a non-chosen or non-elect individual from the foundation of the world in the same manner. If, in their view, their god has predetermined some to be saved, then, obviously, he likewise has predetermined some to stay lost — never giving them the benefit or chance of any saving grace. Theirs is NOT a loving god.
JMac does not understand his own teaching.” He says about “sovereignty”:
“I mean you just have to bow your knee and just humble yourself before these things, and don’t demand that God explain every iota of every issue to you so you can understand it. You’re not that important in the big scheme of things; neither am I; any of us.”
That is an amazing statement.. In JMac’s fantasy world, “You’re not that important in the (God’s) big scheme of things..” He is just flat out wrong. Every human being that has ever lived or will live is important to the Lord. That is why he sent His Son Jesus to die upon the cross for every person in the world. (John 3:16)
This attitude apparently birthed and formulated JMac’s Lordship “salvation” message and it is growing like a poisonous mushroom throughout formerly Biblical churches.
There are many reasons I love and stick to the King James Version of the Bible (KJV). Calvinists love the NIV, a work in progress “translation” which is totally misleading so many ways. It uses the word sovereign many, many times when speaking of the LORD or GOD (caps) and sovereignty a couple of times. There are no such words in the original KJV. Outside of the Bible, the word sovereign can apply to a sovereign nation, a king or any ruler or a father who is the sovereign of his home. Inserting the word “sovereign” into the newer “translations” is a terrible and demeaning way to describe the Almighty and ALL Powerful God of all creation. (my opinion).
Rarely do I ever use the word sovereign — choosing instead the more accurate Omnipotent (God IS all powerful) and then tying it in with other of His characteristics, Omnipresent (everywhere present), Omniscient (knows everything) plus a few more.
Think about this; the Calvinist theory is that we are chosen from all eternity to believe and are regenerated at some time before we believe and then we just believe without having to decide to “believe.” That scenario is totally un-Biblical and irrational.
The following is from an top notch essay by Brenda Nickel, a young lady who was a captive of Calvinism until one day she awakened to Truth and clearly saw the error. It is an excellent read. [Footnote 2]
“Sadly election, rather than faith in the cross, has become … [the Calvinist's] gospel. If he was never elected, he knows there’s no way to become elect, even though he throws himself on the mercies of God. The Calvinist never suspects his treasured “doctrines of grace” are the problem. He’s bought the lie and lives as his own prisoner, though freedom is only a hand’s breadth away. ‘For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he‘” (Proverbs 237).
“However Calvinists must, and I mean must, read absolute sovereignty into nearly every verse.”
She continues:
“What is the strong delusion Calvinists have been captured by? The absolute, sovereign, predestining, unknowable, and mysterious purposes of God. It escapes their notice that God has sovereignly given mankind the responsibility and ability to believe. Apparently, granting this ability [to believe] is the one thing their sovereign god cannot do. For all intents and purposes, absolute sovereignty becomes the idol to be honored for fear that man has any sovereignty in himself. Everything must bow to this exaggerated view of sovereignty; the character of God bows to it, the gospel bows to it and ultimately men must bow to it.” [2]
And Brenda nails the Calvinist’s link to Lordship “salvation”:
As long as the [false perseverance] debate cycles around Lordship salvation, the debilitating double-bind of Calvinism goes completely unaddressed. See, the Calvinist follows the subtle example of leaders who judge the faith of others as either true or false. The real question behind this exercise is whether the person in question has a supernaturally gifted [Calvinist] faith, or a human false faith [all others]. How would anyone know the difference? In a word, obedience. [2]
That is a brilliant analysis – where Brenda accurately analyzes that Lordship “salvation” and Calvinism both rest on the uncertainty of one following a leader’s idea of obedience to the Lord!!! We have written frequently about that terrible aspect of Francis Chan, Washer, JMac’s and other’s ministries.
Notes and Links:
[1] MacArthur Panel (at Grace to You)
[2] Calvinism Weighed and Found Wanting (Brenda Nickel)
____________________________________
And Now The Truth of God’s Grace and Eternal Life << Click here
Like, you know, that was like another totally excellent and thought-provoking analysis, Jack. I mean, I really liked it. You know what I mean?
@ Pearl… LOL!!!!
I enjoyed this article too. I was talking about God’s “sovereignty” the other day with someone. We were trying to define what “sovereignty” is in a non-Calvinst way, since we aren’t Calvinists. So, I decided to look it up in the Bible (KJV, since that’s what I use) and discovered it wasn’t there!!! Just like you said in this article. It’s kind of strange to me that Calvinists build an entire doctrine around a word (and definition) that isn’t even in Scripture!!! Personally, I prefer to get my doctrine, definitions, and words from the Bible.
Thanks Pearl.. I mean, like, ya know!
It bugs me to hear teeny-boppers talk like that in person and on TV but to read a transcript of “learned men of letters” speak like that is disgusting — made worse by their bad doctrine.
Jess, we appreciate your stopping by and your observation is right on target. Sovereignty is a catchword invented by Calvinists. Incidentally we can see the error perpetuated in the NIV because its revision committee has a preponderance of Calvinist, Reformed, Covenant, some Charismatic, Pentecostal and multiple other “scholars” of all stripes who must have exerted more influence than any conservatives on the committee. Incidentally the great conservative Bible Scholar Charles Ryrie was also on the original revision committee but was replaced many years ago.
I agree that the NIV is easy reading but I never recommend it because one must have a good background knowledge of the KJV Bible to sift out the many errors.
The motley membership of the NIV revision committee over the years is detailed here in their own documents:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/niv-translators.html
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
Incidentally, just FYI,
The owner of the web site above (Michael Marlow) who published the list of NIV revisers is himself an advocate of Reformed theology. He describes himself as:
“Theologically I am conservative and Reformed. I consider the [Presbyterian] Westminster Confession of Faith to be an accurate summary of Biblical theology.”
Therefore I do not recommend using his web site for research if you are looking for accurate exposition of Bible Theology.
Nuff said!!
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
Like, ya know, duh, I mean, it’s like, no way! Great post bro. Jack!
Watch it, Bro. David — you are beginning to sound like a Calvinist, intellectual “man of letters.”
Kinda makes one sick to see that in their own words.. the words are childish but the teaching is deadly.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
I just want to comment on your first point – you say that the god of calvinism is not a loving god, because some are predestined to faith and some are not.
My question is; the calvinists believe that none are deserving of salvation yet Jesus took on humanity and sacrificed himself in a way that none of us can truly comprehend for some of the undeserved. Is that not a display of incredible love? Or is it only love if all those who do not deserve salvation are saved?
Nic,
Thanks for dropping in. You said, “Jesus took on humanity and sacrificed himself in a way that none of us can truly comprehend for some of the undeserved. Is that not a display of incredible love?”
Your posit is only half truth — the rest is false. It is truly and absolutely comprehensible that, as God’s Word says, Christ died for every soul that ever has and ever would live, (John 3:16 et al) all of whom are undeserving, yet He gives anyone and everyone the opportunity to make a decision to believe in Jesus Christ. THAT is truly God’s Love.
Christ died for the sins of the world, NOT just for those whom Calvinists deem to be elected for salvation.
Your Calvinist argument may seem pleasing to the unlearned or tricked mind but it is extremely deceptive. Search my Blog further for our position on Calvin/Calvinism.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
Nic said, “Jesus took on humanity and sacrificed himself…for some of the undeserved. Is that not a display of incredible love?”
I fail to be amazed by this display of incredibly limited love, and don’t see how one can reconcile this belief with the bulk of scriptures. Quite frankly, I find it offensive and arrogant.
I spent some time reading at the second source you provided, Jack (where Brenda’s article is located), and came across a five part series written by another gentleman called “The Withering Flower: The Fad of TULIP Theology” and found this quote interesting:
Obviously, the initial twinges of discomfort were the promptings of the Holy Spirit, but were suppressed and replaced by man’s intellectual interpretations. How tragic.
2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
I don’t know why the source disappeared. Maybe the brackets have some kind of code? Anyway, here it is again: The quote came from part 3 of the series which is at http://blog.savetheperishing.com/?tag=tulip .
Pearl,
Some great quotes and analysis and so true is the quote, “Most will admit that they were taught Calvinism by another Calvinist. No one reads the Scriptures and comes to the conclusion that Calvinism is true without these presuppositions being placed within their heads.
You could almost call Calvinism a parasitic type religion — ineffective without a unlearned or weak host.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
Hello
I found your site from the Save the Perishing article, and I’ve enjoyed it. I think your points about John MacArthur are well made.
May I ask a little about your previous ministry? With which church(es) were you a preacher/pastor?
P.S. I should mention that I am in the UK. So if you reply to me during your evening, I won’t be reading it until the following day, so it might seem as if I haven’t replied for ages
Anthea,
Greetings from across the Pond. Sure are happy to have you aboard and pray you will subscribe and peruse our entire blog from its inception in January 2006 until now. We have a great history — and a great Story to tell.
I was an atheist for most of my life until I made the decision to trust Jesus Christ as my Savior at age 35 during a 1965 Christmas Concert. I heard the Gospel so clearly there that I could not refuse the the Lord’s offer. A few years later I attended and graduated from Florida Bible College while I owned my own business. I was ordained into the Gospel ministry in December 1971 at the age of 41. While at Bible College I served as a Deacon, then an Elder in the FBC Church, During that time until I graduated I was a member of the College advisory board. In early 1972 I sold my business to start our church in my home with about five families.
Our church was a small independent Bible church, unaffiliated with any organized groups. We were truly independent.. and those years were difficult but some of the happiest years of my life, seeing many young people trust Christ as Savior and go on into the ministry, many of whom are serving today, some, in other parts of the world. The Lord has been Gracious and faithful.
I pray that if you ever visit the USA you will write to let us know and drop down to visit Shirley and me.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
Dear Jack
Thank you for that full and fascinating reply. I “googled” Florida Bible College, and it’s got an interesting history. BTW, what a testimony! Saved at 35 from atheism.
Thank you for taking the time to write this blog — after all, you could have chosen to spend your retirement on the golf course! There is a great need for mature christians to get on the web and provide a counter to the heavy presence of Calvinists on the internet. They make it look as if they are the mainstream, when in fact they are quite a small part of the church. Perhaps that’s why they went on the net, to contact one another…
I am just looking up something,which I think you might find interesting, and will post another comment in the next half hour.
Hello again
Well, it took a long long time to find this in the archives of this blog, but I managed it. Then two JWs knocked at the door, and I always go to them to share a little of the gospel etc.
Here is a blog entry which revealed the fruit of Calvinism in those who follow it. The interesting part is in the comments section. Scroll down to 11p.m. June 1st, the comment from Aaron, who had fallen away from faith. Look at how they handle him. It’s just dreadful.
BTW,I tried finding Aaron to send him an email or something, but couldn’t find him. God gave those bloggers a chance to minister to this guy with the gospel, and they blew it — because Calvinism has given them permission to be lackadaisical in how they share the faith.
Doh! Here’s the link:
http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2010/06/good-reason-to-leave-god.html
Anthea,
Interesting back and forth between the Calvinists and Aaron who “fell” from faith.
1) They could have told Aaron that once he has decided and trusted Christ as his Savior, he could not possibly have “fallen” from salvation.. fellowship maybe but never salvation. (John 10:28 — and many more). Believers in Christ are eternally secure in Jesus Christ Sealed by God’s Holy Spirit and can never “fall away from salvation.”
2) These Calvinists all seem to quote from the Calvinist ESV Bible, which has been “translated” to confirm their false Calvinist doctrine.
3) A couple of comments from readers on the blog did say they were “praying” for Aaron.. but from a Calvinist one never knows what that means.. Would they be praying for Aaron to be chosen and overrule their god’s so-called “sovereign” choosing for salvation ? According to their religion, God has already accomplished everything and no person can change their predetermined destination, no matter what.
Thanks for the link Anthea, that’s a very interesting article — showing the heartlessness of Calvinists who incidentally, are multiplying like a bad virus.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
Hi Jack and Anthea,
And no wonder! It’s Pyromaniacs, where they shoot their own as well. What a stifling arrogant bunch they are. To be fair, there are plenty of reformed folks who are just as disgusted by them.
Too bad you couldn’t track Aaron down, Anthea. I wonder what “evidence” he found against Scripture that was so persuasive? Of course, you could always post a comment at pyro (just in case he subscribed to comment responses), with complete assurance, of course, that you’d be beaten black & blue
.
Great observations, Jack. I have to admit that I’m at a loss when it comes to those who depart the faith in word and deed. Falling out of fellowship is one thing, but what about those who become God’s enemy by retracting that Jesus is the only way to the Father? Or by denying Jesus is God? I’ve always believed that the prodigal son is a picture of a back-slidden believer. However, if that is the case, why did the Father rejoice by saying he was *dead* and is alive again? Is it a parable of restored fellowship, or salvation? He is, after all, a son before he departs. Once a son, always a son, but, as a friend of mine suggested (who does not believe OSAS), children can be disowned. Then again, for me, earthly analogies can be very misleading in the spiritual realm. So, I just dunno…
Pearl,
About the Prodigal Son, as you know, when we are disobedient and unresponsive to God’s will, we are at enmity with Him (an enemy). As James preached to his disobedience believers in Jerusalem:
“Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.”James 4:4
“Enemy” means hateful, odious and hostile. We can be a believer and hostile to our Savior, but we never lose that eternal Father/son relationship by His guarantee.. Our fellowship is seriously flawed but we are still believers and sealed for eternity.. That is when 1 John 1:9 comes into play, confess it to the Lord and we can return to fellowship with Him and other believers.
The word “dead” for the Prodigal son is the same word as “dead” in James 2:20:
“But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?”
“Dead” meaning figuratively or literally dead — in James and the Prodigal son the reference is to be figuratively dead and inactive or unresponsive. Such was the prodigal son to his father.. figuratively dead.. But now, having come back home, the son is “alive” and again in his father’s good graces.
Your friend who does not believe in OSAS is wrong. God NEVER disowns His Children. Believers are always children by the new birth and Jesus Blood – that cannot change – one cannot be unborn. Christ says He will “Never cast you out and never lose you.” Those are potent words from the Lord..
The Prodigal son parable is a great study on how a Believer can NEVER depart the salvation sealed by the Holy Spirit. But we sure can depart our Fellowship with Him and suffer the loving chastening of the Lord. Whom the Lord loves, he chastens. (Been there and done that).
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
That’s pretty clear! I think our (my) biggest problem is too often equating God with earthly parents. It’s difficult for me to get past that. I appreciate your instruction, Jack. I, for one, am comforted by His amazing love which is beyond my understanding. I only hope Aaron could hear the same.
Bless you and Shirley!
I just read the article and comment thread at Pyro. Why I did so I’ll never know as I surely do know better. But nevertheless…
I am not quite sure how to respond to that article because on the one hand, it seems as though my own experience would confirm it (bear with me here) but there is another hand that I find…almost funny. Here’s what happened.
When I was considerably younger than I am now, I spent a fair amount of time trying to get away from the Lord because of just the kind of thing they were mocking, er, that is, discussing over there: that God had been a GREAT disappointment to me. However, in the end I did as the prodigal son did (long story) and returned. Why? Well, because I missed Him. Yet there was still a good bit of discord between me and God. I sought to remedy this somehow, though I could not quite explain the problem well, or something, because for some reason everyone I talked to recommended–guess who–John MacArthur!
Well, MacArthur’s teaching went over like a lead balloon with me. But it is what happened in the end that is the most interesting. Someone from a local Christian bookstore was so impressed with whatever MacArthur’s latest book was that he photo copied an entire chapter out of the book and was giving it away for free. He enthusiastically thrust a copy on me and I took it, not expecting much because, well, it was MacArthur, who had the uncanny knack of making a good day bad and a bad day…we won’t go there. Still, since it was free I figured there was nothing to lose. So I took it and got in my car and started to read it. If I got 4 pages into this chapter, it was a lot. But the same thing began to happen that always happened with MacArthur, only this time it was much worse: I began to really resent God because He seemed to have not the least bit of concern for me at all and seemed so angry and displeased and really unpleaseable. Now, with MacArthur I never did actually doubt my salvation and I didn’t doubt it at this point either. I knew perfectly well I was a Christian. The thing was, he sure did make me sorry about it!!! I was a Christian but I did not want to be! And that was because of how MacArthur made God sound.
Now this is where things get interesting. For all the junk I had going on with God I knew one thing for sure. As His child, I should NOT feel this way about Him because God as He actually is does not warrant that kind of reaction, especially from His own. And all the junk I had going on could not do what MacArthur alone seemed to have the power to do: make me regret knowing God. So it became clear that I had to make a choice. The God I knew or the God portrayed by MacArthur. In other words, I had to chose between God and John MacArthur. I chose God. Yet, I still had to deal with the fact that EVERYBODY recommended MacArthur and practically fell all over themselves to do so. So I thought for a minute and realized it’s not like he’s the only gig in town. God has many great teachers (who, incidentally, did NOT EVER have the effect on me that MacArthur had) who have different gifts and different audiences. I figured maybe MacArthur was a good teacher but just not a good teacher for me. So without condemning him, I put him away as a teacher and have never looked back.
I have since learned that I am by no means alone in my experience with him. In fact, in an interesting article by a fellow named M. James Sawyer posted at Bible.org the author gives this account from a pastor friend of his:
The pastoral consequences of Lordship teaching are profound. A pastor in the Bay Area recently told me he has never had to counsel parishioners concerning the teaching of Professor Hodges, but has been besieged as a result of Dr. MacArthur’s teaching.
http://bible.org/article/some-thoughts-lordship-salvation (In case you’re interested.)
All of this is to say that these Pyro boys’ boss is one reason I had for seriously regretting being a Christian for a season and is a man whose teaching I had to put away because it was so damaging to my relationship with God. In short, no one and nothing have been able to destroy my faith, which I guess these guys would agree with. But their boss came the closest and he got booted as a result.
I find that strikingly ironic.
JanH
Addendum.
One other piece of interesting irony is WHY no one has ever been able to destroy my faith. It is because of the one thing the MacArthur crowd says you CANNOT look to for assurance (because you might not have the right kind of faith, you see.) In sharp contrast to the Mac crowd’s insistence that works/fruit are THE means of gaining assurance because only works prove you have the right kind of faith, my assurance has always and only been based on Christ crucified. I have no idea what would have become of me had my walk been the basis of my assurance. Maybe then I would have doubted and given up. But instead of having the kind of faith that looks to works for assurance, I only have the kind that holds to the cross of Christ. Thus (alas!) the cross has always been the basis of assurance for me. This is anathema in the Mac crowd, yet only Christ’s cross has been my anchor (even when that was very annoying, but that’s another story) all the time.
Why the faith that holds to the anchor that holds within vale in every high and stormy gale is the wrong kind of faith or may not be saving faith at all I will never understand. But that anchor is the only thing that has saved my bacon more times than I can count and hold to it I have and shall continue to do.
(In spite of John MacArthur.)
JanH
Jan,
That is a wonderful testimony of your battle with the JMac syndrome. So many have a similar horror stories.
I would pray every new (and old) believer would realize, as did you, the answer is not JMac and his multi-ilk but just clinging to the old rugged cross of our Savior, Jesus Christ. He IS the Way, the Truth and the Life!!!
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
Ironic indeed, Jan. Such a great testimony! (You ought to be writing more, ya know) I followed the link you provided and found the guy to be very dry and desperately boring (my eyes began rolling back into my head). I think he must be addressing a scholarly crowd, and I sho ain’t one of ‘em! But, hey, I tried! Your previous explanations on LS have been much better.
I’ve read much from a .pdf version of John Foxes’ “Acts and Monuments of the Christian Church” (which is 8 volumes) where countless men and women were burned at the stake for insisting Jesus alone is sufficient. The whole LS thing has a very “Roman Catholic” feel to it. Incidentally, Jan, you stomached way more than I could at Pyro: I stuck to Anthea’s “directions” and no more. The boss and bullies have a way of getting under my skin.
Pearl,
You and Jan nailed it.. the LS and Calvinists ARE Catholic-like (lite?)..
And after reading the Anthea’s plea for Aaron on the Pyro mess, I must re-examine my own attitudes and writings in light of God’s Word so I won’t be a bully boss.
Those Pyro folks, assuming they are like most Calvinist’s, would profess they never decided to trust Christ as Savior — but were chosen. That makes one wonder if they are really Heaven bound believers in Christ, never having put their trust in the Savior. Calvinism in general and the Pyros in particular are a conundrum!
Thanks again for all of you wonderful folks who contribute to our Blog.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
Incidentally, Jan, you stomached way more than I could at Pyro
Oh, I skipped a lot. I did get through the whole article but I skipped a great many comments to get to that one and the ones after.
They’re not quite friendly there, are they?
JanH
Hello all
I hope I didn’t spoil anyone’s day by directing you to that ‘Pyromaniacs’ blog — I was mostly wanting confirmation from Jack that my outrage was not misplaced. The fact that I still remember the exchange after all these months tells you how much it appalled me.
I found your comments about the ESV very very interesting. I had heard that the ESV Study Bible had notes which were strongly pushing Calvinism, but I had no idea that the actual text of the Bible had been translated so as to give it a Calvinist bent.
I was raised on the KJV. At the university Christian Union, everyone was plugging the NIV. But I refused to read it, not on some deep theological grounds, but on aesthetic grounds. The NIV is so ugly it “put the ‘ug’ in ugly”, to quote from The Wiz.
If I live to be your age, Mr ExPreacherman, I will have another 36 years of reading the Bible to go. Do I wanna spend the next 36 years reading some ugly-sounding Bible?
Could you please direct me to more info, perhaps in the archives of your blog, on the content of the ESV?
Anthea,
I am not an expert on the ESV but I do know most Calvinists promote it heavily. It seems to mimic the NIV in many of its errors, some of which are:
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16 – ESV)
Both the NIV and the ESV leave out the word “begotten” which means “only born” leaving room for all sorts of isms which would deny all the implications and meaning of the virgin birth of that Only Begotten Son of God, Jesus. With that philosophy, their god could have popped his son out from under a rock somewhere and then “given” him to the world (but they don’t believe God gave His Son to the world, only those chosen to be saved). That’s just not real Bible Doctrine.
Likewise the favorite catch phrase invented by Calvinists is “sovereign,” and appears several times in the ESV and NIV but not in the KJV. See my comment above about that word. (July 21, 2011 at 9:57 am)
The ESV is a revision of the 1971 edition of the Revised Standard Version completed in 2001 and is a revision or a re-translation of another revision, ad nauseum. I understand that some phrases of RC Sproul’s “Study Bible” were incorporated into the ESV.
In a quote from Wikipedia, “In 2007, Crossway Bibles published the Literary Study Bible based on the ESV, with notes on the literary elements of Scripture by literary scholar Leland Ryken of Wheaton College and his son, Presbyterian (Calvinist) pastor and theologian Philip Ryken.… The ESV Study Bible was released by Crossway Bibles in October 2008. The general editor is Wayne Grudem (Charismatic Calvinist), and features ESV editor J.I. Packer (Extreme Calvinist) as theological editor.
[...] Online Christian book retailer Westminster (Calvinist) Books has called the ESV Study Bible “by far the fastest selling new product in the history of our store.”
On Wikipedia: http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Standard_Version
Therefore I have no doubt the ESV is heavily weighted and influenced by the Calvinist philosophy. I do not use it — only the KJV when I reference Bible verses.
Anthea, I pray this helps.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
Anthea,
I just searched “Crossway.com” and find it is heavily Calvinist.. so it is no wonder it is pushing a Calvinist ESV.
In Jesus eternally, Jack
One more quick note — John MacArthur has his study Bible in the ESV — but also Charles Ryrie (has been a good guy) has done the same — but I pray he uses it to counter all the Calvinist implications in the naked ESV..
In Christ eternally, Jack
I would certainly rather have it with Ryrie’s notes than MacArthur’s!
Believe it or not, I don’t have anybody’s study Bible in any version. I have thought about getting a Ryrie bible or perhaps Scoffield, if his is still available.
JanH
“Both the NIV and the ESV leave out the word “begotten” which means “only born” leaving room for all sorts of isms which would deny all the implications and meaning of the virgin birth of that Only Begotten Son of God, Jesus. With that philosophy, their god could have popped his son out from under a rock somewhere and then “given” him to the world (but they don’t believe God gave His Son to the world, only those chosen to be saved). That’s just not real Bible Doctrine.”
I admire your passion but your comment shows that you have an incorrect understanding of Reformed theology. Christ being born of woman and God is a necessity in Calvinism, without it the process God used from the Garden of Eden through to the Cross would have been for nothing.
The word in Greek does not mean begotten, it means one of a kind – the same word is used to refer to Isaac in Hebrews.
Jan,
Almost immediately after I trusted Christ as my Savior I bought two Scofield wide margin Bibles and had the first loaded with my own study notes. and by the time I retired it was literally falling apart from use. My church gave me a large print Scofield but it is still not large enough for me to read so I use my computer Bible which, ironically, defaults to the NIV, with KJV and NKJV parallel on the page.
I rarely find error in the Scofield notes but there is one place (which I do not recall that hinted at Calvinism so I had to constantly warn my congregation. But I recommended it to them and I do the same for you.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
Nic,
You are incorrect — The Greek word for “begotten” is “monogenes” and means “only Born.”
From my computer installed Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance – the most used and accurate concordance of record. I realize others abound but I am assured those are created with prejudice.
Also, I am not sure of what “process” you speak when you say, “the process God used from the Garden of Eden through to the Cross.”
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
I found Scofield’s online!
JanH
Jan,
Just curious — what is the price — is it wide margin?
In Christ, Jack
No, it’s online in public domain.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/scofield-reference-notes/
JanH
Hi Jack, Jan, Pearl and others,
Tremendous discussion going on. I was away last week at the Grace Leadership Conference where I sharpened my knowledge of Grace Theology, Calvinism and LS. Keynote speaker, Charles Ryrie, was unable to attend due to illness (he’s 86 years old!). We had a great fill-in with Dr. Carl Baugh, founder of the Creation Evidences Museum. He gave a wonderful study of the background of the King James Bible in which he showed us some 400-500 year-old texts of the Bible, including an actual original 1611 King James Bible.
Another seminar was given by Rob Congdon who spoke very knowledgeably on Neo-Calvinism and its devastating impact on the Christian world (many of you alluded to this earlier). Possibly the most egregious form of this new movement is called, “The Revolution Church.” It began as an outreach of the Reformed Calvinist Church but it has become radicalized in the past several years and it now has spread to several denominations nationwide. On their web site, they have a picture of a hand grenade. And they proudly define their movement by the following statement: “An overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established system. A drastic and far-reaching change in ways of thinking and behaving. A sudden, complete or marked change in something.” Their modus operandi has been to do church plants near existing struggling churches. Then, when their numbers grow sufficiently large, they basically offer to come in and join forces with the existing church. In time they then take charge. Their agenda is purportedly to draw more youth in. To accomplish this, they shed all of the trappings of established Christendom such as pianos, organs, crosses, pulpits, pews, stained-glass windows, choirs, praise groups, (the list goes on and on). Seniors are marginalized or pushed out altogether. “Worship” is usually carried out in a very dark eerie setting, sometimes with candles placed on the stage, reminiscent more of MTV set than a church. Music is deafening, simulating a rock concert.
I read an article in which John MacArthur decried the movement above, even though MacArthur himself is a Reformed Calvinist and a purveyor of the unbiblical teaching of “lordship salvation” which stems from or is equivalent to the “P” of the Calvinist “Tulip.” It seems that MacArthur now wishes to distance himself from the “monster” that his books and theology have helped to create. Lou Martuneac has a great new post on this subject:
http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2011/08/dr-macarthur-reforming-is-not-answer.html
By the way, I think that the vast publication of extreme Calvinist Lordship Faith books, such as “Radical,” by David Platt and “Crazy Love,” by Francis Chan, both of which are huge best-sellers (the Chan book has sold over one million copies!), have been the GASOLINE ON THE FIRE which has served to fuel the rapid spread of this radical neo-Calvinist movement!
Bruce
From Strongs
Definition: 1) single of its kind, only 1a) used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents) 1b) used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God from 3441 and 1096; only-born, i.e. sole:-only (begotten, child). see GREEK for 3441 see GREEK for 1096
Here are some notes from re the translation of the word:
“37 tn Although this word is often translated “only begotten,” such a translation is misleading, since in English it appears to express a metaphysical relationship. The word in Greek was used of an only child (a son [Luke 7:12, 9:38] or a daughter [Luke 8:42]). It was also used of something unique (only one of its kind) such as the mythological Phoenix (1 Clement 25:2). From here it passes easily to a description of Isaac (Heb 11:17 and Josephus, Ant. 1.13.1 [1.222]) who was not Abraham’s only son, but was one-of-a-kind because he was the child of the promise. Thus the word means “one-of-a-kind” and is reserved for Jesus in the Johannine literature of the NT. While all Christians are children of God (τέκνα θεοῦ, tekna qeou), Jesus is God’s Son in a unique, one-of-a-kind sense. The word is used in this way in all its uses in the Gospel of John (1:14, 1:18, 3:16, and 3:18).” – New English Translation
The NIV and the ESV do not try and paint Christ as anything other than the only begotten Son of God – read the Gospels.
The process I was referring to was the substitutionary sacrifice of an innocent for the sinner, ultimately ending with the perfect sacrifice of Christ who was sinless, therefore could not be the son of Joseph, but God the Father.
I am trying to figure out what you guys have a problem with the “P” in TULIP. Bruce you associate it with LS, I am guessing you are implying some sort of works salvation thing here??
I dont know of any Calvinist that would agree that any works after justification maintain our salvation rather it is the HS that holds us in salvation. Works come as a result of justification but do not affect it.
The reality is that outside of the HS holding us in salvation you are left with two options; Antinomianism, which has a problem getting past Rms 6 and Works Righteousness, having to maintain your own salvation
(These are just my current thoughts re the discussion, I am not a scholar but love to discuss theology)
SDG
Nic,
Strong’s: Greek: 3439 Only Born – sole.
In 1890 James Strong published his Concordance.
The dictionaries for the Hebrew and Greek texts have been presented as originally published. No section from the original Strong’s has been eliminated;
My printed copy was re-Copyrighted in 1990 by Thomas Nelson Publishers as The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. New materials (sections) have been added.. [but, they say, my 1990 edition's definition remains the same as the 1890 edition]
Not sure where you got your “Strong’s” definition but it appears you resorted to the questionable Blue Letter Bible online.. Their definition for “begotten” is not Strong’s but from Thayer’s Lexicon (which is identical to your quote). The Blue Letter Bible cautions that Thayer has been reported as error prone, especially on the subject of the Trinity probably includes the virgin Birth of Christ.
Blue Letter online Bible (BLB) and Calvary Chapel (CC) merged together when Chuck Smith (CC founder) saw the BLB as a way to spread his message. CC has tended toward Calvinism and then at times denies it so I tend not to trust the BLB or the CC.
So I reiterate, the NIV, ESV and others remove the word “begotten”or “only Born” thereby, for some, bringing into question the supernatural birth of Jesus Christ. However, I am happy that is not a trait of your Calvinism. There are many iterations of Calvinism so we must dig deep into the dark recesses of the teaching to find which iteration believes what about the five points of the TULIP. I do not intend to explore that here.
Nic, your quote from the New English Version simply shows that the new Bible writers or paraphrasers are moving farther and farther away from the accurate texts in the KJV.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
I don’t know Greek, but in English “begotten” does not mean “born”. In the genealogies in the Bible, So and So “begat” So and So Junior. So there is a specific meaning being conveyed. Please note that even in 1611 this was not everyday English, so the intent here is to communicate that the child has sprung forth *from that particular father*, not just that the child was born. It tells us *who* conceived the baby. After all, we all know the baby was born — that’s not news!
Therefore “only begotten of the Father” tells us that the child was conceived by the Father, rather than anyone else. The rewriting to say “only son” does not tell us who was his father (after all, Joseph sort of adopted Jesus, so that He was known as his son). The amazing thing about Jesus is not that He was born, but who was His Father. “Begotten” does not convey anything metaphysical at all.
And since the NIV and ESV include quite a few specialist terms and archaic words, I don’t see the point in changing the phrase to something that is less clear about Jesus’ divinity.
BTW, since I am a housewife, I am a sitting duck for the visiting JWs, and have begun to share the gospel a little. They seem to respect the KJV, and so I have found it much more useful when I meet them. I now use it for memory verse work with the children,too.
Another seminar was given by Rob Congdon who spoke very knowledgeably on Neo-Calvinism and its devastating impact on the Christian world
Bruce,
How does one get a copy of this?
JanH
Bruce-
I’m off to do some research on this revolution church now. But this seems like it is right along the lines of something I am trying to investigate and understand. I am trying to see if there is any intrinsic connection between Emergent, Purpose Driven, New Calvinism, Neo Calvinism and all this new way of doing church. I know there are definite differences between them (I learned from one site that New Calvinism and Neo Calvinism are not the same, for example, though they didn’t say what the difference was; and that Mark Driscoll represents the New Calvinist crew and has separated from the Emergent crew; and that the Emergent crew seems to have gone through some sort of reinvention) I am also trying to figure out its impact on missions, i.e.- the concept of “being missional.” I also know that Congdon is of the opinion that all this is helping to lay the foundation for what will become the one world supra religion eventually, but I’d like to know more about that.
I’m also trying to find a Dispensational understanding of missions as this new way of doing things seems to always have the kingdom attached to it and I’d like to know how to answer that.
What do you know about these things?
JanH
Hi Bruce! You’ve been missed! I forgot about the upcoming (now past) conference. It sounds like it was a great learning experience. Reading your description, I, too, was wondering if there would be any podcasts, sermon uploads or youtubes coming from it.
As for begotten, I have been told (perhaps wrongly?) that it didn’t refer to the physical birth, but Jesus’ resurrection from the dead, citing Psalm 2:7 as proof.
“Psa 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.”
Well, this is kind of creepy. I have spent about the last hour or so on Google trying to find information on this Revolution Church phenomenon. All I found was a ton of separate web sites to a ton of different churches in different towns all over the place that each call themselves “Revolution Church” and all have the same kind of mindset, yet they all act like this is their own thing.
A lot of them do appeal to the youth of the area. I found one that said he joined with another “church plant” that was 7 years old and not doing well- in debt up to their eyeballs and so forth-that would agree with Congdon’s account of them taking over other struggling churches. I found one site that had a picture of a hand grenade on it. But in spite of the similarity between these churches-they are almost homogenous-I can’t find any single source of this idea or strategy. The closest I came was an association that some of them have with Mark Driscoll’s Acts 29 network of church planters but what the relationship is there is not very clear. The fellow who said he joined with the struggling church said he joined the Acts 29 network a few months AFTER he started his Revolution church plant.
So where this thing is originating from is a strange mystery and I find that very uncomfortable indeed.
JanH
Pearl,
Basically the word “Begotten” is virtually the same in the NT as in Psalm 2:7: Hebrew: “Yalad”: Strong’s 3205: to bear young; causative to beget; to act as midwife; specifically to show lineage :- bear, beget, birth ([-day]), born, (make to) bring forth (children, young), bring up, calve, child, come, be delivered (of a child), time of delivery, gender, hatch, labour, (do the office of a) midwife, declare pedigrees, be the son of, (woman in, woman that) travail (-eth, -ing woman).
Begotten primarily has to do with being born.. as in John 3:16.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
Jan,
Your question about the mysterious origin of the Revolution Church…..
Since they appear to be laying the groundwork for the universal apostate church in the last days, could the origin be Satan??? Hmmmmm.
I know that doesn’t answer the question — but Satan’s goal IS an apostate church.
Maybe as you suggest, Bruce will set forth a separate post on this topic — as he now has much fresh info from Congdon at the Grace Conference.
How about that Bruce?
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
You know I respect you highly, Jack, and I do not intend to sow discord, but I only bring this up because I find it an interesting point. Cults aside, I guess I don’t really understand why the word “begotten” has the potential to cause a debate (which only reveals my ignorance). I know and believe what the Holy Bible (King James) teaches about Jesus’ being conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of a virgin. He dwelt among men, clothed in humanity, but His Glory was concealed, and yet, He is God. I’m certain all here, including Nic, would agree. And if not, why?!
Anyway, I have on my shelf J. Vernon McGee’s “Thru the Bible” commentaries and I looked up what he had to say on Psalm 2, verse 7 (which, Anthea, our faithful, sitting [put] duck, may find helpful):
Hello Nic,
Thanks for your comments. Let’s try to sort them out one by one.
First, you said that we “guys” have a problem with the Calvinist Perseverance, the “P” of the Calvinist “TULIP.” Indeed you are correct, mainly because the Calvinist definition or notion of perseverance is unbiblical! Free Grace theology teaches PRESERVATION, God does all the work in saving and he does all of the work in keeping (see John 10:27-29). We simply accept his magnanimous gift of salvation through believing in his Son (“Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved,” Acts 16:31). We are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone (Ephesians 2:8-9).
Nic, I heartily encourage you to purchase and read Dr. Tom Cucuzza’s outstanding book on the subject of perseverance and its link to lordship salvation teaching (see Jack’s link above right to purchase Tom’s book). For your information, I was not the first to make the link between perseverance and lordship teaching. It was John MacArthur HIMSELF who said that perseverance and lordship salvation are one in the same, there is no difference between the two (Tom’s book quotes MacArthur in this candid admission when he said, “lordship salvation is, nothing more than the doctrine of perseverance!”) Tom Cucuzza responds to MacArthur’s following statement, “Any doctrine of eternal security that leaves out perseverance distorts the doctrine of salvation itself.”: “Look closely at that statement. Is he not saying that there must be perseverance to be eternally secure? Perseverance has to do with OUR FAITHFULNESS AND WORKS. This man is saying that you and I must persevere, or work, to be saved. This is why, in the same article, MacArthur calls lordship salvation, ‘working-faith salvation.’ This is clearly mixing works with faith.”
Secondly, Nic, you said “Works come as a result of justification but do not affect it.” Instead, you should have said, “Works SHOULD come as a result of justification” (see Ephesians 2:10). For the lordship salvationist [hey, did I coin a new term?], works MUST follow salvation or the person was undoubtedly never saved to begin with. This assumption is false, mean-spirited, unbiblical (there are many examples of carnal or backslidden believers in Scripture), and it absolutely decimates a believer’s assurance of salvation. Inevitably, a myriad of questions follows: “How many good works must I do to be sure that I’m saved?” Am I allowed to have any periods of coolness of heart toward God or backsliding in my faith?” If so, for how long? Can I ever really be sure that I’m saved? The questions are unending and can never be answered satisfactorily by lordship salvation advocates.
Regarding your third issue of antinomianism, here are some important facts for you to consider: 1. Antinomianism literally means “to be against the law, to be lawless, having no respect for mores or established law (NOMOS = LAW; ANTI = being against or opposed to [law]. 2. Nic, please think about this common lordship salvation accusation against Free Grace theology: “They are the one’s who promote lawlessness among Christians.” Now, I ask you, does that slanderous jab even make any sense? Of course, neither group would promote or encourage lawless behavior among believers. It is a silly and specious argument. Furthermore, when one truly experiences the freedom from the bondage of lordship salvation teaching, he is then FREED by God to live a full and rich life of service to God (as the song goes, “After all He’s done for me, after all He’s done for me, how can I do less than give him my best and live for Him completely, after all he’s done for me!)
Hi Jan,
Always great to hear from you.
Here’s some contact info for you:
Congdon Ministries Intl.
P. O. Box 1785
Greer, SC 29652
Rob@CongdonMinistries.org
http://www.CongdonMinistries.org
Jan,
I, too, am still trying to sort through all of this new jargon in Christianity. I’ll try to say more in the weeks ahead as I learn more about these movements. I’m sure that I will learn much from you as well.
In a nutshell, as I understand things, Neo-Calvinism is the recent modern face of Calvinism. If you want to put a person’s face on it, I would suggest that Piper would fit this category. The Revolution Church certainly would fit under this umbrella. What distinguishes Neo-Calvinism from New-Calvinism, as I understand what was said in Rob’s seminar, is that Neo-Calvinism is attempting to salt into the theological hodgepodge the teachings of the early church fathers, such as Origen. The danger is that the early fathers were adding to the Scriptures basically from Plato and other ancient philosophers. In addition, some Roman Catholic teachings, such as the rosary and the RCC version of the eucharist are being thrown into the mixture (sounds kind of like the emergent church, as there is certainly overlap between these movements). Add in a bit of MTV and rock music and you’ve got one big convoluted mess! “New-Calvinism” is not really so new. It is basically the 20th century version of Calvinism which has distanced itself from other non-Calvinist Christian churches. According to Congdon, Calvinists before 1900 pretty much got along with non-Calvinists. Although having strong differences they nonetheless maintained a mutual respect. Interestingly, the “old” Calvinists (1800s) even, by and large, held to a literal millennial reign of Christ on earth, God’s future plans for Israel as a nation and people and some even held to a literal rapture of the church. New Calvinists, contrariwise, are amillinerians (a.k.a. amillennialists). They teach that God’s program for Israel is complete and that the OT promises to Israel are now to be fulfilled in the church (or are simply figurative). They believe that they possess the real Christian truth (TULIP, sovereign election, etc.). Consequently I have found many (or most) of them to be elitist in their attitudes toward non-Calvinists. Do you want one more category? Rob Congdon spoke of the origin of amillennialism in Calvinism. He said that for the first three or four centuries, Christianity, by and large did hold to a literal interpretation of Revelation and end-times events. But pressure from the Roman govt. caused the early fathers to spiritualize or allegorize end-times theology in order to appease the Romans who considered Revelation a threat to create a new literal kingdom which opposed Rome. Interestingly, once the church adopted a figurative non-literal interpretation, Rome actually gave its blessing to Christianity and its numbers flourished.
Thank you Pearl, for taking the time to quote those notes on Psalm 2.
Interestingly, I tend to steer away from discussing Christ’s deity with JWs, since they are prepped for that. What throws them, and gives the Holy Spirit an opportunity, is to give a simple testimony. Sometimes it’s about the assurance I have in Christ, although these days I tend to ask them questions.
On Saturday, I asked them how they read their bible, and shared about how I and the children were really excited to find something in Leviticus, and how a poster about Dr Semmelweis shows that the Bible is not a man-made book. I know that JWs do not have the Holy Spirit to make Leviticus exciting. I also told them about how I used to hold the common view that it’s a tedious book of the Bible, which one must “get through” on the way to some other part.
For trivia kings and queens, here is more about Semmelweis. If people did not know about handwashing in 1800s, then how could Moses have known about it to include it in the Pentateuch UNLESS GOD TOLD HIM!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
Hi all,
Pearl, I am not ignoring your observation from McGee, but I’ve been loaded down the last few days with recovering from a bunch of family visitors and two sweet little great grandchildren and now two days of doctor appointments, etc.. but I will get back to you about “McGee and me”. Your comment was not discord but discussion. Rest assured I am not a JW. (Except my initials)
Anthea and Bruce.. I apologize that I did not get to your comments sooner — (see my excuse above). Both of your comments were delayed because any comment with more than one link is automatically moderated until approved by Bruce or me.
See y’all later and thanks to all of you for the enlightening and civil discussion.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
No worries, Jack! If it were me, I’d need at least a week! Take your time. (Silly…the JW mention just happened to be there and had nothing to do with anything. However, now that you mention your initials…hmmmm…if you figure the letters’ numerical counterparts, then multiply by 66, and find the square root of the product, well, that’s a whole other concern…
). Just playing with ya…you’re rock solid (your Foundation, that is)!
Anthea, I didn’t recognize the name at first, but when you mentioned handwashing, I knew. I’d heard Kent Hovind talk about him on one of his seminar DVDs. Amazing and tragic story. But reading more about him at the wiki link revealed his story to be way more tragic! What a horrible end that poor, misunderstood man had! I didn’t know the gory details. And so young! Even his wife thought he was crazy! Wow…
And yet, as you said, it was there in Leviticus for every one to know. I love to learn of those kinds of testimonies. A great book to get with similar (but not necessarily tragic) discoveries is called “Men of Science, Men of God” by Henry Morris.
Amazon.com: Men of Science, Men of God: Great Scientists Who Believed the Bible (9780890510803): Henry Madison Morris: Books
Very interesting!!
Uh, Jack…my comment is in moderation due to a link (might want to check your spam as well).
Very cool link, I might add! (Nice touch WordPress!)
Pearl,
WP moderated it all by themselves with only one link… unless it recognized your numerology mathematics did which not score the number you expected — but 777, therefore it looked too Biblical and they rejected it. ‘-)
Naaaa I really don’t know why.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
Hahaha!
777… love it!
Hi Pearl,
Thanks for your kind words. I will place a link to Quentin Road Bible Baptist Church. They should have CDs or DVDs of the Grace Conference available in a couple of weeks on their site:
http://www.qrbbc.org/
Blessings!
Bruce
Hi again Pearl,
Regarding your question about “begotten” in Psalm 2:7, I really must agree with Jack’s interpretation: “Begotten primarily has to do with being born . . . as in John 3:16.” I think that J. Vernon McGee got things wrong in linking it solely to the resurrection, although I think that McGee was [he's been dead for over 22 years] generally a very gifted Bible interpreter . He cites Acts 13:33 to prove his point about the resurrection connection. But, as Jack indicated, this is a stretch of the normal meaning of “begotten” and, in my view, too narrow of an interpretation of the term. Let’s look at two other texts: Hebrews 1:4-5 and 5:4-6. In Hebrews 1:4-5, the writer speaks about Christ’s superior nature over the angels and his superior name above theirs. And this is based upon his “begotten” relationship with the Father. Hebrews 5:4-6 speaks of Christ’s superiority as the great High Priest far above all earthly priests, again, based upon this begotten relationship with the Father.
Before I put these concepts together, let’s all agree vociferously that the Jehovah’s Witness’ interpretation of Psalm 2:7 is DEAD WRONG! They try to assert that the Father created the Son. NOT SO! Jesus existed as the Eternal Son of God for all eternity; he was co-eternal and co-equal with the father. Something created does not share the same nature as its creator. “Only begotten” means that the Father and the Son share the same essential divine nature. John 1:1-14 declares this truth as well as the truth of Christ’s eternal nature.
Now, let’s look at the “begotten” in the sense of Jesus’ being born. McGee said that Psalm 2:7 had nothing to do with Bethlehem. I think that he was very wrong in that statement. Think of the birth of Jesus in its larger context. When Jesus was born of a virgin he did not come into existence at that point in time. He existed for all eternity as the eternal Son of God. He existed as a spirit, as did the Father and the Holy Spirit. Prior to his human birth he appeared to numerous people in the Old Testament such as Adam and Eve, Abraham, Jacob and Moses. He appeared temporarily as a man, although that was not his essential nature at that time—he was a spirit. In the incarnation he joined the human nature with the divine nature, becoming the God-man. As the God-man he was able to die as the sinless perfect substitution for man’s sins. And after he rose from the dead he was able to act on the sinners’ behalf as their great High Priest and advocate with the Father. McGee really need not limit Psalm 2:7 to only the resurrection because “only begotten” meaning “born” (the incarnation) intrinsically encompasses the resurrection as well.
In case you are interested in looking at what is known as the “hypostatic union,” Christ Jesus being fully God and fully man, I’ve included below a letter that I wrote on the subject to a questioning friend.
“Since you have brought up an issue in class twice now, I feel that it deserves a more complete response than I can possibly give you briefly after class. For a complete discussion of these matters in detail I recommend the following book: Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, by Dr. Norman Geisler, especially pages 269-312.
I will try to paraphrase your statement as well as I understand it (Please correct me if I have it wrong):
You said, ‘In the Incarnation, the coming of Christ Jesus to earth to become a man, he set aside completely his deity while he was upon earth. So when he walked upon the earth, taught the multitudes and the disciples, performed many great miracles, and died on the cross, he did so only as a man and not as God.’ The reasoning behind this statement goes something like this: if Jesus possessed the nature of God as well as man, then why would he have human limitations such as being able to be in only one place at one time? If he were God as well as man, why wouldn’t he possess all of the attributes of deity, one aspect being omnipresence? And how could he grow in wisdom and knowledge (Luke 2:52) if he were God? How could he be tempted in the desert by Satan? How could he not know the time of his second coming (Mark 13:32)? If he were God and man, how could he cry out on the cross, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? (Mark 15:34).”
Before answering your questions, let me begin by stating that it is basic fundamental Christian doctrine that Christ Jesus was from the time of the incarnation onward, BOTH God and man! He is called, “The God-man.” He is fully God and at the same time completely human. He possesses TWO natures simultaneously, that of deity and that of humanity. The two natures are perfectly combined in the one God-man: perfectly fused, but never confused. Again, this is basic Christian doctrine and it is absolutely essential for our salvation. If Jesus had died on the cross only as a man, his death would have been only the noble death of a human martyr. It was precisely because he was both God and man that his death is efficacious to remove our sins and to give us eternal life.
We have to distinguish between what Jesus knew as God (everything) and what he knew as man (not everything). As God, Jesus was omniscient, but as man he was limited in his knowledge. As God he was unlimited in knowledge; he never changed and he never learned anything new. As man he was limited in knowledge and grew in knowledge over the years of his brief life on earth from a baby to adulthood. Properly understood, there is no denial of the deity of Christ Jesus in Scripture; rather, there is the perfect demonstration of his two distinct natures working together harmoniously. When he was tempted in the desert, that was his human nature being tempted. And when he prayed in the garden and cried out to the Father on the cross, that was the operation of his human nature.
Now let us look at some Scriptures which declare boldy the deity of Christ Jesus:
All of the great “I am” statements of the Gospel of John, which the Jews understood clearly was Jesus’ declaring himself to be God, very God!
The Father God affirms the deity of the Son: Ps. 45:6-7; 110:1; Mat. 3:17; 17:5; 22:41-46
The disciples and Paul called Jesus “God”: Peter’s confession (Mat. 16:16); John 20:28; Col. 2:9; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:3, 8
Jesus claimed equal authority with God: Mat. 28:18-19; 24:35
Jesus claimed to be God by asking people to pray in his name: John 14:13-14; 14:6
Stephen prayed directly to Jesus in Acts 8.
Jesus accepted worship on numerous occasions: Mat. 8:2; 9:18; 14:33; 15:25; Mark 5:6; John 9:38; 20:28.
Jesus applied Messianic passages of the Old Testament to himself: Mat. 22:43-44; Mark 14:61-64.
Only God himself could forgive sins—Jesus forgave a man’s sins: Mark 2:5.
The many miracles of Christ authenticate his deity.
I hope this explains the issue to your satisfaction.”
In Christ, your friend
Bruce
Hi Bruce and Jack-
I am enjoying this conversation about “begotten.” I have had some questions about that too.
One thing I don’t quite get with begotten meaning born is how that squares with the eternal Sonship of Christ. I see you mentioned it above, but I don’t get it. Does it mean that begotten has everything to do with the hypostatic union and only with that, and nothing to do with Sonship, even though it is about birth? In other words, when properly understood it actually affirms both Christ’s eternal Sonship and His humanity at the same time? As in, the eternal Son of God became man at the incarnation? I know there is a hymn where we sing “begotten, not created.” Is that what this is about?
And what about the idea of eternal generation? What is that?
JanH
Hi Jan,
I have seen “eternal generation” stated as follows:
“The doctrine of eternal generation essentially teaches that God the Father eternally and by necessity generates or begets God the Son in such a way that the substance (divine essence) of God is not divided. The Person of God the Son derives His deity from this generation. In other words, there is a communication of the whole, indivisible substance of the Godhead so that God the Son is the exact representation (or express image) of God the Father. There is still one divine essence that eternally exists in two persons through eternal generation.” I personally DISLIKE this statement as I think that it needlessly muddies the issues. Christ Jesus IS the Eternal Son of God, coequal and coeternal with the Father and the Spirit. Christ did not have to derive his deity or eternality from the Father. He possessed it eternally as a coequal with the Father. Christ’s Sonship, that is, his eternal Father-Son relationship was eternal, NOT derived at any point in time. Of course, this is looking at things from our small human vantage point. God is so far greater than our puny understanding; it will take an eternity for us to even begin to grasp his nature in its fullness.
When I spoke of looking at “begotten” in its larger context, I meant that for Christ to be BORN as a man on earth encompassed his entire mission for mankind: the incarnation, his life, his teachings, his miracles, his death, his burial, his resurrection, his ascension, his glorification to the right hand of the Father’s glory, his intercession on behalf of the saints, his role as our great High Priest. In other words, his being born (begotten) was the focal point of God’s eternal plan of redemption for mankind through his Son.
Hope that this helps some.
Pearl and Jan,
Bruce has brilliantly answered the question — and much more comprehensively than I had planned. We agree to disagree with McGee.
As much as I admire McGee’s Bible scholarship, I would part with him on this point. Also there are several respected Bible scholars who disagree with him on Psalm 2:7.
However, I regret that my discussion has led us far afield from my original point that the word “begotten” and many other vital words have been expunged from the newer Bible versions. Incidentally, the JW’s New World Translation has many similarities to the NIV/ESV and vice versa, especially for our purposes now, in Acts 13:33 and Psalm 2:7, by removing the words “begotten”.
Of course we all know without any doubt that Jesus Christ is not a “created being” as say the JWs. And as Bruce so delicately put it, “they are DEAD WRONG!”
Romans 1:3
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
John 1:14
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Jesus Christ (The Word) has been in existence from the beginning (John 1:1-3) and was made Flesh, He is God in the flesh through birth (begotten – only born one of the Father).
We agree that from all eternity, Jesus is the Eternal Son with the Eternal Father.. Christ did not become the Son of God at His birth but always has been, always will be the Son of God — And for 33 years Jesus showed Himself as God in His tangible “born” Flesh on earth — He was buried and bodily resurrected in the flesh (His body did not remain in the tomb) and He is still in His glorified flesh body in Heaven.
I view Psalm 2:7 as a Messianic prophecy of the miraculous birth of our Savior centuries later. Many Conservative Bible scholars agree. Some don’t.
I also see Acts 13: 32-34 as speaking of the birth (parenthetically) and resurrection of our Savior.
Acts 13:33-34
“God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up [Gr. anistemi, arise, lift up, raise up]Jesus again;
While not dogmatic, I believe this next phrase is parenthetical, with the introduction, “it is also written,” as a separate thought.
as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
End of parenthetical thought. And then it continues:
And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David.”
We know these differences (in context) will not alter our salvation nor our fellowship, right?
Jan, I would say “Yes” to your hypostatic question, if by that you mean that Jesus was both a personal Human being while at the same time, Almighty God in the Flesh. Also I agree with Bruce’s simple explanation of a profound and unexplainable truth.
Thanks again Bruce, Pearl, Jan, Nic and all that entered into this conversation. Please continue if you see fit.
I have fit this answer in between Doc visits, other necessities, etc.. I do not want you all to think I had abandoned the conversation.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
Christ did not have to derive his deity or eternality from the Father. He possessed it eternally as a coequal with the Father.
OK. I see. So basically eternal generation would necessitate that Jesus derives His deity from the Father. That doesn’t work.
Jan, I would say “Yes” to your hypostatic question, if by that you mean that Jesus was both a personal Human being while at the same time, Almighty God in the Flesh.
OK. Then maybe I do get it. And combining this with what Bruce said, we have that begotten refers to the eternal Son of God becoming a man at the incarnation (without laying aside His deity) to reveal the Father, bear the sins of man in His body on the cross, be buried, rise from the dead, ascend to heaven where He performs the function of priest and intercessor, and from whence He will return at the end of the age to reign on David’s throne in Jerusalem, with His redeemed bride, the body of Christ whom He will bring with Him at His return, having raptured her at least 7 years prior to His return.
Basically. (?)
JanH
Jan,
Basically, in a word, “Yes.”
And I would be ecstatic if the Rapture occurred before I left today for another Doc appointment. Lookin’ up^^^^^
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
And that brings me to another question for Jack and Bruce which seems to me to have some relationship to eternal Sonship, if not to begotten. That is the issue of the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father. What is going on with that? I have heard some complaints against this on the grounds that the Son is not subordinate to the Father, but is equal, though these complains always seem to have a sort of feminism attached to them. Do either of you know what is going on there?
JanH
Hi all!
I agree with Jack. Bruce, your response was eloquent and extremely helpful, making perfect sense to me, particularly these two quotes:
and
I’m perfectly at ease with this and have no further objections. I, too, respect McGee, but his stance on creation is also wrong, being a gap theorist (that a great catastrophe happened between Genesis 1, verses 1 & 2). This view is merely a compromise with evolutionary theory, and absolutely unbiblical. But I digress…
Thanks, ya’ll! I really do appreciate it.
Jan,
I’m not familiar with the feminism/subordination discussion.
However, all scripture verifies the previous point by Bruce that the Father and Son are co-equal. That is basic Bible doctrine.
Philippians 2:6 speaking of Christ:
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Pearl
I was not aware that McGee was a Gapist, Gapper, Gapologist or whatever they call themselves. Not good. He and I, then, disagree on that point also. But, I never studied McGee and don’t know that much about him. Guess I am just a hot-house plant..
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
Yeah…he’s very frank about it in this commentary. The only thing I can come up with on his behalf is that the gap theory was a widely accepted view among conservative Christians (as well as taught in seminaries) before the advent of Henry Morris and his bringing intelligent credibility to the literal creation account via geology and hyrdrology in his ground breaking book “The Genesis Record” which was published in 1976. By then, McGee was well established in his formal teaching, and I hear it’s difficult to teach an old dog new tricks.
Other than that, ol’ Vern is still head and shoulders above most popular bible teachers, and I like his common sense style.
Pearl,
Memories…. I believe this “old dog” studied “The Genesis Flood” by Henry Morris and John Whitcomb as a text book in Bible College in the late 60s.. and the discussion swirled around the New Earth vs old earth. New Earth was taught and proven to me in Bible College. It was interesting since I had come out of atheism where, before I trusted Christ as my Savior, I believed the world and everything in it had evolved. I look at those atheistic years and wonder how I was ever so dumb. But without Jesus Christ and the indwelling Holy Spirit, most folks are just that ignorant, trying to navigate the complexities of life and eternity without the Savior, Jesus Christ. Amazing Grace!!! Still thrilled by God’s Grace!!!
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
Really?! There was bible college back then??
So, that was the book which started it all. I had my titles mixed up. That makes you and your classmates the pioneers of creation ministry into the secular world! And Vern was already long since in the pulpit. Neat!
Pearl,
Yes, and we even used real Bibles!!! Florida Bible College was the best and fastest growing Conservative fundamental Bible College in the world.. but like so many good things representing the Lord, the admin lost its first Love; they crashed and burned. There were many great, successful preachers/teachers from that college among them Tom Cucuzza, Jim Scudder (his church was the site of the great Grace conference Bruce just attended) and many others. Tragically, some of the grads have sunk into Calvinism and LS teaching.
Scudders church, Quentin Road Bible Baptist Church also has a wonderful Bible College (check the link Bruce gave above).
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
Greetings to all of my friends!
Thanks for your kind words above. Let me respond to a few issues raised.
Jan, you said, “And that brings me to another question for Jack and Bruce which seems to me to have some relationship to eternal Sonship, if not to begotten. That is the issue of the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father. What is going on with that? I have heard some complaints against this on the grounds that the Son is not subordinate to the Father, but is equal, though these complains always seem to have a sort of feminism attached to them. Do either of you know what is going on there?”
As to your first point, Jan, I heartily DISCARD the terms “subordination” and “subordinate” when referring to the relationship between the Father and the Son. Roget’s Superthesaurus gives the following synonyms for the latter term: SUBORDINATE (noun) inferior, junior, underling, second, attendant, servant, slave, dependent, subaltern, flunky, second fiddle, low man on the totem pole; SUBORDINATE (verb) subject, dominate, keep under one’s thumb, control, boss around, order around, keep down, reduce; SUBORDINATE (adjective) inferior, secondary, below, under, junior, under one’s thumb, minor, lesser, second-class, submissive, subaltern, ancillary.
In no way was the Son inferior to the Father. The Father and the Son were coequals in every way. And in no way was the Father domineering over the Son. It’s much more appropriate to say that Jesus submitted himself voluntarily to the will of the Father. Luke 22:41-43 displays this submission clearly: “And he was withdrawn from them about a stone’s cast, and kneeled down, and prayed, Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.”
As to your second point about the connection to “feminism,” I assume that comes from some who liken the relationship of Father and the Son to that of Paul’s admonitions to husbands and wives in Ephesians 5:22: “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.” I suppose that there are some similarities between the two relationships.
Maybe a better way to look at the relationship between the Father and the Son is in terms of the proprieties of such a relationship. The Son is in no way inferior to the Father, nor is the Father in any way superior to the Son, but because of the appropriate responses of such a relationship, the Son willingly and voluntarily submits himself to the will of the Father.
Hello Jack!
I am praying for you and Shirley often.
You made the comment:
“I regret that my discussion has led us far afield from my original point that the word “begotten” and many other vital words have been expunged from the newer Bible versions. Incidentally, the JW’s New World Translation has many similarities to the NIV/ESV and vice versa, especially for our purposes now, in Acts 13:33 and Psalm 2:7, by removing the words “begotten”.”
Even though I have had respect for the NIV over the years because it is easy to read (I actually refer to four versions in my studying: The King James Version, The NASB, Marshall’s Greek-English Interlinear New Testament, and the ONIV (Old or Original New International Version, 1984 ed.), I view the New NIV (2011 Edition, Zondervan) and the TNIV (today’s NIV) as travesties. Zondervan has literally made thousands of changes to make the new edition gender neutral. These alterations totally alter the original text and meaning. And the new version is still simply called, “The New International Version.” So many people will unsuspectingly purchase the new new version thinking that it is identical to the earlier edition. When I use the original NIV (cautiously), I always look at the footnotes which often will bring the text more in line with the King James Version.
Blessings friend,
Bruce
Bruce,
Thanks for your clear explanation of the “subordination” question. I have never consciously seen, heard nor been challenged with that idea as a valid argument anyway. Your discussion surely clears the air for anyone who may have been tempted by it. It is good to be armed with the truth in the event the question arises.
And re: the NIV, etc. I may even have a copy of the bound NIV, (ONIV) in my library but I only refer to my older computerized NIV copy to parallel study with the KJV for the NIV’s many errors. (I am unable to read any bound books without severe and difficult magnification). I do understand and believe that a discerning believer (which you are) can read it and refuse to get swept into the many errors that it propagates. I still can not recommend it to anyone, especially new believers. Thanks for your note about that.
And thanks for your prayers (and everyone’s) — Shirley and I appreciate them immensely. The Lord has been Gracious and good to us.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
In no way was the Son inferior to the Father. The Father and the Son were coequals in every way. And in no way was the Father domineering over the Son. It’s much more appropriate to say that Jesus submitted himself voluntarily to the will of the Father. Luke 22:41-43 displays this submission clearly: “And he was withdrawn from them about a stone’s cast, and kneeled down, and prayed, Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.”
Bruce-
I think this is the position the pro subordination people would espouse (as far as I can understand this thing). Christ’s submission was/is a willing submission. But they would say this kind of relationship is from eternity and not just when Christ was here incarnated.
The issue is big with the Counsel for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood folks. They are the ones who are really pushing this. The people who are opposing it seem to be almost exclusively egalitarian and strongly opposed to Patriarchy altogether. They have a host of criticisms against CBMW, some of which are legitimate. But for the most part, they are totally egalitarian to the degree that there should be no gender based differentiation in the church at all: women should be able to be pastors, etc. So if they are using this to push that, then I would have to say the eternal subordination folks have this one right.
On the other hand, one of the major complaints the egalitarians have is that this subordination among the Trinity doctrine is what leads to the idea apparently rampant throughout the patriarchy movement that women are subordinate to men (the kind of subordinate you describe above, as though they were inferior), which inevitably leads to abuse of all sorts, especially against women and girls: physical, sexual, emotional, etc. This is true. That kind of subordination does inevitably lead to these things and there is a ridiculous amount of this among Christians. Worse, many times this abuse is actually tolerated within the church body, and often the woman is made responsible for the man’s abusive behavior. Honestly, sometimes you would think we were Muslim. This is so obviously, blatantly unbiblical, evil, and sick that I have to say the egalitarians have THAT one right.
Clearly, a biblical doctrine correctly applied would not lead to either one of these unbiblical extremes. Truth is a casualty somewhere in this mess. But I don’t understand this doctrine well enough to figure out how this is happening.
JanH
Hi Jan,
Thanks for filling in the gaps in the discussion. You and I constantly have to plead for BALANCE in the Christian life and in Christian theology. It seems that nowadays Christian writers and preachers would rather be novel and extreme—this gets attention and sells their books!
Do you think that this “egalitarian” movement of which you speak was largely responsible for the 2011 New International Version Bible and the 2005 TNIV? It seems that they want to make most references gender neutral. So, “Father” or “Mother” becomes “parent.” “Son” or “Daughter” becomes “child.” This sure can alter the meaning of verses!
Bruce
I don’t know, Bruce. That seems to be beyond what I have heard them talk about. I doubt that they are responsible for it as they don’t have that kind of power, but I don’t know whether or not they support it.
JanH
Jan and Bruce,
Interesting thoughts. Many religions believe in the horrible subjugation of women as you mentioned, not only Muslims but also many so-called “Christian” sects.
Jan you said, “I don’t know whether or not they support it.” Are you speaking of the egalitarians or the subordinationists with their support of the TNIV or lack thereof?
And, as Bruce says, we plead for balance in the Christian life and in theology, but only so long as we don’t cross the theological line of being so balanced that we lose our focus and become ecumenical.
I also agree with Bruce that the TNIV interpretation (not a real translation in my mind) becomes anti-Biblical with its gender neutrality. The sad part is that so many main-line churches are adopting the NIV-TNIV errors as truth, leaving behind the sure anchor of the KJV.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
The egalitarians.
JanH
What a silly discussion and mischracterization of Dr. MacArthur and Calvinists in general. Of course a lost person has to “choose” to believe. The question is: How can a dead person choose? God has to regenerate the dead heart of stone (and only the one He chooses to regenerate for His own purpose and glory) in order for the lost person to “choose” Christ. And, what is the purpose of that conversion? To be conformed to the image of Christ. And Who “willed” that to be so? God Himself for His own glory. That emphatically demands that the new convert would obey Jesus, as Jesus stated all those who love Him will do, and that is what is meant by “Lordship salvation”. Jesus is now Lord and Master of our life. How is this difficult? Further, since God must regenerate the dead heart according to His purpose, God has also promised to complete that good work which He began. That is the “preservation” of the saints.
Kfrye,
Naturally you, who think yourself among the elite who were chosen for salvation by God, would think it silly..
But those many who have been drummed with Calvinism and then fear they were not “Chosen” to be saved don’t think it is “silly.”
And I say in Christian love, Calvinism and you are flat out wrong. Calvinism is the false teaching. To call Calvinism “silly” would diminish the extreme error you perpetrate.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
kfrye:
You disseminate the same Calvinist rhetoric that I’ve heard for years.
Your analogy of an unbeliever with a dead person (a lifeless body) instantly breaks down. No, a dead body cannot trust, believe, sin or do anything for that matter. But, an unbeliever certainly CAN AND DOES SIN! So your analogy (borrowed from R. C. Sproul, I suspect) is completely fallacious.
Regarding your curt disposal of the discussion about MacArthur, Calvinism and Lordship Salvation as “silly,” I would reply, “The question of the true essence of what it means to be saved is THE most important question of all! Get that question wrong and you face the potential for a lifetime of legalistic bondage, a decimation of assurance of salvation, and, for some, ultimately, eternal separation from God.”
Friend,
Do you know, without any hesitation, without having any shade or thought of doubt, that you are saved eternally, that you are bound for heaven? Many Calvinists cannot answer this question in the affirmative. That is so sad to me because eternal life is a gift of God (by grace through faith, not of works, Ephesians 2:8-9); it comes simply through believing in Christ Jesus, in trusting in his shed blood on the cross for our sins (1 Corinthians 15:1-8; Acts 16:30-31; John 3:16); and once the gift of eternal life is received, it can NEVER be taken away (John 10:27-29); otherwise, that gift would not be ETERNAL!
Contending for the simple, concise, clear gospel of the Bible,
Bruce
Hi. About Dr. McGee and the Gap theory, occasionally the programs, and it may be a daily program or it may be Q&A, will come back around to where he says that he used to believe in the Gap theory , but that since then he has heard about the good work done by some men down in San Diego and now agrees with them. This is delivered in a weakened, very elderly voice, so it is fairly late in Dr McGee’s life.
People who have always had creationist teaching that offers plausible explanations of evolutionary claims don’t know what it was like before, when there was nothing but scripture which testified but didn’t explain anything, against the claims of scientists who denied not only the creation account but the existence of God. They were every bit as virulent as Dawkins, etc, and would claim flatly that objective, undeniable science had completely disproven the existence of God. To have to believe in God’s creation against the seeming evidence of objective truth was a pretty hard task to have to face every day of your life. Dr Morris even was a theistic evolutionist for some time after he was saved, until he could no longer deny that God said otherwise. People who believe in TE today are probably in a similar place, such as kids in a school that brainwashes them that belief in creation is irrational. It is really hard to believe the creation story as written when you cannot explain why you are not being irrational, denying objective reality to believe “fairy tales.” That someone believes God at all under psychological pressure like that can be really very difficult, so something like the Gap theory comes along and offers a reasonable sounding compromise that allows you to believe both the Bible and acknowledge the scientists hold on supposed objective reality, and it seems like your problem is solved. I wouldn’t be too hard on McGee for this, because it was wrenchingly painful to stand up to these claims that the objective evidence was against God and yet believe Him. Anyway, thought I would let you know about McGee’s change on the Gap theory in later years.
Mc FF:
Thanks for the clarification on McGee’s teaching. I agree with you that in the earlier decades of Bible preaching it must have been difficult for preachers to provide solid scientific refutation of the teaching of evolution. In the past few decades there has been much sound writing and teaching by men like Dr. Carl Baugh, Ken Ham, and Henry Morris.
I still enjoy listening to some of McGee’s old tapes on the Bible. I do think, however, that Thru the Bible Network should make it more clear to new listeners that Dr. McGee died about twenty-two years ago.
Thanks again for participating in the discussion.
Bruce
Thank you, McFly, for contributing that very important conclusion to Dr. McGee’s creation stance (I’m just now seeing your comment from 12 days ago! I need to start subscribing to comments).
I also share your sympathy for him and others as they tried to maintain amidst the intellectual naysayers of the day. It’s a lot like our (great) grandparents surviving the depression, which we today, amidst our gross material weath, have no concept of. Thanks for bringing that up.
Not having a church home, our family listens to McGee’s sermons every Sunday. I do love the man’s common sense preaching.