Ten Commandments

"If Calvinism is True, Why Evangelize?"

THE NEW BIRTH

by B. A. Ramsbottom

A few years ago I noticed a very strange thing whilst sitting in the pulpit. The chapel clock was going the wrong way round! The service started at seven, but by the time we had sung the first hymn it was five to seven! and at the end of the Bible reading it was a quarter to seven! At first I wondered if my eyes were playing tricks and even came down from the pulpit to ask!

That clock had been going round in one direction only, day after day, week after week, year after year. But now suddenly, unexpectedly, it started going round completely the opposite way. I began to think. That is what we see happening in the lives of men and women, girls and boys—a complete change. We have it in the Bible with some who were very wicked—we think of Manasseh and Mary Magdalene.

Sometimes it is called conversion: 'Except ye be converted and become as little children ye cannot see the kingdom of heaven.' It is God's work, not man's; not just turning over a new leaf, not just reforming, not just giving up some sinful habit. The chapel clock soon went back to its old ways, but a true conversion continues. On the Day of Pentecost there were 3000 and they all 'continued stedfastly'.

A godly minister was once walking down the street and his attention was drawn to a drunkard lying in the gutter.

'There is one of your converts!' someone called.

'Yes,' replied the minister, 'it looks like my work. If it had been God's work, he would not be lying there!'

The Bible also speaks of the new birth, the giving of a new life, life from God in the heart. It is this that causes the conversion, the turning round. So the new birth (regeneration it is sometimes called) must come before everything else. A baby is born; then it begins to cry, hunger, thirst, move, etc. When we are born again, we begin to hunger and thirst after Christ, and to move in different ways.

As this is completely God's work, it does not matter how bad the person was before. There are countless stories of most wicked persons whose hearts and lives have been changed by God's grace. A man once went to hear George Whitefield preach, carrying several stones to throw at his head during the sermon. But as the sermon began, the stones one by one were dropped on the floor. (Instead of the man breaking Whitefield's head, God broke the man's heart.) Another time a man climbed on a table in a public house to mimic Whitefield's preaching; but as he spoke his own words affected his heart, and he fled from the place in deep sorrow of soul. He became a godly man and a minister.

The Lord Jesus clearly preached the new birth and the point He insisted on was that it is vital. There is no substitute for it. We often go into a shop and are told, 'We don't have what you want, but we have something that is just as good.' There is no substitute for the new birth.

Nicodemus, who was a ruler among the Jews (we might say, a Member of Parliament), came to Jesus secretly by night. Outwardly he was a good man, a religious man, and he spoke so kindly to the Lord Jesus. But Jesus came straight to the point: 'Ye must be born again.' No salvation without it! In other words: Nicodemus all your religion and good works will not do. You are wrong at heart. You need that complete change, that new life that only God can give.

The important thing in the change is new life. Often in the Bible it is compared to a resurrection. What Jesus did for Jairus' daughter, Lazarus, and the widow of Nain's son, we need Him to do for us. Sometimes going into a house we notice a beautiful display of colourful flowers. On going up to them, though, we find they are artificial. There is no life. We do not want to be like the artificial flowers.

Where there is this life given, this change, we repent and believe. There is so much in the Bible about repentance and faith.

We need to repent because of our sin, our disobedience, our rebellion against God. Jesus preached that 'men ought to repent'. So John the Baptist preached repentance, and the Apostles preached repentance. It is very clear that there is no forgiveness without repentance.

What is repentance? To be sorry for our sins and turn from them to God. It is a turning round (like the clock). How we need to be sorry for all our sins, and to confess them! But what good is it if we even weep about our sins, and still go on the same? The little children's hymn is very much to the point:

Repentance is to leave

The sins we loved before,

And show that we in earnest grieve

By doing them no more.

We well remember an old man, a ruffian, well known in the town, who came to chapel once a year at the anniversary. Throughout the service he would weep, and at the end would say, 'I know this is where I should be! I know this is where I should be!' Then we would not see him for another year. One year he was not there; he had taken his own life. Tears, however many, without forsaking sin—that is not repentance.

Then there is faith. This is not just to believe that Jesus lived, and died, and rose again, but to trust Him. And both repentance and faith are the gift of God. Where there is real conversion, where the new birth takes place, then we renounce any hope in ourselves, or any confidence in what we have done, and trust only in the Lord Jesus.

How important that little word only is! At the time of the Reformation the great debate between Protestants and Roman Catholics was about justification by faith. But the Roman Catholics were willing to agree to justification by faith—so long as the word 'only' or 'alone' was left out. 'Be sure you don't give up that word only,'' was the advice given to a few ministers as they journeyed to a debate with their opponents.

Faith is personal and there is always that element of trust in it. How much there is in the story of Blondin, the famous tightrope walker! He could walk blindfold across a tightrope stretched over the Niagara Falls. He could even push a man across in a wheelbarrow, unbelievable as it seems! On one occasion he was talking to a friend about his achievements. He asked the friend if he really believed that he could push a man safely across. 'Yes,' said his friend. Blondin pressed him on this point as to whether he really believed it would be safe.

I have no doubt at all, from what I know of your ability, of the man's safety.'

But he would not climb into the wheelbarrow! He did not really trust him!

How important is the Holy Spirit's work in the new birth, enabling us to turn from sin to God, and to trust the Lord Jesus!

To quote Whitefield once more: he was once staying at a house where he was treated with the greatest courtesy and kindness. However, sadly, he could see they were strangers to the new birth. Praying as to how he could deal with the matter, he picked up a diamond ring and wrote on the mirror, 'yet one thing thou lackest', and God made that word a blessing.

On one occasion the Lord Jesus was asked, 'Are there few that be saved?' They just wanted to satisfy their curiosity: 'Are there few that be saved?' Jesus answered their question, but not as they expected: 'Strive to enter in at the strait gate.' In other words: What about yourself!

'One thing is needful' (Luke 10: 42).

'Ye must be born again' (John 3: 7).

'Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God' (John 3: 5).

'Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven' (Matthew 18:3).

'Except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish' (Luke 13: 3, 5).

Suggested Bible readings
John 3: 1-17.
Ephesians 2: 1-9.

Bible Doctrines Simply Explained. B. A. Ramsbottom. Gospel Standard Trust Publications. 1986.69 Lanngham Gardens, Grange Park. London N21 1DL, England.

Remember Lot's Wife

by

J. C. Ryle
(1816-1900)


There are few warnings in Scripture more solemn than this. The Lord Jesus Christ says to us, "Remember Lot's wife."

Lot's wife was a professor of religion: her husband was a "righteous man" (II Peter 2:8). She left Sodom with him on the day when Sodom was destroyed; she looked back towards the city from behind her husband, against God's express command; she was struck dead at once, and turned into a pillar of salt. And the Lord Jesus Christ holds her up as a beacon to His church: He says, "Remember Lot's wife."

It is a solemn warning, when we think of the person Jesus names. He does not bid us remember Abraham, or Isaac, or Jacob, or Sarah, or Hannah, or Ruth. No: He singles out one whose soul was lost for ever. He cries to us, "Remember Lot's wife."

It is a solemn warning, when we consider the subject Jesus is upon. He is speaking of His own second coming to judge the world: He is describing the awful state of unreadiness in which many will be found. The last days are on His mind, when He says, "Remember Lot's wife."

It is a solemn warning, when we think of the Person who gives it. The Lord Jesus is full of love, mercy, and compassion: He is One who will not break the bruised reed nor quench the smoking flax He could weep over unbelieving Jerusalem, and pray for the men that crucified Him; yet even He thinks it good to give this solemn warning and remind us of lost souls. Even He says, "Remember Lot's wife."

It is a solemn warning, when we think of the persons to whom it was first given. The Lord Jesus was speaking to His disciples: He was not addressing the Scribes and Pharisees who hated him, but Peter, James, and John, and many others who loved Him: yet even to them He thinks good to address a caution. Even to them He says, "Remember Lot's wife."

It is a solemn warning, when we consider the manner in which it was given. He does not merely say, "Beware of following-take heed of imitating-do not be like Lot's wife." He uses a different word: He says, "Remember" He speaks as if we were all in danger of forgetting the subject; He stirs up our lazy memories; He bids us keep the case before our minds. He cries, "Remember Lot's wife."

I will speak of the religious privileges which Lot's wife enjoyed.

In the days of Abraham and Lot, true saving religion was scarce upon earth; there were no Bibles, no ministers, no churches, no tracts, no missionaries. The knowledge of God was confined to a few favoured families; the greater part of the inhabitants of the world were living in darkness, ignorance, superstition, and sin. Not one in a hundred perhaps had such good example, such spiritual society, such clear knowledge, such plain warnings as Lot's wife. Compared with millions of her fellow-creatures in her time, Lot's wife was a favoured woman.

She had a godly man for her husband: she had Abraham, the father of the faithful for her uncle by marriage. The faith, the knowledge, and the prayers of these two righteous men could have been no secret to her. It is impossible that she could have dwelt in tents with them for any length of time, without knowing whose they were and whom they served. Religion with them was no formal business; it was the ruling principle of their lives and the mainspring of their actions. All this Lot's wife must have seen and known. This was no small privilege.

When Abraham first received the promises, it is probable Lot's wife was there. when he built his tent between Hai and Bethel, it is probable she was there...when the angels came to Sodom and warned her husband to flee, she saw them; when they took them by the hand and led them out of the city, she was one of those whom they helped to escape. Once more, I say, these were no small privileges.

Yet what good effect had all these privileges on the heart of Lot's wife? None at all. Notwithstanding all her opportunities and means of grace-not-withstanding all her special warnings and messages from heaven-she lived and died graceless, godless, impenitent, and unbelieving. The eyes of her understanding were never opened; her conscience was never really aroused and quickened; her will was never really brought into a state of obedience to God; her affections were never really set on things above. The form of religion which she had was kept up for fashion's sake and not from feeling: it was a cloak worn for the sake of pleasing her company, but not from any sense of its value. She did as others around her in Lot's house: she conformed to her husband's ways: she made no opposition to his religion: she allowed herself to be passively towed along in his wake: but all this time her heart was wrong in the sight of God. The world was in her heart, and her heart was in the world. In this state she lived, and in this state she died.

In all this there is much to be learned: I see a lesson here which is of the greatest importance in the present day. You live in times when there are many persons just like Lot's wife: Come and hear the lesson which her case is meant to teach.

Learn, then, that the mere possession of religious privileges will save no one's soul. You may have spiritual advantages of every description; you may live in the full sunshine of the richest opportunities and means of grace; you may enjoy the best of preaching and the choicest instruction; you may dwell in the midst of light, knowledge, holiness, and good company. All this may be, and yet you yourself may remain unconverted, and at last be lost for ever.

I dare say this doctrine sounds hard to some readers. I know that many fancy they want nothing but religious privileges in order to become decided Christians. They are not what they ought to be at present, they allow; but their position is so hard, they plead, and their difficulties are so many. Give them a godly husband, or a godly wife-give them godly companions, or a godly master-give them the preaching of the gospel-give them privileges, and then they would walk with God.

It is all a mistake. It is an entire delusion. It requires something more than privileges to save souls. Joab was David's captain; Gehazi was Elisha's servant; Demas was Paul's companion; Judas Iscariot was Christ's disciple; and Lot had a worldly, unbelieving wife. These all died in their sins. They went down to the pit in spite of knowledge, warnings, and opportunities; and they all teach us that it is not privileges alone that men need. They need the grace of the Holy Ghost.

Let us value our religious privileges, but let us not rest entirely upon them. Let us desire to have the benefit of them in all our movements in life, but let us not put them in the place of Christ. Let us use them thankfully, if God gives them to us, but let us take care they produce some fruit in our heart and life. If they do not do good, they often do positive harm; they sear the conscience, they increase responsibility, they aggravate condemnation. The same fire which melts the wax hardens the clay; the same sun which makes the living tree grow, dries up the dead tree, and prepares it for burning. Nothing so hardens the heart of man as a barren familiarity with sacred things. Once more I say, it is not privileges alone which make people Christians, but the grace of the Holy Ghost Without that no man will ever be saved.

I ask those who attend a sound ministry in the present day to mark well what I am saying. You go to Mr. A's, or Mr. B's church: you think him an excellent preacher; you delight in his sermons; you cannot hear anyone else with the same comfort; you have learned many things since you attended his ministry; you consider it a privilege to be one of his hearers! All this is very good. It is a privilege. I should be thankful if ministers like yours were multiplied a thousandfold. But, after all, what have you got in your heart? Have you yet received the Holy Ghost? if not, you are no better than Lot's wife.

I ask the children of religious parents to mark well what I am saying. It is the highest privilege to be the child of a godly father and mother, and to be brought up in the midst of many prayers. It is a blessed thing indeed to be taught the gospel from our earliest in-fancy, and to hear of sin, and Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, and holiness, and heaven, from the first moment we can remember anything. But, O, take heed that you do not remain barren and unfruitful in the sunshine of all these privileges: beware lest your hearts remain hard, impenitent, and worldly, not-withstanding the many advantages you enjoy. You cannot enter the kingdom of God on the credit of your parents' religion. You must eat the bread of life for yourself, and have the witness of the Spirit in your own heart. You must have repentance of your own, faith of your own, and sanctification of your own. If not' you are no better than Lot's wife.

I pray God that all professing Christians in these days may lay these things to heart. May we never forget that privileges alone cannot save us. Light and knowledge, and faithful preaching, and abundant means of grace, and the company of holy people are all great blessings and advantages. Happy are they that have them! But after all, there is one thing without which privileges are useless: that one thing is the grace of the Holy Ghost. Lot's wife had many privileges; but Lot's wife had not grace.

Machida!

Divine Energy

"...sin is not an accidental distemper, which is catched or communicated like as some evil diseases of the body are said to be; nor is actual sin first learned from bad examples, though these, no doubt, do much confirm it, and render reformation more difficult. And that childhood, youth, and old age, go astray, more from principle than example, our Lord declares in these words; "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and defile the man," Mark 7:21, 22, 23."

and

"...by the preaching of the everlasting gospel, being accompanied with the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven. By the former, "He spoiled, (i.e. disarmed,) principalities and powers, making a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it," Colossians 2:15: and by the latter he pursued the grand design, which was to divide the spoil with Satan, according to a prior engagement upon the Father’s part, as it is written; "Therefore will I divide him, (i.e. the Messias,) a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong: because he poured out his soul unto death," Isaiah 53:12. From which text, by the way, you may observe that Christ is only to take a part, and not the whole; "he divides the spoil with the strong," by taking his own sheep from among the devil’s goats; which before conversion He mixed together, and are only known to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, until he, who is the "Good Shepherd, and knows his sheep by name," is pleased to call them out, and bring them into his own sheepfold."

http://www.standardbearer.org/Shop/Detail.aspx?ID=429

Strict Communion, a letter from Fuller...

STRICT COMMUNION IN THE MISSION CHURCH AT SERAMPORE.
[Letter to the Editor of the Instructor, Jan. 28th, 1814.]

I BY no means wish to obtrude myself on you or your readers; but the letter, by "A Paedobaptist," which you inserted in your paper of the 10th instant, calls upon me for an answer.

It is true that the Baptist missionaries at Serampore do practise strict communion. It is also true that they did so from the beginning, till within the last three or four years, when they agreed to admit of open communion. After this the question was resumed and discussed. The result was that they determined to return to their original practice. As to any injunction, I know of none. Most of our churches in England practise strict communion. but do not "enjoin" it upon other churches; and I suppose it is the same with the churches at Serampore and Calcutta. They may recommend whatever they think right, without enjoining it.

I can easily conceive that these changes would cause some feelings among Baptists differently minded on the subject, but cannot conceive why our Paedobaptist brethren should take offence at it. Those Baptists who practise open communion do not mean to acknowledge the validity of paedobaptism. Had they rather then be admissible into our churches as unbaptized in the account of their brethren, than not at all? If so, to be sure we ought to feel obliged by their good opinion of us; as, after all that they have said and written and done against us, they cannot really think ill of us.

But is it true that our Paedobaptist brethren seriously wish us to practise open communion? I give them the fullest credit for desiring as Christians to be in fellowship with us, and with all other Christians; and this also is our desire as much as it is theirs. But, as Paedobaptists, do they wish us to admit them to communion, without acknowledging the validity of their baptism? This is the question; and from all that I have read of their writings on the subject, however they may complain of strict communion, they cannot answer in the affirmative.

Dr. Worcester, in his friendly letter to Dr. Baldwin, though he pleads for a free communion between Baptists and Paedobaptists, and avows it to be the object of his pamphlet, yet allows that "if professed believers are the only proper subjects for baptism, and if immersion be not a mere circumstance or mode of baptism, but essential to the ordinance, so that he who is not immersed is not baptized, the sentiment of strict communion would be sufficiently established." Now Dr. Worcester's premises are our most decided principles, and this whether we practise strict or open communion. He therefore admits our practice to be sufficiently established, and has only to complain of us for not allowing the validity of their baptism; that is, for being Baptists.

The same is manifest from a review of Mr. Booth's Apology in the Evangelical Magazine. The reviewer makes nothing of free communion, unless it were on the principle of admitting the validity of paedobaptism. Those Baptists who practise it, he leaves to defend themselves as they can. The result is, that the real objection against us respects us not as strict nor as open communionists, but as Baptists. In other words, that the only open communion that would give satisfaction must include an acknowledgment of the validity of paedobaptism, which, for any Baptist to make, would be ceasing to be a Baptist.

Andrew Fuller.

Strict Communion

by John Dagg

When a church receives an unbaptized person, something more is done than merely to tolerate his error. There are two parties concerned. The acts of entering the church and partaking of its communion are his, and for them he is responsible. The church also acts when it admits him to membership, and authorizes his participation of the communion. The church, as an organized body, with power to receive and exclude members according to rules which Christ has laid down, is responsible for the exercise of this power. Each individual disciple of Christ is bound, for himself, to obey perfectly the will of his Master. Whatever tolerance he may exercise towards the errors of others, he should tolerate none in himself. Though he may see but a single fault in his brother, he ought, while imitating all that brother's excellencies, carefully to avoid this fault. He may not neglect the tithing of mint, though he should find an example of such neglect accompanied with a perfect obedience of every moral precept.

and

The members of a church, who understand the law of Christ, are bound to observe it strictly, whatever may be the ignorance and errors of others. For them to admit unbaptized persons to membership, is to subvert a known law of Christ. Though there be unbaptized persons surpassing in every spiritual excellence, and though the candidate for admission excel them all, yet the single question for the church is, shall its order be established according to the will of God, or shall it not.

and

We are aware that the practice of strict communion is considered offensive by a large part of the Christian community. We lament this fact; and if the arguments which have been adduced in defence of our practice, have failed to produce a conviction of its propriety, we would still crave from our brethren the forbearance and toleration for which they plead in behalf of the weak in faith. We conscientiously believe that we are doing the Lord's will; and we would gladly invite every child of God to unite in our simple ceremonial observance, if we had the divine approbation. But we believe that the purpose for which the observance was instituted, and the divine will by which it ought to be regulated, require the restrictions under which we act.

and

When Pedobaptists complain of our strict communion, we would remind them that they hold the principle in common with us, and practice on it in their own way. If they have aught to object, let it be at that in which we differ from them, and not at that in which we agree. The contrary course is not likely to produce unity of opinion, or to promote that harmony of Christian feeling which ought to subsist among the followers of our Lord. When Baptists object to strict communion, we would propose the inquiry, Whether they do not attach undue importance to the eucharist, in comparison with baptism. Mr. Hall calls the eucharist a principal spiritual function. In this view of it, he complains that the privilege of partaking in it should be denied to any. Is it more spiritual than baptism? If not, why should baptism be trodden under foot, to open the way of access to the eucharist? When both ceremonies were supposed to possess a saving efficacy, the proper order of their observance was still maintained; much more should it be maintained, if both are mere ceremonies. If baptism were a mere ceremony, and the eucharist a principal spiritual function, the arguments for open communion would have a force which they do not now possess: but our brethren will not defend this position.

from Principles and Practices for Baptist Churches

“Among all the persons that are recorded as baptized by the Apostles, there is no express mention of infants.” Wall, History of Infant Baptism, Introd., pp. I, 55. (Anglican)

“We do freely confess there is neither express precept nor precedent in the New Testament for the baptizing of infants.” Fuller, Infant’s Advoc., pp. 71, 150

“There is no express precept or rule given in the New Testament for the baptism of infants.” Burnett, Expos. 39 Articles, 27 Art.

“I conclude that all examples of baptism in Scripture do mention only the administration of it to the professors of saving faith; and the precepts give us no other direction.” Baxter, Disput. Of Right to the Sacra., p. 156.

“Baptism supposeth regeneration sure in itself first. Sacraments are never administered to begin or to work grace. You suppose children to believe before you baptize them. Read all the Acts: still it is said, ‘they believed, and were baptized.’” Goodwin, Works, Vol. I., part I., p. 200

From Gadsby's Catechism

Q.25 What is meant by a covenant of grace?

ANSWER. The covenant engagement entered into, in the counsels of eternity, by the Triune God in behalf of the elect; in which covenant the elect were given to the Person of the Son, and made His care and charge, and all spiritual blessings were treasured up and secured in Him, and so made sure to all the seed of promise. (2Sam. 23.5; Psa. 89.27-37; Isa. 55.3; Hos. 2. 23; Jn. 17.2; Heb. 2.13 & 8.10.)

Q.26 On whom did the conditions of the covenant fall?

ANSWER. The Second Person in the Trinity, who, knowing the elect would destroy themselves by sin, engaged to be accountable for them, and to take all the consequences connected therewith upon Himself, and in His own time to send them the Holy Spirit, who should teach them all truth; and, at last, present them to Himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing. (Isa. 9. 6-7; Jn. 16.7-14 & 17.8-15; Eph. 5.25-27; Heb. 9.28.)

Q.27 Is there anything in the covenant of grace of a precarious or uncertain nature?

ANSWER. No; for it is ordered in all things and sure, and is confirmed by the promise and oath of God. (2Sam. 23.5; Psa. 89. 33-37; Jer. 33.20-21; Matt. 24. 35; Jn. 17.12, 24; Rom. 11.29.)

Q.28 Are the called according to God's purpose to take any consolation from the glory and stability of this covenant?

ANSWER. Yes; for it contains all their salvation, and all their desire. (2Sam. 23.5; Isa. 54.10; Jn. 10.28-29; Heb. 6.17-20.)

Q.29 Who is the Redeemer of God's elect?

ANSWER. The only Redeemer of God's elect is the Lord Jesus Christ who, being the Lord of life and glory, became man, and so was, and continues to be, God and Man in two distinct natures but one Person for ever. (Gen. 3.15; Matt. 1.21, 23; Jn. 1.14; 1 Tim. 2.5 & 3.16; Heb. 1.1-9 & 2.9 & 13.8.)

Too many Bibles, so little time...

Product Description:

* Unique features (in addition to those of the other editions of the Complete Orthodox Study Bible):
* Genuine first-quality leather cover, with gold foil stamping on the full front cover* Four ribbon markers (most Bibles only have one or two ribbons)* A special gold gift presentation box—great for gift giving!

Jerusalem Blade's posts (a partial compilation)

Johannine Comma thread

Nolan on 1 John 5:7: Johannine Comma

Minute vs. adequate preservation: Johannine Comma

Pickering on the early history of the text: Johannine Comma

Holland on 1 John 5:7: Johannine Comma



"Phantom Manuscripts"? thread

"Phantom Manuscripts"?




WCF 1.8 and CT thread

Extended quote of Letis on Warfield and WCF 1:8: WCF 1.8 and CT

and: WCF 1.8 and CT

Burgon on Matt 5:22: WCF 1.8 and CT




KJV-Only Versus Byzantine Superiority thread

Burgon on John 3:13: KJV-Only Versus Byzantine Superiority



Textual Manuscripts thread

Lane vs. Steve on Alexandrian/W&H (& Asa – Amon): Textual Manuscripts?




What is the authentic New Testament text? thread: (A partial list of contents in the OP)

What is the authentic New Testament text?

Quoting Letis’ essay responding to D.A. Carson: What is the authentic New Testament text?



CONCERNING ERASMUS (Coats, Cloud, etc): What is the authentic New Testament text?

Letis / Borland on Asa and Amon (Matt 1:7, 10 ESV): What is the authentic New Testament text?

Kirsopp Lake, “It is hard to resist the conclusion that the scribes usually destroyed their exemplars when they had copied the sacred books.”: What is the authentic New Testament text?




Do Many Scholars Prefer the Majority Text? thread

Byz priority: "Do Many Scholars Prefer the Majority Text?"



TTer gone CTer thread (many posts)

Warfield assertion countered by Lake: TTer gone CTer


Answering Alan Kurschner of aomin thread

Answering Alan Kurschner of aomin

Hort on early Byz majority: Answering Alan Kurschner of aomin

Borland essay; Lake, allegation Alexandrian text majority examined: ibid

W&H text not the same as CT/ET per White: Answering Alan Kurschner of aomin



History of the KJV and TR thread

Owen on variants (from Letis): History of KJV and TR


A History Of The Authorized Version thread

Extended discussion of the Septuagint starting at post #40: A History Of The Authorized Version



Byzantine readings of Paul thread

Byzantine readings of Paul

Pickering and Robinson on “no early Byz mss”: Byzantine readings of Paul



Do textual variants give us confidence? thread

Some posts on the OT text: Do textual variants give us confidence?


Verses omitted from the ESV thread

Extensive Nolan quote: Verses ommited from the ESV


Linguistic Superiority between Geneva and KJV? thread

Links to “Easter” discussions in KJV: Linguistic Superiority between Geneva and KJV?


Responding to James White of AOMIN thread

Responding to James White of AOMIN


Pascha in Acts 12:4 thread (re “Easter”) thread

Steve’s input starting in post #10: Pascha in Acts 12:4


Defending the Lord's Prayer 1 thread (Matt 6)

Defending the Lord's Prayer 1


Defending the Lord's Prayer 2 thread (Luke 11)

Defending the Lord's Prayer 2



On Gathering Intelligence and Evidence thread
On Gathering Intelligence and Evidence


Why do KJ Only types believe the Westcott and Hort manuscripts are bad? thread (my first post #14)

Why do KJ Only types believe the Westcott and Hort manuscripts are bad?


pierced/like a lion...need Hebrew help thread

pierced/like a lion...need Hebrew help



NASB / ESV Revisions?? thread

NASB / ESV Revisions??



THE ASCENDANCY OF THE CRITICAL TEXT thread (bare-knuckled poem)

THE ASCENDANCY OF THE CRITICAL TEXT



On Enoch in Jude thread

Peter Enns, A Blog

A History Of The Authorized Version



Colossians 1:14 thread

Colossians 1:14



Did Lazarus write the Gospel of John? thread (starting at post #18)

Did Lazarus write the Gospel of John?



The Occult in the late 19th, early 20th centuries

The Occult in the late 19th, early 20th centuries


Inspired in Teachings Only? thread

Inspired in Teachings Only?




Biblical Preservation thread (RE: Tischendorf rescued [Codex Sinaiticus] from a waste basket)
/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/biblical-preservation-17739/#post223739



Mark 16:12 thread

http://www.puritanboard.com/f44/mark-16-12-a-20445/



John 7:53-8:11 thread

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/john-7-53-8-11-a-25089/



King James Only Movement thread

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/king-james-only-movement-36217/



Verbal Plenary Preservation thread

Discussion of Reformation texts: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/verbal-plenary-preservation-21765/

Arians in power for 50 years in Greek empire: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/verbal-plenary-preservation-21765/#post273656

Epictetus wrote;

It is circumstances (difficulties) which show what men are. Therefore when a difficulty falls upon you, remember that God, like a trainer of wrestlers, has matched you with a rough young man. For what purpose? you may say. Why, that you may become an Olympic conqueror; but it is not accomplished without sweat. In my opinion no man has had a more profitable difficulty than you have had, if you choose to make use of it as an athlete would deal with a young antagonist. (Discourses 1.24.1–2, trans. Long)

To be instructed is this, to learn to wish that every thing may happen as it does. And how do things happen? As the disposer [i.e., God] has disposed them. And he has appointed summer and winter, and abundance and scarcity, and virtue and vice, and all such opposites for the harmony of the whole; and to each of us he has given a body, and parts of the body, and possessions, and companions. Remembering then this disposition of things, we ought to go to be instructed, not that we may change the constitution of things, – for we have not the power to do it, nor is it better that we should have the power, – but in order that, as the things around us are what they are and by nature exist, we may maintain our minds in harmony with the things which happen. (Discourses 1.12.15–17, trans. Long)

The wise and good man … submits his own mind to him who administers the whole [i.e., God], as good citizens do to the law of the state. He who is receiving instruction ought to come to be instructed with this intention, How shall I follow the gods in all things, how shall I be contented with the divine administration, and how can I become free? For he is free to whom every thing happens according to his will [prohairesis], and whom no man can hinder. (Discourses 1.12.7–9, trans. Long)

A call to self-examination

by Benjamin Keach

What can render the state of a person worse than to be an enemy of God, Jesus Christ, and the power of godliness; and yet to think he is holy and a good Christian? Nay, because his conscience is blind in the matter, it acquits him since it lacks saving light, while he keeps up in a zealous performance of the external acts of duty and religion; by which means he is deprived of that help which some openly profane gain from the rebukes and lashes of their own consciences, which often proves a means of their conversion. But the hypocritical professor, not knowing he lacks a changed heart, nor understanding that he is without those Sacred Principles from whence should flow all he acts and does, but contrariwise he is stirred up by false Principles, and acts only by the power of natural conscience and affections, having no clear judgment to discern his own danger, nor what a state he is still in. His condition is deplorable, and this unclean spirit is worse and more dangerous than that which he was in before.

Their blindness and ignorance consists in that they cannot discern nor distinguish between a changed heart and a changed life, or between legal reformation and true regeneration. They think, because their behavior seems so much better than it was before, in their own apprehension, and in the apprehension of others also, their condition is good enough. They comparing themselves with themselves, beholding what a vast difference there is, or seems to be in respect of what they once were, when swearers, drunkards, whoremongers, etc., cannot but commend themselves to themselves. Once they saw themselves sinners, and called themselves so, and were ashamed of their own sinful and wicked lives; but now they are righteous in their own eyes, and so have no need of any further work, being arrived to that state of holiness (so they think) to that degree of piety, to that change, to that conversion, that they conclude they need not seek for further change and yet they are deceived...

The state of the self-righteous and Pharisaical persons is far worse than the state of gross and profane sinners. These are sick and know it not; wounded, but see no need of a physician... They may conclude they are converted, and therefore seek not after conversion.

It is a hard and difficult thing to bring a Pharisaical person, one that looks upon himself to be a religious man, to see his woeful state and condition.

Men may be civilized, and make a great profession of religion, and pass for saints on the earth, that are not such in the sight of God in heaven.

It is a most dangerous thing to make a profession of religion without true regeneration being first wrought in the soul; better to be no professors at all, than not so as to be sincere...

This may inform us of the cause and reason there is so great reproach brought upon religion, and on the ways of God, and on the people of God, by some who profess the gospel. Alas, many of them who are called saints, we may fear are but counterfeit Christians, such as who never experienced a true work of grace; they may have knowing heads, but unsanctified hearts...

Moreover, it sharply reproves those preachers whose great business is to bring men into visible profession, and make them members of churches, whose preaching tends more to bring persons to baptism, and to subject to external ordinances, than to show them the necessity of regeneration, faith, or a changed heart. For the Lord's sake take heed what you do, if you would be pure from the blood of all men. We too often see when people are got into churches, they conclude all is well; and when conversion is preached, they do not think it concerns them, but other people who are openly profane: and thus they come to be blinded, maybe to their own destruction...

It may also put us all upon a strict examination of our own hearts, lest we should be found to be some of these false and counterfeit Christians. And that we may clear ourselves in this matter; consider:

1. Were you ever thoroughly convinced of your sinful and lost condition by nature, and of that horrid evil there is in sin? Did you ever see sin as the greatest evil, most hateful to God, not only of the evil effects of sin, but also of the evil nature of sin, not only as it has made a breach between God and man, but has also defaced the Image of God in man, and made us like the devil, filling our minds with enmity against God, godliness, and good men?

2. Is there no secret sin lived in and favored, the evil habit never being broke? Is not the world more in your affections, desires, and thoughts, than Jesus Christ?

3. Are you willing to suffer and part with all that you have, rather than sin against God? Do you see more evil in the least sin, than in the greatest suffering?

4. Do you as much desire to have your sins mortified as pardoned, to be made holy as well as to be made happy? Do you love the work of holiness as well as the reward of holiness? Do you love the Word of God for that purity which is in it, as well as the advantage that comes by it?

5. Have you seen your own righteousness as filthy rags, and have you been made poor in spirit?

6. Have you received a whole Christ with a whole heart? A whole Christ comprehends all His offices (prophet, priest, and king), and a whole heart includes all our faculties. Is not your heart divided?

7. Is Christ precious to you, even the chiefest among ten thousand? Are you the same in private as in public? Do you love Christ above son or daughter? Do you love the Person of Christ?

8. Can you bear reproof kindly to your faults, and look upon him your best friend, that deals most plainly with you?

9. Do you more pry into your own faults, than the miscarriages of others? Are you universal in your obedience? Do you obey Christ's Word, His commands, because you love Him?

10. Have you been the same in a day of adversity, as now you are in a day of prosperity?

11. Can you say you hate sin as sin? Is your mind spiritual, and set upon heavenly things? Do you love the saints, all the saints, though some of them are not of your sentiments in some points of religion?

12. Can you go comfortably on in the ways of Christ, though you meet with little esteem among the saints? Can you stay your souls upon God, though in darkness, having no light? Is all the stress of your justification and salvation built upon Jesus Christ?

Consider these few questions, and do not doubt but that your hearts are sincere, when you can give a comfortable answer to them, though it be with some fear and doubts that still may arise in you. A true Christian is ready to mistake what belongs to him, and take that to be his, that belongs to an hypocrite; while, on the other hand, an hypocrite mistakes that which belongs to him, and applies that to himself, which is the portion of sincere Christians. - Benjamin Keach

Taken from The Counterfeit Christian or the Danger of Hypocrisy by Benjamin Keach, (London: John Pike, 1691). Some archaic words have been modernized.

Do not quickly read these questions and forget about them. Many professing Christians today are simply outwardly religious, but their hearts have not been changed by the regenerating power of God. Christ demands the supreme place in your heart and affections. If you love anything more than Christ; if you love anything equal to Christ (though you may have a wealth of biblical knowledge); you are not a child of God. "Do not be deceived" (Galatians 6:7).