Which Bible Version Should I Use?

As I begin this post, I want others to understand that I’m not sure there is another issue in American evangelical Protestantism which is as controversial and divisive as this issue. At the same time, I'm not sure there is another issue as unimportant as this one about which Christians are divided. But it is the source of continual argument among some believers.

Quite often our church secretaries get phone calls from new people or vacationers in our area who are interested in attending our church, and sometimes the conversation goes somewhat like this: “What Bible version does your pastor teach from? Does he use the Authorized Version?”

Now by that statement, the caller is trying to find out if our church is a King James Only church or not. And the simple answer is, we are not. There is a multiplicity of Bible versions used in our church. Our pastor, associate pastor, and other elders all teach from the New American Standard Bible, but there are many who come who use other versions.

Now that doesn’t mean we have anything against the King James Version (KJV). In fact, I grew up using that version of the Bible, because it was overwhelmingly the most common version available at that time. And many people, particularly our older saints in the congregation, still use it because of their familiarity with it. But the KJV’s solitary status among translations has diminished drastically over time.

Step into any Christian bookstore today and you are immediately confronted with an abundance of English Bible translations. The King James Version is still there, but now we have the New International Version (NIV), the New Living Translation (NLT), the English Standard Version (ESV), the New King James Version (NKJV), the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), the Holman Christian Standard Version (HCSV), the New English Translation (NET), the Contemporary English Version (CEV) and many more. In fact, I understand that at the present time, in the English language, there are 25 different versions of the entire Bible and 40 different versions of just the New Testament.

Among those twenty-five different English translations of the Bible that are available, many are revisions of existing translations. Others are new translations that are attempts to make the Bible more readable, by making the language simpler. Here is a listing of the grade reading level of the various Bible versions:

• KJV – 12^th grade
• NASB – 11^th grade
• NKJV – 8^th grade
• NRSV – 8^th grade
• ESV – 8^th grade
• NIV – 7^th grade
• HCSV – 7^th grade
• NLT – 6^th grade
• CEV – 4^th grade

Now, I am all for having versions of the Scriptures that are more understandable to the reader. However, one of the problems with making Bibles easier and simpler to read is that the publishers have missed the point that understanding a Bible is not just a matter of grade reading level. There is also the issue of the Holy Spirit guiding the reader into truth, and the student applying himself to study and read for understanding.

In other words, if an individual is a college graduate, but still can’t understand his NIV, the problem is not the reading level of the Bible; the problem is either that he isn’t really a true believer whom the Holy Spirit is indwelling and leading to an understanding of the truth; or if he is a believer, he isn’t applying his heart and mind with diligence to study and understand it.

The question naturally arises, why does this situation of having so many versions exist? There are a couple of reasons. First, there are different texts that are used in the translations.

First, there are Bibles which are based on what is known as the Majority Text. The translators of those versions followed the principle that whatever the majority of manuscripts say is the correct translation. Thus, those versions are based on many manuscripts, but many of them were copied over 1,000 years after the originals. Most of those manuscripts were simply copies of a copy, rather than being a copy of the original. The Bible versions which follow the Majority Text view include the KJV and the NKJV.

Second, there are Bibles which are based on what is known as the Critical Text. The translators of those Bible versions followed the principle that whatever the older manuscripts say is more reliable because there is less chance for scribal error or revisions because it is closer to the original manuscript. Thus, those versions are based on fewer, but older manuscripts; many written within the first four centuries after Christ. The Bible versions which follow the Critical Text view include the NASB, NIV, ESV, HCSV, NET, NRSV, and CEV.

Another reason for the plethora of translations is that there are different translation philosophies at work. One view holds to what is known as formal or literal equivalence; that is, the translators attempted to translate from the original language into another while retaining as much as possible the exact, original forms of the first language. The Bible versions which use that methodology include the KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, and the NRSV.

Another translation philosophy is known as dynamic equivalence. This philosophy attempts to translate the text from the original language into another with a goal of translating the intention or meaning of the original without regard to the exact forms of the first language. The Bible versions which use that methodology include the NIV, NLT, CEV, and the NET.

Perhaps it would help to give an example of the difference between functional and dynamic equivalence. There is an idiomatic expression in the Spanish language which says, “Otro gallo nos cantará.” It literally is translated as: “Another (or different) rooster will sing for us.” We have an English language idiomatic expression which is the functional equivalent, which is: “That’s a horse of a different color.” However, the dynamic equivalent would be: “That’s another matter all together.”

So, dynamic equivalence does not literally translate the original language, but it does give you a translation that hopefully conveys the same meaning. However, it does require that the translator interpret for the reader what the original writer meant by what he wrote rather than simply translating it literally and then letting the reader interpret for himself what the writer meant.

There is a very heated battle about whether literal equivalence or dynamic equivalence is more appropriate for Bible translation. However, I believe there is a place for both, and their advantages and disadvantages should be carefully understood.

The English language is changing as all languages do. All languages are in a continuous state of flux. For example, the KJV uses a word which I’m sure every reader in 1611 understood: “concupiscence.” However, that word is no longer commonly used in the English language today, so virtually every modern translation, including the NKJV translates the word as “desire” or “lust.”Because of changing language, all translations will eventually be out of date. The advent of the internet and all its related applications has created a greater state of flux than in the past. So English languag Bible translations need to change as well.

However, there is a tendency among evangelicals is to exalt one translation over another. I completely understand that everyone has their favorite version. I have my own. I use the NASB in teaching, but I often read and consult with the ESV and the NET when I’m studying. In fact, I use an electronic organizer (PDA) to keep track of my schedule and in it, I have those three English text Bibles, as well as the New Testament Greek text.

But some people go too far and insist that one version is the only version anyone should use, and the version they invariably choose is the KJV. In fact, there is a whole movement within evangelicalism—particularly in the South—known as the King James Only movement.

Those folks basically teach that God only honors and accepts the KJV, as if He re-inspired the English Bible in 1611. They have vast conspiracy theories and have written countless articles and books trying to prove their point. Perhaps the best known such book is titled New Age Bible Versions by Gail Riplinger. Ms. Riplinger was a major in Industrial and Environmental Design in college. As such, she did not study Greek or Hebrew or the principles of translation.

There are a couple of points the KJV conspiracy theorists miss. First, William Tyndale gave us the English Bible about 90 years before the KJV was published, so why isn’t it considered the real true and genuine English Bible and not the KJV?

Second, the KJV was never authorized by King James. His name was put on it by the translators because they knew it would bring his favor to them. But he never officially authorized it, so it is not actually the “Authorized” Version.

Third, no sound seminary professor of the original languages holds their view. They understand that for each word in the Hebrew or Greek text, there are often many choices of how to translate that word. For example, instead of translating the word “hate” in that way every time, we might also use synonyms such as “despise” or “abhor” or “dislike.”

Fourth, language is not so precise that it must be translated exactly as it was in 1611. We don’t even speak in that type of language today. Jesus told us to go into all the world and make disciples, teaching them to observe all things. As one writer has said, “If the KJV is the only inspired Bible, Jesus should have said, ‘Go into all the world, make disciples, and teach them to read 17^th century English so they can read the official Bible version.’”

It is incredibly sad that we evangelicals will fight over which one of our English text versions is the “correct” Bible to use, while there is a world going to hell without any portion of the Bible in their own language.

My position is that we should recognize the incredible privilege we have in the English speaking world to have so many Bible versions and we should use those privileges accordingly. While I personally prefer a version that follows the formal or literal equivalence approach, my feeling is that you should use the Bible you have. Read it, study it, learn it.

Use a Bible you can understand. If your reading ability is poor, use a dynamic equivalence translation; if your vocabulary is more comprehensive and your reading ability is better, use a formal equivalence translation.

Dynamic equivalence translations are good for those who know little or nothing about the Gospel or the Bible. Formal equivalence translations are good for those who understand biblical concepts and want to focus more carefully and on the exact details and wording of the text.

Recognize that the multiplicity of translations can increase our confidence in the Scriptures. Use this bounty of wealth to your advantage. There is a sense in which every translation falls short of perfectly communicating the original text underneath it. More importantly, there is a sense in which every translation is the Word of God and accurately communicates its sense. Be aware of what is out there and how the translations differ, but more than that, trust the one you have and listen for God’s Word to speak to you from its pages.

The Word of God and False Teachers

I am teaching through the book of 2 Peter in my Sunday School class. Today I started on 1:19-21 and I was reminded once again of the significance and importance of the Word of God being the solitary basis for all that we believe. In verses 16-18, Peter has just given a great explanation of his personal eyewitness account of Jesus' revelation of His glory on the Mount of Transfiguration. In verse 16 he says, "We did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty."

But then Peter comes to verse 19 and he says, "So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place..." In the Greek text, that first phrase can be read, "And we have the more sure prophetic word." I believe that is what Peter is saying; that the Word of God is even more sure than his own eyewitness testimony. Even though Peter's eyewitness account was true and accurate, he wanted his readers to cling to the surety of God's Word. It is the revelation of God Himself, given by His Holy Spirit, and so it is perfectly accurate, perfectly reliable, and perfectly sufficient for everything pertaining to life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3).

It was important for Peter to write those words, because he knew that false teachers were already attempting to undermine the message of God's Word. And one way they would do that would be to come in with so-called "new revelation" and additional information. In their teaching, they would seek to move people away from a firm confidence in God’s Word. And the frightening thing is that they would be effective at doing such.

At the beginning of chapter two, Peter warns them in verse 1 that there will be false teachers among them just like there were false prophets in the Old Testament. And in verse 2, he says: “Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned.” The frightening thing about false teachers is that they are effective, and often they confuse believers and discredit the word of God. Peter says, “You do well to pay attention to the Scriptures”—to the Word that God has given them.

We are to be a people of the light in this darkened world. My concern is not that the world is in darkness; my concern is that the world is trying to dim the light. And one way that Satan dims the light for people is by using the world to convince us that things other than the Bible are just as important to study or are as equally valuable as the Scriptures. And the result is that pastors all over our nation feel compelled to teach those things rather than the unadulterated milk of the Word. And so we have less and less focus on the serious study of the Word of God in our pulpits today.

Consequently, people are not giving attention to the lamp that shines in the midst of darkness. If you talk with those in those churches, you will hear statements such as, “Oh, we are doing good things. We have life-oriented preaching. We have practical sermons. You know, the Bible is a hard book to understand, so we just give people simple things that they can understand.” My response to that is, that approach is just the approach used by the false teacher and believers must be very careful or they can be easily deceived.

If you think I’m too harsh toward them, let me quote for you just a little bit of the transcript from Joel Osteen’s appearance on 60 Minutes this past Sunday night (10/14/07). He was interviewed by NBC Senior Correspondent Byron Pitts. Here is a portion of the transcript as obtained from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/.

Byron Pitts: “You said ‘I like to see myself as a life coach, a motivator to help them experience the life of God that God has for them. People don’t like to be beat down and told ‘You’ve done wrong.’ What do you mean?”

Joel Osteen: “Well, I think that most people already know what they’re doing wrong. And for me to get in here and just beat ‘em down and talk down to ‘em, I just don’t think that inspires anybody to rise higher. But I want to motivate. I wanna motivate every person to leave here to be a better father, a better husband, to break addictions to come up higher in their walk with the Lord.”

Byron Pitts: “I mean is that being a pastor or is that being Dr. Phil or Oprah?”

Joel Osteen: “No, I think we use God’s Word. I think the principles that you hear Dr. Phil and some of those others talk about many times are right out of the Bible.”

Voice Over: His latest book, “Become A Better You,” for which he reportedly got a $13 million advance, goes on sale Oct. 15. They read more like self-help than religion. In his new book, Osteen lays out seven principles he believes will improve our lives.

Byron Pitts: “To become a better you, you must be positive towards yourself, develop better relationships, embrace the place where you are. Not one mention of God in that. Not one mention of Jesus Christ in that.”

Joel Osteen: “That’s just my message. There is Scripture in there that backs it all up. But I feel like, Byron, I’m called to help people…how do we walk out the Christian life? How do we live it? And these are principles that can help you. I mean, there’s a lot better people qualified to say, ‘Here’s a book that going to explain the Scriptures to you.’ I don’t think that’s my gifting.”

Byron Pitts: “Hear what some others have said about you: he’s diluting and dumbing down the Christian message.”

Joel Osteen: “Sometimes you have to keep it simple and not make it so complicated that people don’t understand. But I know what I’m called to do is say ‘I want to help you learn how to forgive today. I want to help you to have the right thoughts today.’ Just simple things.”

I hope you understand that what this man, who draws 42,000 people to his so-called church every week, is saying is that the psycho-babble and drivel that Dr. Phil and Oprah pass out comes from the Bible; that it is unnecessary to mention Jesus Christ when writing to help people deal with their problems (which, by the way, he never calls sin); and that even though he calls himself a pastor, he doesn’t think it is his role or calling to explain the Scriptures to people. Instead of bringing the light of the Word to bear on the problems that people face, he just wants to give them “simple things” to help them overcome the issues they face in life.

Please don't misunderstand me: I believe in teaching the Word of God so that people can understand it. As Chuck Swindoll has said concerning teaching the Bible, "Put the cookies on the lower shelf so that everyone can get some." But that does not mean that we take out the Word, add in the world's wisdom, and think that what remains is what people need to hear. What people actually need to hear is the clear instruction of the Word, taught in such a way that they can apply it to their lives, and then be instructed that they need to obey what it says.

But people need to avoid the false message of men like Joel Osteen. It is a man-centered gospel of self-help that avoids telling people what their true problem is, which is sin, and does nothing but dim the light. But those who pay attention to the Word and commit their lives to knowing and understanding it will find that such men who teach a false gospel will have no impact on them because the light of the Word will illuminate their path so that they can see clearly how to walk the walk of faith.

Halloween: A Satanic Trick...or a Harmless Treat?

Much has been said and expressed among Christians today regarding participation in the activities normally associated with Halloween in the American culture. Many believers are confused by all the arguments which go both ways and wonder what the Bible has to say about such activities as children dressing up in costume and going out “trick or treating”, or even adults disguising themselves as ghoulish creatures and participating in the office Halloween party. Because of this confusion, the purpose of this article is to set forth some of the issues in this discussion, and to express what is hopefully a biblical viewpoint on this controversial issue.

First of all, is all the hoopla really much ado about nothing? Is there really any harm in what goes on at Halloween? To understand the answer to that question, we must first under­stand how Halloween originated, what it means to certain groups, and how it has developed over the past several years.

Originally, the Celts, the barbaric peoples of ancient Britain, celebrated a holiday called Samhain on October 31st, which held tremendous religious significance for them. They believed that on that night the barrier between the physical world and the spirit world was at its weakest and that the spirits of the dead were free to roam the earth. The Celts’ religious caste, the Druids, would hold ceremonies designed to protect the crops and herds from these demonic forces and would offer both animal and human sacrifices to appease the gods or spirits. The Celts’ celebration also had its lighter side which included young people roasting nuts in the Samhain bonfire in an effort to determine who they would marry and bobbing for apples in a tub of water with the belief that success at this activity would bring a year of good luck. At one point in the Samhain celebration, the people would dress up as evil spirits in an effort to confuse the “real” spirits who may have been sent to plague them.

As time progressed, this celebration became such an integral part of the culture that by the time the Roman Catholic Church became the dominant religious force in the European society, it was faced with the problem of how to deal with this obviously pagan holiday. In an effort to combat the influence of Samhain, the Catholic Church designated the day after October 31st as “All Saints Day,” a day to honor all of the departed saints of the Church. The evening before All Saints Day was the evening before the hallowed day; therefore, “Hallowed Evening” or “Hallowed E’en.” Over the years, the words were put together into the one word we have today—Halloween. Even to this day, the Satanist Church recognizes Halloween as one of their most sacred days; a day to worship Satan and offer sacrifices in his honor. The Satanist Bible states that “after one’s own birthday, the two major Satanic holidays are Walpurgisnacht (April 30) and Hallow­een...”

Over the past few decades, Halloween has changed dramatically in the United States. Forty years ago, Halloween was a day when children dressed up as some type of character—most of the time the character represented some harmless persona; i.e., cowboys, hobos, angels, clowns, animals, etc.—and went door-to-door to collect candy from all the neighbors. Occasionally one of the neighborhood children dressed up as a witch or a ghost, but that was the exception rather than the rule.

As time passed, a very subtle change took place. More and more older children and adults began to participate and the costumes became increasingly grotesque and horrifying in appearance, concentrating on such characters as zombies, chain saw murderers, and bloody disembow­eled corpses. The whole perspective became focused on death and occultic, hellish behavior. In effect, what was once a relative­ly minor “holiday” of sorts for children became a major “dark” entertainment experience for their parents. Children still go out “trick or treating,” but because of safety concerns in our society, that aspect of the day has greatly diminished.

What does the Bible teach about the activities which are represented in the Halloween celebration? Moses, writing the law to the Hebrews in Deuteronomy 18:10-12, stated, “Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord, and because of these detestable practices the Lord your God will drive out those nations before you.” Obviously God did not take as tolerant a view about such people among His chosen people as does the American society about such people within it. If God views such types of occultic practices with such disdain and hatred, should Christians participate in a celebration that glorifies such matters, if only in a humorous manner? Is it really harm­less? Perhaps we need to realize that we may be sending a subtle message to our children that there really isn’t all that much wrong with the occult and its satanic forces, as represented by mutilated, bleeding bodies, vicious killers, vampires, witches, and demonic beings.

What about the issue of “trick or treating”? While there may be no harm in children going from house to house requesting candy be tossed into their open sacks, what explanation for the term itself—”trick or treat”—is a Christian parent supposed to give his or her child which will be in accordance with bibli­cal principles? Nowhere in Scripture can one find a passage or verse which says that it is okay to threaten someone with some type of mean or nasty trick if they don’t give in to a demand for a treat. I realize that for most children that phrase is just a harmless group of words which they have been told to say when they go to the door, and they would never perform such actions if faced with someone who did not give them candy, but I am also a realist who has many times seen the damage done by those individ­uals who do. It is certainly difficult for children to rational­ize in their young, developing minds why their parents who always teach them respect for others property and proper Christian behavior have no qualms about explaining what is meant by “trick or treat.”

So, what should Christians who are concerned about such issues do each October 31st when their children’s friends are out collecting all their sugar-filled loot? Should they develop a monastic, ascetic attitude that says, “My kids will never participate in anything on such a pagan day!”? Or is some alternative acceptable? Some would tell us that Christians should totally ignore Halloween as if it didn’t exist and that by participating in some alternative activity, we are really acqui­escing to the world’s actions. While such a position is certain­ly within a believer’s prerogative and may be the most appropri­ate response for certain individuals, the faultiness of that argument is that many of those same believers would never dream of not having a “Christian” wedding for their daughter, not realizing that such wedding ceremony activities as exchanging rings, wearing veils, eating cake, and speaking vows are directly related to ancient pagan Roman wedding ceremonies. Most of these people also celebrate Christmas with its traditional tree and gift giving, not realizing that it also originally started as an alternative activity for Christians to a pagan worship day. The point is that the issue is internal, not external. What the significance of a specific day is to any of us is a matter of the heart, not what some man has determined it to be. Paul told the Colossians, “do not let anyone judge you…with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day” (Colossians 2:16).

However, those believers who do choose to celebrate Halloween must recognize that Scripture also gives some guidelines about participating in such activities. Paul, in writing to the Corinthians, addressed the issue of eating meat which had been sacrificed to idols, and he said that while they had the “right” to do so, they needed to be careful about exercising their “rights” so as not to become a stumbling block to a weaker Christian. When we consider many of the activities associated with Halloween, we are in exactly the same situation. Bobbing for apples, dressing up as evil creatures, witches, and spirits, and other similar activities have their origins in the practice of sorcery and witchcraft, and although we rightly recognize that these are harmless to us because “an idol is nothing at all in the world and…there is no God but one.” (1 Corinthians 8:4), we must also recognize that as an example to those in the occult and out of concern for our weaker Christian brothers and sisters, we must be very careful about what Halloween activi­ties we participate in so as to avoid becoming a stumbling block. While “all things are lawful…not all things are profitable…” (1 Corinthians 6:12, NASB), either for others or our­selves.

Is there some other position that can be acceptable for Christians in regard to this issue? I believe there is. If believers wish to provide alternative activities for their children on Halloween so that the young people have something to do other than participate in the glorification of evil behavior, spirits, and people, there is no biblical prohibition against it. Many churches and Christian schools sponsor “Harvest Time” parties or “Fall Festival” activities for the chil­dren, where the kids are provided an opportunity to get together with others to play games, watch Christian videos, dress up as animals on Noah’s ark or Bible characters, and share candy. Such activi­ties can become an opportunity to share the Gospel with unsaved friends, as they can observe a very tangible difference between the Christians and themselves. Christians should not attempt to “whitewash” pagan rituals into some kind of “Chris­tian” activity, but legitimate efforts to provide Christ-centered alternatives can minister to both believers and unbelievers alike.

Believers need to recognize that Christianity is, and has always been, a matter of the heart and not external conformity to a list of rules and regulations. We are to be separate and different from the world in our behavior and love for one another (1 John 3:14, 17-18), and we are not to participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but rather to expose them (Ephe­sians 5:11). But that does not mean that we cannot provide alternative activities for our children when they are confronted with a society-wide activity in which we find it unacceptable for them to participate.

Naive Children Listening to Strangers

In John 17:17, as Jesus prayed to the Father, He said, “Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.” Notice that He didn’t say, “All truth is your truth.”

During the past several years, the church has been passing around this little cliché that says, “All truth is God’s truth.” Some will probably wonder, “Well, what’s wrong with that?” The problem with that thinking is that the assumption behind it is that there is some type of valid truth about man that is found outside the Word of God.

When the people who promote that idea talk about it, they are not using that cliché to refer to things such as mathematics or physics. They aren’t saying, “Well, it’s true that 9 x 9 = 81, and that truth is not found in the Bible.” If that was what they meant by what they were saying, I would agree with them.

But when they say “All truth is God’s truth,” they are using it to refer to truth about man, his nature, and character. In other words, they are endorsing the psychologists who claim that the things they have “discovered” about the character of man which are not found in Scripture are true and that it is God’s truth.

That goes contrary to the basic, foundational reality of the Word of God, and we don’t need to fight that battle. God’s Word is sufficient. 2 Peter 1:3 tells us that we have “everything pertaining to life and godliness,” so we don’t need to be mixing human wisdom with divine wisdom. Psalm 19:7-11 explains all of the benefits of God’s Word for the believer, and then Psalm 119 pours out the summation of all that the Word accomplishes for those who depend upon it as their source of strength and wisdom for this life. All we need to know is that only biblical truth is salvation truth. Only biblical truth is sanctification truth. You can’t take biblical truth and mix it with human wisdom and claim that the end result is all truth.

But many people who haven’t thought through these issues are not prepared. They are, in effect, lured into danger like a naïve child can be lured by a stranger. They haven’t carefully considered and kept before them this basic, foundational matter—that we know and have been established in the truth, which is the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. And as a consequence, all kinds of corruption have infiltrated the church under the slogan, “All truth is God’s truth.”

Beware! Unless you can find what is being taught clearly spelled out in God's Word, don't receive it simply because someone claims it is true. Human experience is never the standard for truth. Only God's Word can meet the standard of perfection.

When Worldviews Collide

The other night I listened to the nationally broadcast debate between Dr. Richard Dawkins, atheist and author of The God Delusion, and Dr. John Lennox, an evangelical apologist and author of God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? Both men are professors at Oxford University in England.

As I listened, I was struck by the fact that in the on-going clash between the atheistic worldview and the theistic worldview, there is a logical disconnect between what the atheist says he believes and how he lives his life. The atheist says that there is no God; that all that exists is the result of pure chance. Yet he lives his life presupposing that the absolute constants of the universe will continue without interruption. Dawkins had no explanation how the universe is kept in perfect balance, even though cosmological physicists recognize that unless the structure, timing, and balance of the universe is somehow sustained, it would collapse into chaotic disorder. Dr. Dawkins even admitted that there is no scientific explanation for the origin of the universe and why it holds together, and said that cosmology is looking for its Charles Darwin to explain what took place. At times Dawkins seemed to grasp for something to make his argument sound logical, but the absolute lack of logic in his arguments was at times, laughable.

But he is so convinced by his own delusion of the non-existence of any kind of supernatural deity that he will postulate the most amazingly far-fetched ideas to explain the existence of the universe. When faced with the challenge to explain the order and structure and sustaining of the universe apart from God, he proposed that our universe is only one of billions of universes and we are simply fortunate to be in the one universe where all the random chances fell perfectly together and resulted in all that exists.

I was frankly astounded by the sheer stupidity of such an intelligent man. I know I shouldn’t have been surprised, because his unapologetic refusal to acknowledge even the possibility of God simply demonstrated the accuracy of Romans 1:21 which speaks of man’s rejection of God and the resulting futility of their speculations and darkened minds. And the result is that “professing to be wise, they became fools” (v. 22). Dawkins’ perspective is merely the end result of human wisdom which rejects any possibility of a supernatural, infinite, all powerful, all wise God.

At the end of the debate, Dr. Lennox very accurately stated that ultimately the whole argument between worldviews comes down to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If Christ was raised from the dead, then He is God and men must bow the knee to Him. Dawkins, while adamantly disagreeing over the person and work of Christ, agreed that the resurrection of Jesus is the central, core issue in the entire matter. That is exactly what C. S. Lewis said so many years ago. If Jesus was not who He claimed to be, then men are right to ignore Him. But if He was raised from the dead and is God, then every man owes Him their entire allegiance.

At the conclusion of the debate, I thought how awful an eternity in hell will be for Richard Dawkins. His audacious efforts to deceive thousands of others into believing his God-rejecting ideas certainly place him in danger of greater punishment in the lake of fire. But then the Spirit convicted me of the need to pray for Dr. Dawkins and men like him, and not to feel a sense of gladness over them going to hell. God is certainly infinitely more powerful than Richard Dawkins and if He chooses to change that man’s heart, He can do so. I pray that such is our Lord’s will.

The "Unpardonable" Sin: Part 2

The previous post dealt with the issue of “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” from Matthew 12:31:32. Closely related to that discussion is the issue of the “sin unto death” which is discussed by the apostle John in 1 John 5:16-17.

The problem we have here is that people read the “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” into this passage, even though this passage never mentions the word “blasphemy.” So what is this sin that is “to death”? Apparently in John’s day and among his readers, this was a well-understood concept, because John doesn’t bother to explain it. But today it is more difficult to understand and the opinions vary widely on what is meant. There are four views that are prominent.

1. The first view is that John is referring to some particularly heinous sin which God will not pardon. That view became the origin of the Roman Catholic Church’s distinction between mortal and venial sins. But the difficulty with that interpretation is that it leaves us with no Scriptural foundation as to what that sin might be. We know that murder is not included because Paul was a forgiven murderer, as was David. So to specify some certain sin as being unforgiveable seems indefensible.

2. The second view is that John is talking about apostasy, or the deliberate repudiation of the Christian faith by one who once was a Christian. The supporters of this view apply it to the Gnostics whose heretical errors John was warning his readers about in this epistle. But the problem is, as stated in the previous post, that the Bible makes it clear that a true believer can never fall away; only false professors will apostatize. Since John is speaking here of a “brother”; that is, a Christian in sin, he cannot be speaking of apostasy.

3. The third view is that John is speaking of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, about which Jesus warned His disciples (Matthew 12:31-32), which is rejecting the truth with such force that one attributes God’s power to Satan. The major objection to this view is that it is hard to see how John could call such a hardened sinner a brother. While it is possible to use the term “brother” in a general sense rather than a specific sense to refer to believers, it would seem hard to do that, given the context of this letter.

4. The fourth view is that John is referring to physical death which comes about as the result of willful, deliberate, persistent sin in the life of a Christian. Such a view is consistent with God’s judgment in Acts 5:1-11 and 1 Corinthians 5:5 and 11:30. I believe this is the most defensible interpretation; that John is referring to any habitual sin in the life of a believer committed with a premeditated, defiant attitude toward God’s righteous standards. As it regards the ministry of intercession, John may be saying that in some cases God will not turn back a physical judgment on one of His disobedient children, no matter how much another Christian prays. So he does not command that prayer for that person must be made in such a situation, although he does not forbid it.

I’ve seen this happen at least once. A friend who claimed to be a genuine believer and seemed to give strong evidence of such in his life, continually fell back into patterns of terrible sin, having full knowledge it was wrong. He was repeatedly rebuked for his sin by his spiritual leaders, and yet he continued to allow that sin to consume him. The evidence of God's chastening discipline was evident in his life, but when that didn't cause him to turn away from his pursuit of his sinful lifestyle, he became ill and died unexpectedly. I discussed the situation with other elders who were familiar with the circumstances and we agreed that it seems to have been a 1 Corinthians 11 situation; His sinful pattern of life was such that God removed him from this earth so that he would no longer bring reproach on the name of Christ or His church. Only the Lord knows for sure.

In support of my view as expressed in point 4 above, it should be noted that in the Greek language, there is no indefinite article; only a definite article. Since the English language has an indefinite article, when the English translators came to this verse, they simply followed the rules of the English language and inserted it, even though it doesn’t actually exist in the Greek text. So when 1 John 5:16-17 says in your English language Bible that “If anyone sees his brother committing a sin leading to death,” in the Greek text, it literally says “if anyone sees his brother committing sin leading to death.” I think this gives us the better understanding of what John is trying to communicate. In other words, it is not referring to a specific sin, but rather to sin in general; that is, a pattern of willful, deliberate, persistent sin. The same thing applies to the phrase “there is a sin leading to death.” It should be read “there is sin leading to death.” Also, in verse 17 where it says “there is a sin not leading to death,” the Greek language literally says “there is sin not leading to death.”

Also in support of this view is the opening statement of verse 18, which says, “We know that no one who is born of God sins...” Now, every believer knows that he or she still sins, but the Greek verb here is a present tense active verb, which means that it is referring to continuing action. So it is proper to translate the phrase as “We know that no one who is born of God continually sins…” The true believer is being sanctified and is growing apart from sin. When he was saved, God released him from his bondage to sin, and made him a new creature. Therefore, it is expected that sin in his life will gradually reduce and he will achieve greater and greater victory over it. It is not to be a continual or habitual way of life as it was when he was an unbeliever. But, if a true believer does become trapped in a persistent lifestyle of sin and does not repent, God may take his life, as stated in verses 16-17. If God doesn’t discipline a person who claims to be a Christian, but lives a lifestyle of persistent, habitual sin, that is the evidence that that person is NOT a true believer. Hebrews 12:5-11 tells us that God will discipline and chasten every one of His true children who disobey Him. So if a person gets away with sin without God’s discipline (even to the point of death) in his life, he probably wasn’t a true Christian to begin with.

I am convinced that we too often and too easily accept someone’s claim of having professed faith in Christ, without calling them to examine their lives to see if there is any evidence that it was a genuine conversion. If their lifestyle, attitudes, and behavior don’t begin to change and continue to change over the long haul, he or she was most likely never converted in the first place. Genuine repentance is more than just turning to Christ; it is also turning from and forsaking sin.

So, given the wording of these verses in the original language, and support from other passages of Scripture, it seems best to me to see “sin leading to death” to be a willful, deliberate, persistent lifestyle of sin in a believer’s life; not a specific sin such as blasphemy.