Category: Issues Facing the Church

Is the King James Version Inspired?

On By Dave MallinakIn Hot Topics, Independent Baptists, Issues Facing the Church

I am republishing an article (with links, comments, and edits for spelling) I originally published November 27, 2009 on the old Jackhammer blog. You can view the original article, along with the 116 comments that followed, at https://jackhammer.wordpress.com/2009/11/27/is-the-king-james-version-inspired/

Your argument is sound… nothing but sound.  —Benjamin Franklin

I, being of sound mind and body, am about to touch the third rail.  I do so reluctantly, yet resolvedly.  But before I do, I should like to say a very fond farewell to both of my readers (Hi mom!  Hi dad!) and it has been nice knowing you all.  Not that political suicide is the best way to go or anything.  I certainly wouldn’t recommend it to anyone.  But from time to time, it becomes necessary for one to sacrifice oneself for the sake of an important issue.  So, here I go.  I’m stretching forth my hand even as I type, reaching for that superconductor of electricity that is sure to send a shockwave through the ole’ system and land me flat on my back, perhaps pushing up daisies.  Just remember, I did it for the Gipper…

All Spark and No Fire

So, here go I.  Much of the controversy swirling around the King James issue centers on the question of whether or not the King James Version is inspired.  The English Preservationists have made this the particular sticking point on this issue, and of course, we who also consider ourselves KJVO’s are loath to challenge them on the question.  At least, if we value our place in the KJVO orbit, we better leave this one alone.

Which is exactly why I find myself anxious to address it.  First, there is just something about a third rail that is especially electrifying.  And secondly, I don’t believe that this particular third rail has enough juice to toast a piece of Wonder Bread.  It is all spark and no fire, or something like that.  I certainly don’t believe that this issue will be my undoing.  But then again, I’ve never stepped on a landmine before either.

The real issue here is in the definition of terms.  English Preservationists throw the term “inspiration” around as if it means nothing at all.  Then, they stretch the term around like Gumby, trying to make it sound rational to (a) deny double inspiration, and in the same breath to (b) claim inspiration for our English Version.  One might wish for a grain of honesty, just the size of a mustard seed, so that one could ascertain exactly what it is that they are arguing for, since they believe that the English version of the Bible is inspired, and deny that this means “double-inspiration.”

Since God inspired Hebrew words in the Old Testament and Greek words in the New Testament, and since, as far as we know, English words weren’t around at the time that holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, we are faced with a dilemma.  If we deny double-inspiration, then we can’t argue that our English version is inspired.  If we argue that the English version is inspired, then we must necessarily believe in double-inspiration.

Either that, or else we will need to admit that we have elasticized the word “inspired,” turning “inspiration” into a clay humanoid figure.  Logicians call it “equivocation.”  When we use the same term in two different senses, all within the same argument, we are guilty of equivocation.  Equivocation is very popular in humor.  But equivocation is always misleading when we change the meaning of our terms mid-argument, without offering any sort of explanation for the suddenness of our switch.

Depends on What the Meaning of “Is” Is

When a man says that the King James Version is inspired, we understand that to mean that the English words proceeded directly out of the mouth of God.  That would be the plain meaning of the statement.  That is, if we are applying the commonly understood, 2 Timothy 3:16 meaning of “inspired” (theopneustos).  If that same man then turns around and denies “double inspiration,” well then, either he is lying, or he is equivocating the meaning of his terms.

Humorous arguments rely on equivocation in order to make their point, and we generally understand that.  For instance, a student was arguing that there is no such thing as black or brown feathers.  In order to make his point, he argued that since a feather is light, and what is light cannot be dark, therefore a feather cannot be dark.  You might recognize the equivocation in that argument.  It is humorous, so long as he isn’t serious.

Worse examples can be found.  My wife really hated the man who argued that women are irrational because the only rational being is man, and women are not men.  She had an almost irrational desire to bash his brains out of his head.  Fortunately, I was there to point out his equivocation.  Necessity once required us to bring a man before the church because he argued that Ray Charles is God.  He claimed that God is love, and love is blind.  Since Ray Charles is blind, he concluded that Ray Charles must be God.  In his case, he should have understood what the meaning of “is” is.

The Non-Inspired Argument

Unfortunately, not all equivocations are equally apparent.  On the question of whether or not the King James Version is inspired, the definition-shift befuddles and be-muses at times.  This is never more the case than when a man takes it in hand to explain how it is that he believes our English version is inspired.  One favorite trick that he will use is to argue that if the King James Version is not inspired, then we have an “uninspired” or “non-inspired” Bible.  Take this statement from Shelton Smith of The Sword of the Lord as an example.[1]  Under the head “If not inspired, then what is it?” he makes this statement:

As I hold the King James Bible in my hands, if it is not the inspired Word of God, then what on earth is it?

Are you telling me that it is somehow the Word of God but yet not inspired?  Are you saying it is the uninspired Bible?

Ironically, the next section is entitled, “An Inspired KJB is not Double Inspiration.”  And Dr. Smith goes on to say,

None of the men that I know who believe in a preserved, inspired text believe in “double inspiration.”  We do not believe that the KJB translators were gifted (theopneustos) with God’s inspiration!

What we very strongly believe is that the Lord God Almighty promised to “preserve” His inspired Word.  He did use those translators to preserve the text for us so that we have an authentic English Bible.

To automatically equate our insistence on a preserved inspired text as double inspiration reflects neither reality nor the truth.

I repeat – we do not now, nor have we ever, advocated or believed in double inspiration!

As a side note, we should point out that neither does Peter Ruckman.[2]

Nevertheless, we do struggle to answer this charge. If we say that the King James Bible is not inspired, then are we saying that we have an uninspired Bible?

The charge really is not so difficult to answer.  Instead, the reader should note the shift in the terms of the argument mid-stream, because what we have here is a sort of extended equivocation—yet  another misleading use of ambiguity employed by Shelton Smith and those who make this same argument.  We are discussing whether or not a translation of the Bible is inspired.  If I say that the translation was not inspired in the same sense that the original Greek and Hebrew words were inspired, am I saying that my King James Bible is the uninspired Bible?  Absolutely not.

You see, whether intentional or not, this kind of argumentation is dishonest.  Those who make it are glossing over what they mean, and they are doing this by shifting terms back and forth.  First, we are discussing a translation, then, without any warning whatsoever, we shift the argument to Scripture.  The Scriptures are inspired.  The King James Version is a faithful translation of Scripture.  So, we can say that the King James Version is the inspired Word of God.  It is not, however, contradictory on our part to say that the Authorized Version is not inspired.  You ask how that can be so?  Very simply.  When I said that “the King James Version is the inspired Word of God” a moment ago, I was referring to the KJV as Scripture.  And we know that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God.  When I said that “the Authorized Version is not inspired” immediately afterward, I was referring to the KJV as a translation.  The translation was not inspired. That would require double inspiration.  But the Scriptures are still inspired.  And since the Scriptures are not lost in translation, the King James Version is the Very Word of God.

When a preacher insists that the King James Version is inspired, and insists in the next breath that he is not arguing for double inspiration, he is equivocating.  He should explain what he means when he says that “the King James Version is inspired.”  Is he referring to the KJV as an English translation of Scripture, or is he referring to it as Scripture?  When he calls the KJV inspired, what does he mean by “inspired?”  Does he mean that God breathed it out in the same sense that God breathed out the Greek and Hebrew words?  Does he mean that God divinely superintended the translators as they translated?  Is he referring to the fact that translated Scripture is still Scripture?  There is a significant difference between each of these meanings of inspiration.

The point is that he needs to do a better job of defining his terms.  All arguments aside, it really is misleading to argue that the KJV is inspired, and then to turn around and say that you don’t believe in double inspiration, without any kind of explanation in between those statements.  If a man believes in inspiration for any translation, if he believes that the translation itself is inspired, then he believes that God rewrote the Bible, re-gave the words, this time as English or Spanish or Russian or Latin words.  If he doesn’t believe that, then he needs to find a better way to say what it is that he means.

Given by Inspiration

We have discussed this before in our comments section,[3] but we thought it appropriate once again to attempt a more complete treatment of the question.  In 2 Timothy 3:16, the Bible says, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.”  In English, this phrase is 8 words long.  It is the translation of 3 Greek words—and I apologize to the Greek purists who hate transliteration here, but those three Greek words are, “Pasa graphe theopneustos.”  Literally, all Scripture is God-breathed.  Theopneustos is an adjective in the predicate position, hence the word “is.”

We have had some amount of debate in the past as to whether theopneustos refers to the product or the process.  In other words, does theopneustos refer to the process of giving the words, or to the words as the product of the process?  If we would understand the issue concerning the KJV and inspiration, we must understand the answer to this question regarding theopneustos.

Theopneustos is Product

An adjective in the predicate position makes an assertion about the noun.  All Scripture is theopneustos — God-breathed.  We understand the word “is” to refer to a state of being or existence.  We describe the nature of the existence of Scripture as “God-breathed.”  All Scripture exists as God-breathed Scripture, and that quality is never lost in any of those words.  In the past, we have argued that we know which words were the God-breathed words, because we still have them.  We have all of them.  Non-inspired words were lost, or lost for long periods of time before they resurfaced, thus proving that they were not God-breathed words.  The breath of God produced words, and those words formed Scripture.  All the writings of Scripture are God-breathed.

Theopneustos is Process

Our English Bible translates theopneustos as a verb — given by inspiration.  In fact, the phrase “by inspiration” modifies the verb “given.”  It explains how it was given, the instrument by which all Scripture was given.  If the product of theopneustos is God-breathed words, then the process must necessarily have been by God breathing out those words.  Our English Bible is correct then in its translation.  All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.  Inspiration was a process, and the result of inspiration was the product of the totality of inspired Scripture.

Inspiration as a process occurred over a fixed period of time.  We believe that God closed the canon, that God finished that process in time past.  The product continues, per the promise of God, forever.  But the process was completed almost 2,000 years ago.  God did not restart or redo that process somewhere around 1611.  But God did enable English-speaking men to give a faithful translation of His Words in English.  The product continues.  We have the ability to examine that product continually, and a great assistance in examining that product, through our English Bible.

But our English Version is not inspired.  To say that it is would be to say that God redid the process.  Our English Bible is the inspired Word of God.  But that is different than saying that the English Version is inspired.  Our English Bible is the inspired Word of God because it faithfully translates God’s Word (the product) into English.  The product is not lost in translation, nor is the process redone.

Much of the argument on this issue has revolved around the “breath of God” and whether or not it can be lost in translation.  I would agree with those who insist that the words retain that quality of being the “breath of God.”  But I would also point out the words that retain the quality of being the “breath of God” are not the English words.  The words that God originally gave, those are the inspired words.  We must understand our English translation in that context, or else we are undoing ourselves in this debate.

[1] Unfortunately, I did not properly cite the article I am quoting from the Sword of the Lord and cannot track it down now. However, Smith’s comments here are consistent with what he has said in other places. See this more recent article for example: https://faithalone.org/blog/kjv-is-inspired-says-dr-sheldon-smith-in-sword-of-the-lord/

[2] In fairness to Dr. Smith, he has also taken heat from those who believe the King James is inspired. This article, for instance, chastises Smith for arguing that “the Greek text allows us to fully discover the beauty of the Bible. In other words, he was saying that the King James Bible is INFERIOR to its underlying texts.”

[3] For the curious, you might be interested in the extended discussions we had on this issue under the category “King James Only” at https://jackhammer.wordpress.com/category/king-james-only/ are undoing ourselves in this debate.

The Dave Douglass Interview and Owning Your Mistakes

On By Dave MallinakIn Hot Topics, Independent Baptists, Issues Facing the Church, Legalism

I listened with mixed feelings to the Dave Douglass interview on the Recovering Fundamentalist Podcast. I attended Hyles-Anderson College in the 1989-90 school year, and Douglass was on staff then, though I didn’t interact with him. I loved my year at Hyles and mourned over leaving. So, when I saw the RFP advertisements for the Dave Douglass interview, I was intrigued. I had not heard that he resigned as President of Hyles-Anderson. I wondered what he might have to say about his reasons for leaving. Given that he was going public on the RFP, I assumed he would give an account of God’s work to show him the error of the ministry at Hyles.

It took Douglass about 38 minutes to get to his “grace awakening” (as the RFP called it), and thanks to a question from J.C. Groves, Douglass began to discuss his rejection of “legalism.” Of course, legalism is the driving focus of the Recovering Fundamentalist Podcast, according to its mission statement.

We exist to help and encourage those whose lives have been negatively affected by fundamentalist legalism in the church and to challenge those who promote tradition over Scripture.

I wasn’t surprised to hear the discussion head to legalism. But overall, I found Douglass’ answers unsatisfactory on several levels. I understand that there might be some sensitivity to the discussion. But since the podcast aims to drive conversation, I want to join this one. I don’t object to the way the RFP handled the interview. They didn’t set out to debate Douglass, and they did ask him good questions. They have indicated that they are trying to be reasonable and recognize when people are taking steps in the right direction, and I appreciate that.

Continue reading “The Dave Douglass Interview and Owning Your Mistakes” →

That Ain’t Expository Preaching

On By Dave MallinakIn Expository, Issues Facing the Church, Pastors, Preaching and Teaching

Expository preaching gets a bad rap nowadays. The blame for it can’t fall entirely on those who lampoon it and draw cute caricatures. Some blame belongs to those who think they preach expository sermons but don’t. And some of the responsibility rests squarely on the shoulders of expository preachers.

Orthocrusty is hard to defend, no matter what style it uses. God didn’t call preachers to be “bland leaders of the bland.” Regardless of your style, if your preaching is as dry as cracker juice, you aren’t preaching. Philips Brooks said preaching has “two essential elements: truth and personality.” Dr. A.E. Garvie added, “Preaching is not merely a communication of knowledge. As it exercises the whole personality of the preacher, so it is addressed to the whole personality of the hearer as a moral and religious subject.” [1]

Photo by Greg Gulik on Pexels.com

Preaching that lacks Scriptural content isn’t preaching, nor is preaching that lacks personality. If expository preaching has a bad reputation in some circles, blame it on the tendency to bake the sermon for an hour at 425o, run it through the microwave, leave it out in the sun, and set it under a heat lamp until it is thoroughly dehydrated. A sermon worth preaching won’t much resemble the Sahara in the dry season.

But the fault in dry preaching isn’t the Word preached or the style of preaching. The fault is in the preacher, who loved his study more than his people, who gets more joy in saying what he knows than in communicating truth. A change of style won’t likely fix that.

Many believe topical preaching is livelier, though more shallow, than expository preaching. Some see it as a necessary trade-off. And, all things being equal, it is easier to rant and rave when we have nothing to say, and it might be more essential. Shallow preaching becomes a performing art.

But I am for expository preaching. I decided to preach this way when God put me in the ministry, and I have tried to learn the craft over these many years. A good friend of mine made this remark, which I wholeheartedly endorse:

Expositional preaching should be thought of as an “entry point” to preaching. A preacher must know how to do that before he should move on to other styles. The process shapes the way you think…even when not preaching that exact style of sermon.

I’ve preached my share of forgettable messages. I’ve left the church gasping “Water!” more than once. But prefer overcooked steak to wonder bread – which retains that surprisingly moist texture long after it should have turned stale. Nothing stirs the heart quite like a preacher who has been set on fire by the text or passage he intends to preach.

That said, this particular missive aims to strip away some of the false notions of what constitutes “expository preaching.” Lord willing, we’ll come back and discuss what it is. For now, we’ll discuss what it ain’t (with apologies to Aunt Gertie, who hates that word).

Continue reading “That Ain’t Expository Preaching” →

God Chose Us Before the Foundation of the World

On By Dave MallinakIn Calvinism, Expository, Gospel Conversations, Hot Topics, Issues Facing the Church

Election is a mystery. I admit it. But the Bible teaches election, so we must as well.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. (Ephesians 1:3-6)

A Few Exegetical Notes

The word “chosen” in verse 4 is the verb form of the word “elect.” Peter uses an adjective form of the same word in I Peter 1:2.

Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ…

Peter uses “elect” descriptively, emphasizing the method God uses in saving them that believe. Paul uses “chosen” as a verb, showing what God did on our behalf. Paul emphasizes the result of our salvation – that we should be holy and without blame before him in love.[1] Because God has chosen us, we are sanctified (4), adopted (5), accepted (6), redeemed and forgiven (7), and we have an inheritance (11).

Paul uses the aorist middle indicative “hath chosen.” The indicative points to the reality of the choice. God’s choice is actual, not potential. The timeless aorist tells us the choice is made for all time. The middle voice tells us that God made the choice for His sake, not ours. 

This selection of the saints in this age of grace is the act of God choosing out from among mankind, certain for Himself. These become His own, to be used for a certain purpose.[2]

The context confirms this.

Continue reading “God Chose Us Before the Foundation of the World” →

Why Good People Object to the Doctrine of Perseverance

On By Dave MallinakIn Apologetic, Calvinism, Gospel Conversations, Hot Topics, Independent Baptists, Issues Facing the Church

I also think that that little catch phrase, perseverance of the saints, is dangerously misleading because again, it suggests that the persevering is something that we do, perhaps in and of ourselves. Now, I believe, of course, that saints do persevere in faith and that those who have been effectually called by God and have been reborn by the power of the Holy Spirit endure to the end, so that they do persevere. But they persevere not simply because they are so diligent in their making use of the mercies of God. But the only reason we can give why any of us continues on in the faith even till the last day is not because we have persevered so much as that is because we have been preserved. And so I prefer the term the preservation–the preservation–of the saints, because this process by which we are kept in a state of grace is something that is accomplished by God. (R.C. Sproul, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK-QdF64yng)

I understand the “P” in the TULIP to say that the God who saves a man keeps that man to the end. Thus, Sproul and many others have suggested that the “P” would better represent Calvinist theology if it stood for “preservation” instead of “perseverance.” Indeed, the Bible emphasizes not the perseverance of the saints but God’s preservation of the saints.

Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ: (Philippians 1:6)

For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day. (2 Timothy 2:12)

I have attempted to engage honestly with Calvinism, avoiding caricatures while expressing my objections based on Scripture. My main objection has been to the Calvinist tendency to blur or erase the paradox, the mysterious interaction between God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility and free will. This tendency shows up in various ways in the first 4 points of Calvinism. But in the doctrine of perseverance, I see a different problem related to what R.C. Sproul acknowledges above. If Sproul admits the problem, I am not alone in my concern. But Sproul and other Calvinists haven’t done themselves any favors.

The word “perseverance” is terribly misleading. Nor do these quotes help things. Consider what a variety of famous (or infamous) Calvinists have said.

Conclude we, then, that holiness in this life is absolutely necessary to salvation, not only as a means to the end, but by a nobler kind of necessity — as part of the end itself. (A. W. Pink “On Sanctification” https://gracegems.org/Pink/sanctification.htm)

Neither the members of the church nor the elect can be saved unless they persevere in holiness; and they cannot persevere in holiness without continual watchfulness and effort.  (Charles Hodge comments on I Corinthians 10:12 https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/hdg/1-corinthians-10.html)

Endurance in faith is a condition in salvation (R. C. Sproul “Grace Unkown” – this article deals extensively with Sproul’s book: https://faithalone.org/journal-articles/book-reviews/grace-unknown-the-heart-of-reformed-theology/)

Continue reading “Why Good People Object to the Doctrine of Perseverance” →

Saving Grace Is Not Absolutely Irresistible

On By Dave MallinakIn Calvinism, Gospel Conversations, Hot Topics, Issues Facing the Church1 Comment

A friend of mine likes to remind me that in the free offer of the gospel, God isn’t play-acting. God doesn’t make a show of extending the offer of salvation to sinners when, in reality, He has withheld any possibility of them being saved. Perhaps this summarizes the conflict over Calvinism better than any other illustration.

The “I” in the TULIP represents “Irresistible Grace,” which has been described as the difference between God’s “external” call and His “internal” call. Some have modified the adjective “irresistible” to “effectual.” However, the teaching itself is fairly consistent among Calvinists.

In addition to the outward general call to salvation which is made to everyone who hears the gospel, the Holy Spirit extends to the elect a special inward call that inevitably brings them to salvation. The external call (which is made to all without distinction) can be, and often is, rejected; whereas the internal call (which is made only to the elect) cannot be rejected; it always results in conversion. By means of this special call the Spirit irresistibly draws sinners to Christ. He is not limited in His work of applying salvation by man’s will, nor is He dependent upon man’s cooperation for success. The Spirit graciously causes the elect sinner to cooperate, to believe, to repent, to come freely and willingly to Christ. God’s grace, therefore, is invincible; it never fails to result in the salvation of those to whom it is extended. (https://www.fivesolas.com/cal_arm.htm)

In his online lecture on Irresistible Grace, R.C. Sproul acknowledges the problems with the term “irresistible.”

Now beloved, the history of the human race is the history of relentless resistance by human beings to the sweetness of the grace of God. What is meant by irresistible grace is not what the word suggests, that it’s incapable of being resisted. Indeed, we are capable of resisting God’s grace, and we do resist God’s grace. But the idea here is that in spite of our natural resistance to the grace of God that God’s grace is so powerful that it has the capacity to overcome our natural resistance to it. That’s why I prefer the term effectual grace rather than irresistible grace because this grace that is irresistible effects what God intends to effect by it.

And in Chosen by God, Sproul says,

Calvinism does not teach and never has taught that God brings people kicking and screaming into the kingdom or has ever excluded anyone who wanted to be there. Remember that the cardinal point of the Reformed doctrine of predestination rests on the biblical teaching of man’s spiritual death. Natural man does not want Christ. He will only want Christ if God plants a desire for Christ in his heart. Once that desire is planted, those who come to Christ do not come kicking and screaming against their wills. They come because they want to come. They now desire Jesus. They rush to the Savior. The whole point of irresistible grace is that rebirth quickens someone to spiritual life in such a way that Jesus is now seen in his irresistible sweetness. Jesus is irresistible to those who have been made alive to the things of God. (Chosen by God, pp. 122-123)

I will admit that I have often thought of my coming to faith in Christ this way – that Christ was, in a certain sense, irresistible to me, that I found His grace irresistible when I finally embraced Him as my Savior. I would guess that believers who fought His saving call ferociously would agree that eventually, after long resistance, they found that they were powerless to resist any further.

Continue reading “Saving Grace Is Not Absolutely Irresistible” →

Why I Don’t Believe in Limited Atonement

On By Dave MallinakIn Calvinism, Gospel Conversations, Hot Topics, Issues Facing the Church2 Comments

No doubt we’ve all heard Calvinists make statements like this: “Jesus doesn’t love the world,” “Jesus didn’t die for the world,” “Christ didn’t die for all or all would be saved.” As one man said,

The Bible teaches again and again that God does not love all people with the same love. “Loved by God” is not applied to the world but only to the saints.

Defending limited atonement in Chosen By God, R. C. Sproul says,

The world for whom Christ died cannot mean the entire human family. It must refer to the universality of the elect (people from every tribe and nation) or to the inclusion of Gentiles in addition to the world of the Jews. (Sproul, p. 206-207)

Sproul explains that the word “any” in 2 Peter 3:9 – God is “not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” – doesn’t mean “any” in an absolutely unrestricted sense.

Any time we use the word any, we’re assuming some reference–any what? any of which group? Certainly Peter doesn’t say that God is not willing that any person perish. We had to supply that “person” as if it were tacitly understood.

But is there any other possible reference to the “any” besides any human being? Well, obviously, there are other possibilities, not the least of which is a particular class. You have a class here of people, and that word “people” makes up a distinctive class. And if I said any of that class, I would mean any person. Or I could have another class, a class called Jews, and if I spoke of any of that class, it would refer to anyone who is Jewish, or American, or whatever other group I would incorporate within that circle.

Continue reading “Why I Don’t Believe in Limited Atonement” →

Five Lies of Easy-believism

On By Dave MallinakIn Apologetic, Gospel Conversations, Hot Topics, Independent Baptists, Issues Facing the Church3 Comments

Once upon a time, people would deny that they preached “cheap grace,” even if they did. But we live in a brave new world where up is down and down is up. Today, if you speak out against “easy-believism,” hordes of people rush to embrace the charge. They love that low-grade, 1-ply grace, wide as the ocean, deep as spit on a sidewalk. They defend it furiously. If you disagree, “Go ahead and go to hell, you dog!”

If you ever interact with this deadly heresy, you will quickly discover that you aren’t dealing with the sharpest tools in the tool shed. They hover somewhere on the idiot-o-meter between a poached egg and a bread crust. This is the kind of lie people believe when they have determined not to think. I would be grossly overstating the case to say they have a half-baked theology. Trying to follow their argument is like trying to trace the flight path of a sparrow. Rhyme and reason made a dramatic escape from the prison of their minds long ago.

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

So, why engage this stick figure of a doctrine at all? Because easy-believism has been gaining a head of steam for a while now. I had no idea until I posted one thing on Twitter, pointing out the lunacy of the thing. Suddenly, a virtual confetti storm of trash arguments descended on my head. Easy-believism is the illegitimate child of Jack Hyle and Stephen Anderson. I wish to treat it with all the dignity it deserves.

Having interacted with the cheap grace champs, I see five lies regularly promoted in their arguments. These five lies are argued like Joe Biden preaching the virtues of Bidenomics. Though Bidenomics might have slightly more intrinsic value (if that is even possible). I mention these five lies because you might accidentally step in something and wonder what the smell is coming from your shoes. You’ll want to understand how to clean that off your shoe.

Here are the five lies of easy-believism:

Continue reading “Five Lies of Easy-believism” →

Unconditional Love, Unconditional Election

On By Dave MallinakIn Apologetic, Calvinism, Hot Topics, Issues Facing the Church1 Comment

R.C. Sproul objects – I should say strongly objects – to the notion of unconditional love. In a popular video discussion, Sproul was asked, “When everyone is talking about the love of God, and God loves me just as I am, how would you respond?” He answered,

The kingdom of God is not Mr. Rogers’s neighborhood. I think there are few things more dangerous than preachers out there preaching that God loves everybody unconditionally because the message that is heard by the people who hear that is there are no conditions. I can continue to live just as I’m living in full rebellion against God, and I have nothing to worry about because there aren’t any conditions that I have to meet. God loves me unconditionally. I don’t have to repent, I don’t have to come to Jesus, I don’t have to leave my life of sin. No conditions, no strings attached. God loves me just the way I am. He’s glad that I turned out so nicely…

I don’t disagree with this. At least, not entirely.

In 2011, Tullian Tchividjian (Billy Graham’s grandson) published his book Jesus + Nothing = Everything.In 2013, he published One-Way Love: Inexhaustible Grace for an Exhausted World. Tchividjian is a neo-Calvinist, definitely not orthodox (consider his “Upside-Down Christianity” described here). However, Tchividjian has borrowed heavily from classic Calvinist teachings to describe God’s unconditional love. Tullian likes to use edgy language in his descriptions of God’s grace. For example,

Continue reading “Unconditional Love, Unconditional Election” →

No Faith Without Repentance

On By Dave MallinakIn Apologetic, Gospel Conversations, Hot Topics, Independent Baptists, Issues Facing the Church1 Comment

Jack Hyles and Curtis Hutson catechized and indoctrinated many Independent Baptists into believing that repentance merely means a turning from unbelief to belief in Jesus. Piggybacked onto this false notion of repentance is the idea that any attempt to call sinners to turn from their sin is preaching “works salvation.”

At the end of last week, a Tweet came across my feed, and I responded. My response shouldn’t be controversial, yet out of the woodwork came the easy-believism brigade, led by @BeBerean7, @Honest_Mommy_, and @Pastorb_IFB. @BibleLineMin jumped in briefly but without much substance. Here is the “controversial” tweet.

I can see why this would be a popular “gospel.” Telling people they only need to add “belief in Jesus” to their somewhat crowded lists of self-interests must be very attractive. Though I don’t generally hear the promoters of this false gospel say it in so many words, sinners everywhere hear the message loud and clear: “I can hang on to my sin and still go to heaven when I die.” In fact, @weecalvin1509 helpfully provided me with an example of a pastor preaching easy-believism at its ultimate conclusion:

https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxZk7VBSpAmtedx94X2LH9lW9NYiKiu4dv?si=XR9iPEX2PtPU-1hY

Easy-Believism 101

It isn’t unusual for the promoters of easy-believism to isolate “faith in Christ” and treat it as if it were a lone act and as if it were possible for that to be the sole obedient response to the gospel call. They talk as if a person can make a one-time profession of faith, forget all about it, live the remainder of their days without regard for God, and still expect to hear “well done, good and faithful servant” at the end of their days. The advocates for easy-believism treat every kind of discipleship, sanctification, “following Christ,” obedience, and so forth as optional add-ons. They will argue that we don’t need to follow Christ to be saved. “Saved” merely means (as @BibleLineMin has pinned on his Twitter page) that you “believe that Jesus Christ died, was buried, and is risen to pay for all your sins. The moment you believe, you receive eternal life that can never be lost.”

Continue reading “No Faith Without Repentance” →