Jack Chick and the KJV

It seems as if Jack Chick (Chick Publications) is at it again (as if he ever rests from the issue). Regardless of where you are in the world, regardless of the language you speak or understand, he is proclaiming once again that the KJV (1611) is the only “words” of God. In fact, a preface to his most recent article on the issue indicates “Jack Chick’s passionate message will either have you nodding in agreement, or gnashing your teeth in anger." I’m afraid that I am doing neither. While the premise of his article is that as America gets away from the faithful preaching of the Word, we are bound for failure and ultimately destruction, I do not agree that the KJV is the only true Word of God nor do I agree that one cannot be saved apart from it. The KJV is a beautiful translation and a wonderful formal equivalence of its day, however, to believe the argument that it is the only viable translation of the Word of God is both ignorant and lacking in scholarship.

Sadly, Mr. Chick believes that more contemporary translations are from Satan and used as a means to destroy our seminaries. While I agree with the idea that there are several faulty, even heretical translations available today, with good scholarship and a heartfelt conviction to translate the Bible as closely as possible to the original languages for the purpose of edifying the common man in his common language, I do not believe that the KJV is the only “words” of God in English. In fact, it seems as if this movement (KJV-Onlyism) is bent on the idea that the KJV itself is inspired. As ridiculous as it seems, apparently we must remind these brothers and sisters that the Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, and all others who wrote the Bible did not speak the “King’s English.”

An additional point I would like to make is that concerning Chick’s view of Catholicism. I do agree that the Catholic Church has made efforts at ecumenicalism in the past (during John Paul II's "reign") and that many evangelicals have succumbed to this temptation. I also agree that the Roman Catholic Church itself is an apostate organization (but, I would not say that there are no believers in the organization, even if said believers are spiritually immature, lacking in both discernment and faith to have already come out of the organization). This is not because I hold to the idea that the Pope is absolutely provable as the final “Anti-Christ,” but rather because of Catholic doctrines of interpretation (adding the Apocrypha and including such unbiblical teachings as purgatory, the papacy, and the granting of indulgences, etc.), church traditions (ex cathedra, mass, etc.), and general theology (infused righteousness, veneration of the saints, Marian co-redemption, etc.). These issues have proven time and again that the Catholic Church is based upon a man-centered Gospel in which man can save himself (by being a good Catholic) or the church can save man (through the work of the Priests), rather than upon a Christ-centered gospel in which man is completely incapable by nature and by choice in regards to his own righteousness to save himself. Wasn’t this the reason for the reformation? Yes, a corruption in morality, but also a corruption in theology.

All these things aside, another point to make from his article (“What’s Going to Happen to America?”) is that his understanding of believer’s aversion to his heralding of the KJV as the only “words” of God (as he calls it) is due to its cultic nature, not due to the beauty of its translation or a desire to pervert the Gospel. The entire principle of translation that brought us the Bible in its original inspiration as well as translations throughout the years is that it should be made available to the common people. Greek was the common language during the writing of the New Testament. Latin was the common language during Jerome’s translation to the Latin Vulgate. Luther translated to German, the common language of his day and location. Tyndale translated to English, the common language of his day and location. To conclude that the KJV is inspired (though it holds the inspired Word), or that the principle of translation (making the Word available to the common man) ended with the KJV is foolish. To require that everyone become familiar with a short-lived English dialect in order to fully understand the Word of God is also foolish. If we are to believe this, we are to also believe that unless you can read and comprehend Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek you are not allowed to read the Scriptures. If we go that route, we will end up on the same course as the Catholics with their “Latin Mass” and necessity of the clergy to interpret for us. Many apparently do not know this, but even Erasmus, compiler/author of the Textus Receptus used to translate the KJV, translated missing parts by use of the Latin Vulgate, as well as using it for better flow. If it is such a sin to use the original languages to translate into the common language, why is it not a sin to translate a translation and harmonize the Gospels with words not originally penned in the Greek?

As a last point, Christians who do not prescribe to the KJV alone do not “believe God’s words were lost with the originals,” do not wholly subscribe to an “’ecumenical movement,’ enticing many Protestants and Baptists into their net,” do not “claim both Christ and Ba’al,” do not control Christian bookstores to put the KJV “on the bottom shelf or it’s collecting dust in the back room,” and do not “hold the King James version in contempt.” In fact, I believe that the KJV is the most popular Bible translation available in English today. It is not the KJV, but rather the idea that this version is the focus of cultic Bibliolatry today, that so offends discerning believers in Christ.

Let's Play the "Blame Game"

What is it about human nature that causes individuals to shift both blame and responsibility for their actions upon alternate sources? Looking back to the book of Genesis in chapter 3 verses 1-19, we can recount the events of the fall from grace:

1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said, `You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?" 2 The woman said to the serpent, "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, `You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.' " 4 The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die! 5 "For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." 6 When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings. 8 They heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 Then the LORD God called to the man, and said to him, "Where are you?" 10 He said, "I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself." 11 And He said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?" 12 The man said, "The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate." 13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?" And the woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate." 14 The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat All the days of your life; 15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel." 16 To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth, in pain you will bring forth children; yet your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." 17 Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, `You shall not eat from it'; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life. 18 "Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; And you will eat the plants of the field; 19 By the sweat of your face you will eat bread, Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return."

If you’ll notice, in verses 12-13, man blames the woman for his actions, and woman blames the serpent for her actions. All (the serpent, the woman, and the man) are punished for their sin in verses 14-19, but it is interesting how neither the man nor the woman take responsibility for their disobedience, but rather begin the continued art of blame-shifting from original sin.

Most recently, I observed while on a police ride-a-long a woman who was stopped and arrested for drunk driving after traveling the wrong way down a one-way street. Being nearly double the legal drinking limit for the operation of a non-commercial motor vehicle (.13 or 13% BAC [Blood Alcohol Content]), the driver never once related her behavior to the irresponsibility of her choice to drink in excess and drive, but rather not having asked her friend better directions (having turned right into oncoming traffic rather than left in the correct direction). Sadly, this illustration of behavior coupled with the Scriptural example given from Genesis adequately relates the human condition in relation to sin: That our foolish pride, recognized or not, causes us to shift the responsibility of our own sinful actions rather than address the fact that we are all filthy sinners deserving of death and in need of God’s beautiful grace (Romans 3:23, 6:23; Ephesians 2:8-9).

Whether Adam and Eve in the Garden claiming, “It’s not my fault, ‘they’ made me do it!” or this poor drunken fool of a woman declaring, “It was the directions!” we all have the same response in the flesh to our individual sin. According to James 2:10, “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one {point,} he has become guilty of all." So while we are in our sin trying to shift blame from ourselves to an outside source, we are all lawbreakers and guilty before God. In fact, Isaiah 64:6 tells us, “For all of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment.” While our fleshly nature attempts to divert God’s attention to our sin away from ourselves and his attention to our “righteousness” to ourselves, the opposite occurs. He holds us responsible for our own sin (Romans 14:11-12) and counts our righteousness as filth (again, Isaiah 64:6).

Think of how much more of a glorious example this makes Christ in relation to our gross disobedience to the Law of God. In fact, apart from Christ as Lord, God does not receive our righteous deeds as righteous deeds at all (Ephesians 2:10). In closing, it is the imputed righteousness of Christ which allows us to glorify God, and to receive this capability, we must first surrender ourselves with a repentant and contrite heart to a Holy God through Jesus Christ.

Are we sharing enough Truth?

In a given witness encounter that includes an individual who just does not agree, we can explain things until we are blue in the face, but if someone does not want to accept the Truth as Truth, there is not much more we can do. A good example of this is the parable of The Rich Man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31 which says the following:

19 "Now there was a rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, joyously living in splendor every day. 20 "And a poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores, 21 and longing to be fed with the {crumbs} which were falling from the rich man's table; besides, even the dogs were coming and licking his sores. 22 "Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried. 23 "In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and *saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 "And he cried out and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.' 25 "But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony. 26 'And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, so that those who wish to come over from here to you will not be able, and {that} none may cross over from there to us.' 27 "And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father's house-- 28 for I have five brothers--in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.' 29 "But Abraham *said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.' 30 "But he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!' 31 "But he said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.' "

I always considered this to be a great example to those who do not believe the Truth and even have the audacity to say they will believe if only given a sign from God. Scripture tells us that even then they will not believe because they have not believed already the Word of God. What an incredible truth! This is why it is so important to continually pray for the lost. Otherwise, how should we expect them to hear the Truth with hearts of stone unprepared for the Word?

You might be a false convert if…

You might be a false convert if…

You can’t remember a time when you repented of your sins and placed your faith in Jesus Christ.

You aren’t reading your Bible regularly.

You aren’t attending church regularly.

You believe baptism, church attendance, communion, or some other sort of works righteousness plays any part in your salvation.

You believe baptism, church attendance, communion, or some other sort of works righteousness are unnecessary as evidence of your salvation.

You don’t enjoy fellowship with other believers.

You don’t share your faith with unbelievers.

You don’t memorize Scripture.

You don’t pray regularly.

You exhibit pride, rather than humility, when confronted with a sin you continue to practice since “conversion.”

While many Christians struggle with any one of these problems, an established pattern or willful continued practice of any of these may indicate a need for further examination of the existence of one's faith. Granted, it may not be a sin if you don't memorize Scripture, but more importantly this list is evident fruit we can see in a true believer. It's not necessarily a list of do's and don'ts, but rather a gauge to see if these examples reflect our lives as new creations in Christ. As Paul stated in 2 Corinthians 13:5, "Test yourselves {to see} if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you--unless indeed you fail the test?" Food for thought.

Fear of Evangelism

Fear of rejection is perhaps one of the greatest killers of evangelism in today's Church. It has been said that evangelism is something that both Christians and unbelievers alike hate. Two verses of Scripture, however, come to mind when dealing with this unhealthy type of fear. The first is Acts 1:8, which tells us, "but you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses..." This verse reminds me that as a believer in Christ, I have been given the authority and strength necessary from the Holy Spirit in order to preach the Gospel to unbelievers. The second verse is Luke 12:5 which tells us, "But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the One who, after He has killed, has authority to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear Him!" This verse redirects my perspective to what healthy fear is...fearing the One (God) Who judges righteously for salvation or for condemnation. Answering the question, "What is the worst that can happen?", we know that evil men can kill our bodies. As mere men, however, they (to include Satan) cannot kill the soul. If God is sovereign (and He is), my fear should rest in awe of Him alone. If God has given me both the power and authority to witness Christ and His Gospel, my only response can be obedience. As a sidenote, we are blessed to live in America, a country who has yet to prefer methods of physical persecution as many other nations in the world do. If this is the case, it only shows how much more unreasonable an unhealthy fear of rejection can be, both to obedience and to reason.

Was Jesus a "Good" Person?

This came up recently, so I just wanted to comment on whether Jesus was only a good person. Considering the classic trilemma offered by C.S. Lewis, Jesus was either Lord, Liar or Lunatic, but cannot logically be considered only a “good person.” Jesus in the Bible claims to be God. If you don't agree, comment back and I'll give some Biblical examples. First, if Jesus was not God and knew it, then he is only a liar attempting to persuade converts. That would not make him a good person. Second, if Jesus only thought he was God and he didn’t know he was not, that would make him insane, or more specifically, a raving delusional egomaniac. Once again, not a good person. Last, if Jesus both believed and was in fact God, that doesn’t make Him a good person, but the very perfect God Who created us. Sorry, but “good person” is just not an option He left for us to play with.

Interview with an Emergent

Sometimes, people are so confused and corrupted that you just want to vomit. Emergent Leader Doug Pagitt, pastor of Solomon's Porch, recently had a telephone interview with Todd Friel of Way of the Master Radio. In it, he denied that Heaven and Hell are actual places, he declared that God would interact with everyone the same in eternity, he mocked Todd for using systematic theology in taking several similar examples from Scripture to come to an understanding of what God was saying, he thought using the grammatical-historical method to interpret the Word of God was wrong (the idea that interpretation is clearest when we study the grammatical context of the Greek and think in terms of what God was saying to those people at that time in history), he talked about the Bible with disdain when Todd used systematic theology to understand what God was saying (Doug seemed to be disgusted by the possibility of using four different Scripture verses from four different books and possibly four different authors, which expresses his disbelief in infallibility having forgotten that God is the Author), and he began getting into a philosophical debate about mind/body dualism, cosmology, etc, when his language and attitude expressed that he didn't believe we exist in a place. He accused Todd of being platonic in his thinking, but it sounds more like Doug was babbling on in agreement with Plato's Parable of the Cave. Anyway, probably one of the most disgusting interviews I have ever heard. I was seriously getting butterflies in my stomach and wanted to vomit from this man's perversion of Scripture. Just to get a few things straight, it seems this is the norm in the emerging church movement. I agree with what started the movement, possibly the idea that there needs to be a refocus upon Biblical living that matches Scripture and our profession of faith ("refocus" meaning to focus again upon what Scripture says, not to change focus or interpretation of that message). After all, it is true that if we are more focused on whether someone wears a suit and tie to Church rather than sharing the Gospel of Christ, we've got problems. However, with such leaders as Doug Pagitt and Brian McClaren, the movement has essentially thrown out the baby with the bathwater. I don't believe it to be correct orthodoxy or orthopraxy when your values are the following:

Postmodern Worldview - Truth is subjective

Narrative Theology - Not focusing on what was being said to who at what time, but what does this (Scripture) mean to me?

Generous Orthodoxy - Let's not take the Bible literally, let's all get together to make up some new doctrines. Something to do with sex and profanity to attract unbelievers.

Postmodern Hermeneutics - Interpret the Scripture however you want and apply it to yourself; after all, truth is subjective.

Authenticity - Forget exegesis, tell me about your experience.

Conversation - Let's talk. Bring some new ideas about what you think. You might change my mind because, as we all know, truth is subjective.

Missional Living - This actually sounds like a good idea. If only emergents could remember John 17:14.

Unstructured Ecclesiology - This is similar to house churches. As long as they rely on a Biblical model, this seems okay.

Creative Spirituality - Refers to an eclectic worship style, which is evident in Scripture, but again, a Biblical model should always be followed.

"Non-Legalistic" Conduct - Looks good on the surface, but going back to a postmodern mindset, the application is one of "Don't judge me!", and reinforces sinful lifestyles such as homosexuality.

Use of New Technologies - Actually, a good idea if using these tools for an evangelistic/discipleship effort.

Postmodern Terminology - A rose smells just as sweet by any other name. As long as they don't try to redefine traditionally orthodox terminology, like the Mormons have, call it whatever you want.

Justice - More specifically, social justice. Good in practice (feeding the poor, visiting the sick, environmental stewardship, etc.), but not in thought (the same Jewish belief that God's Kingdom was an earthly reign when trying to crown Christ [not referencing the millenial reign of Christ]).

So, before I go off on some other tangent, let me remember to give you the link to Doug and Todd's "Conversation."

http://podcast.wayofthemasterradio.com/audio/podcasts/1007/WOTMR-10-22-07-Hour1.mp3

The first few minutes are of their "pre-show," after that the interview starts.

Visual Tools for Remembering God's Law

If you're like me, you can name most of the 10 Commandments. The following is a trick that I learned to not only remember them ALL, but also list them in order:

The first place ribbon represents that God should always be number one in our lives and is a reminder of the 1st Commandment: Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.

The shape of the man bowing down to an idol is a reminder of the 2nd Commandment: Thou shalt not make unto thyself any graven image.
The lips represents not speaking loosely of God’s name and the shape of the edge of the lips is a reminder of the 3^rd Commandment: Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
The shape of the book end and Bible is a reminder of the 4^th Commandment: Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy.
The man and woman represent parents and their shape is a reminder of the 5^th Commandment: Honor thy father and thy mother.
The bomb represents death and destruction and the shape of the outline of this bomb is a reminder of the 6^th Commandment: Thou shalt not commit murder.
The broken heart represents what happens because of adultery and the shape of the void in between the two halves of the heart is a reminder of the 7^th Commandment: Thou shalt not commit adultery.
The burglar represents theft and the shape of the burglar’s mask is a reminder of the 8^th Commandment: Thou shalt not steal.
The lying-down position of the number 9 is a reminder of the 9^th Commandment: Thou shalt not bear false witness (lie).

The man desiring the jewelry and the shape of the man in the doorway and the diamond ring is a reminder of the 10^th Commandment: Thou shalt not covet.

I hope that helps for anyone interested in using this tool for memory. It is also a great idea for young children just learning God's law.

Balancing Work and Witnessing

I don't think that any of us are free from repercussions when we speak on behalf of Christ; however, I don't believe that should stop us, either. In my experience, policies set forth by employers give them legal rights to keep individuals from evangelizing during working hours, but not during breaks, lunch periods, or before and after any given shifts. This has not stopped me, but I have had some problems with supervisors on the issue. As an example, one former employer had attempted to stop me from speaking about religious issues, but had allowed other employees to discuss reincarnation, karma, etc. I brought this information to her attention, but the response was that these are not religious topics. Apparently, she had never heard of hinduism. Anyway, the issue was never pressed, except in circumstances when the conversation did in fact interrupt the workflow. As an example on the issue, take a look at Romans 13:1-5 (NASB), "Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake." So, looking at these verses, we see that God has established authorities to govern us. This is true even in employer-employee relationships. The only time I see a deviation from this norm in Scripture is when the authority is in direct opposition to God's Word. We have a responsibility as Christians to share the Gospel, but employers have the authority to ensure that they get what they paid for (your time for their money). Considering most in this world are secular, they don't want you wasting the time they are paying for in preaching the Gospel. If we prioritize continual preaching over completing our work as assigned by an authority given over us by God, we may be hurting the Gospel by looking like a lazy employee. If we prioritize our work assignments over concern for the salvation of our lost coworkers, we may be hurting our witness by not being willing to share the Gospel. All these things in consideration, the key is balance. Share your faith in word and deed at work, but do not allow it to counter fulfilling your obligation to your employer. Understand that interrupting the workflow of yourself and your coworkers may be viewed as stealing from the company (again, their money for your time), but do not let it compromise your sincerely held religious beliefs which are protected by law. These are all questions that put us between a rock and a hard place when having to live a Christian life in a secular world. How important it is to submit to God not only by preaching the Gospel, but also by being obedient to the authorities He has established over us, without compromising our faith.

How does Jesus stack up in cults and non-Christian religions?

Sometimes it is nice to take a step back and ponder why it is we believe what we do. For example, Christianity teaches that Jesus is God, however, every other religion teaches (if they speak of Him at all) that He is not. Mormonism says that Jesus is the brother of Satan (Lucifer) and that men can become gods; Islam teaches that Jesus (Isa) is a prophet of Allah, not the greatest (that would be Mohammed), and that God (Allah) is one (in both person and nature, so no Trinity); Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Jesus is the Archangel Michael; and Hinduism teaches that Jesus is one of millions of possible gods to worship at your discretion. Can all these religions "lead to the same path" and be indeed true? Obviously not. So, what does the Bible actually say about Christ's divinity? Mark 2:5-12 says, "And Jesus seeing their faith said to the paralytic, 'Son, your sins are forgiven.' But some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, 'Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?' Immediately Jesus, aware in His spirit that they were reasoning that way within themselves, said to them, 'Why are you reasoning about these things in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven'; or to say, 'Get up, and pick up your pallet and walk'? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins'--He said to the paralytic, 'I say to you , get up, pick up your pallet and go home.' And he got up and immediately picked up the pallet and went out in the sight of everyone, so that they were all amazed and were glorifying God, saying, 'We have never seen anything like this.'" So, what's the moral of the story? Yes, Jesus could perform miracles of healing, but more importantly, the scribes recognized only God could forgive sins, so Jesus showed them that by the miraculous healing He was in fact also the forgiver of sins, God incarnate. If we add the often overlooked attestations by Christ's words and actions that show His divinity to the Gospel of John (written to the Gentiles that we may know that Jesus is God), it becomes impossible to deny this fact, that Jesus is the Christ, the one and only Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity.