Mormon Vow to assist LGBT Baptist say Mormon's are naive

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly known as the Mormon Church, announced Tuesday it would back legal efforts to protect LGBT people from discrimination along with religious freedom protections. This middle ground approach is consistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ, church leaders said.

Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, called the effort "well-intentioned but naive."

LDS leaders acknowledged that the LGBT community has faced discrimination and violence against them. LGBT people should be protected from discrimination in housing, employment and other places where discrimination exists, they said, but religious freedom must also be protected in such laws.

At the press conference, Dallin Oaks, an elder in the LDS's Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, mentioned several recent examples of religious freedom not being respected, including when California universities forced Christian groups off campus, the CEO of Mozilla was forced to resign, and the mayor of Houston tried to subpoena the sermons of pastors.

"When religious people are publicly intimidated, retaliated against, forced from employment or made to suffer personal loss because they have raised their voice in the public square, donated to a cause or participated in an election, our democracy is the loser," Oaks said. "Such tactics are every bit as wrong as denying access to employment, housing or public services because of race or gender."

The LDS position is consistent with four principles that are based upon the teachings of Jesus Christ, Oaks asserted: everyone has the right to live according to the dictates of their conscience as long as they do not interfere with the health or safety of others; freedom of conscience includes the right to choose one's faith, or no faith; laws should balance protecting freedom with respecting the fact the people have different values; and, persecution and retaliation of any kind are rejected.

The position is consistent with previous statements, the LDS leaders noted, such as their support for a Salt Lake City non-discrimination ordinance in 2009 and a 2010 statement condemning bullying of gay youth.

"I think the Latter-day Saints are well-intentioned but naive on where the reality stands today," said Moore, who added that he has met with LDS leaders often to talk about those issues.

"I do not think, in most instances, sexual orientation ought to matter in housing or employment," Moore continued, "but of course the proposals to address these concerns inevitably lead to targeted assaults on religious liberty."

Moore also noted that gay rights organizations have responded with "hostility" toward the LDS effort to find a middle ground.

"Nonetheless," Moore added, "I look forward to working with Mormons and others on protecting religious liberty for everyone in the years ahead."

He also reiterated that Southern Baptists believe that all LGBT people "are created in the image of God and ought to be respected," that "any sexual expression outside of marriage between one man and one woman is morally wrong," and "that freedom of conscience for those of us who dissent from the Sexual Revolution ought to be maintained."

"What is dispensationalism and is it biblical?"

Question: "What is dispensationalism and is it biblical?"

Answer: A dispensation is an administration, a system, or a management. In theology, a dispensation is the divine administration of a period of time, a divinely appointed age. Dispensationalism is a theological system that recognizes these ages ordained by God to order the affairs of the world. Dispensationalism has two primary distinctives: 1) a consistently literal interpretation of Scripture, especially Bible prophecy and 2) a distinction between Israel and the church in God's program.

Dispensationalists claim that their principle of hermeneutics is that of literal interpretation, which means giving each word the meaning it would commonly have in everyday usage. Symbols, figures of speech and types are all interpreted plainly in this method, and this is in no way contrary to literal interpretation. Even symbols and figurative sayings have literal meanings behind them.

There are at least three reasons why this is the best way to view Scripture. First, philosophically, the purpose of language itself seems to require that we interpret it literally. Language was given by God for the purpose of being able to communicate with man. The second reason is biblical. Every prophecy about Jesus Christ in the Old Testament was fulfilled literally. Jesus' birth, Jesus' ministry, Jesus' death, and Jesus' resurrection all occurred exactly and literally as the Old Testament predicted. There is no non-literal fulfillment of these prophecies in the New Testament. This argues strongly for the literal method. If literal interpretation is not used in studying the Scriptures, there is no objective standard by which to understand the Bible. Each and every person would be able to interpret the Bible as he saw fit. Biblical interpretation would devolve into “what this passage says to me...” instead of “the Bible says...” Sadly, this is already the case in much of what is called biblical interpretation today.

Dispensational theology teaches that there are two distinct peoples of God: Israel and the church. Dispensationalists believe that salvation has always been by faith—in God in the Old Testament and specifically in God the Son in the New Testament. Dispensationalists hold that the church has not replaced Israel in God’s program and the Old Testament promises to Israel have not been transferred to the church. They believe that the promises God made to Israel (for land, many descendants, and blessings) in the Old Testament will be ultimately fulfilled in the 1000-year period spoken of in Revelation chapter 20. Dispensationalists believe that just as God is in this age focusing His attention on the church, He will again in the future focus His attention on Israel (Romans 9-11).

Using this system as a basis, dispensationalists understand the Bible to be organized into seven dispensations: Innocence (Genesis 1:1–3:7), conscience (Genesis 3:8–8:22), human government (Genesis 9:1–11:32), promise (Genesis 12:1–Exodus 19:25), law (Exodus 20:1–Acts 2:4), grace (Acts 2:4–Revelation 20:3), and the millennial kingdom (Revelation 20:4-6). Again, these dispensations are not paths to salvation, but manners in which God relates to man. Dispensationalism, as a system, results in a premillennial interpretation of Christ’s second coming and usually a pretribulational interpretation of the rapture. To summarize, dispensationalism is a theological system that emphasizes the literal interpretation of Bible prophecy, recognizes a clear distinction between Israel and the church, and organizes the Bible into the different dispensations it presents.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/dispensationalism.html#ixzz3Q7D5FJZF

Should Churches Practice Foot Washing as Worship Ritual?

Washing of Feet - John 13

Should Churches Practice Foot Washing as Worship Ritual?

Did Jesus teach foot washing as a church ritual in religious worship assemblies? Does washing of feet (footwashing) in modern denominations serve the same purpose and is it done in the same way as Jesus did it?
What did the Lord intend to teach in John 13 when He washed the disciples feet? Did He institute a church religious worship ritual, or did He set an example of individual humble service? Does washing of feet (footwashing) in modern denominations serve the same purpose and is it done in the same way as Christ did it? Do Bible examples show that washing of feet was an individual act of hospitality or personal hygiene?
Introduction:
Some churches practice washing of feet as a church worship ritual.
foot washing ... - a religious rite practiced by the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church on Maundy Thursday of Holy Week (preceding Easter) and by members of some other Christian churches in their worship services. - Encyclopedia Britannica (under "foot washing") at www.britannica.com/eb/
The principal priest or prelate of the church assisted by deacon and subdeacon washes the feet of twelve poor men. The Pope washes the feet of thirteen poor persons, all of whom are priests - Catholic Dictionary, p 404.
In 694 the Seventeenth Synod of Toledo commanded all bishops and priests in a position of superiority under pain of excommunication to wash the feet of those subject to them. - Catholic Encyclopedia (under "Washing of Hands and Feet") via www.newadvent.org/cathen
The purpose of this study is to examine the teaching of Scripture about the practice of foot washing.
What did Jesus do when He washed His disciples feet? Did He intend to institute a ritual to be repeated by Christians in church worship meetings? What lessons did He intend to teach?
Consider the Bible teaching:
I. The Example of Jesus in John 13
The circumstances
Luke 22:14-27 and other accounts show that, on this very occasion (as well as other times), the apostles argued among themselves about which of them was greatest and would have the highest positions in the kingdom. They had a serious problem with pride and self-exaltation. (See also Mark 9:33-36; 10:35-45; Luke 9:46-48; Matthew 20:20-28.)
They may have been especially excited by the great honor the people showed when they entered the city with the Lord in the Triumphal Entry. Like other people, they believed Jesus was ready to announce the beginning of His earthly kingdom. As part of His inner circle, they struggled over who would be greatest in that kingdom. Apparently, no one wanted to accept menial or humble tasks, such as washing one another's feet after their journey.
On such occasions in the past, Jesus had tried to teach the apostles humility, even explaining that He Himself had come to serve and give His life for others (Matthew 20:28). Finally, on this occasion He determined to demonstrate by His own example the humility the apostles needed to learn.
[Cf. Philippians 2:1-8.]
Jesus' action
Note what Jesus did:
Vv 3-5 - He took a towel, poured water in a basin, and began to wash the disciples' feet and dry them with the towel.
Vv 6-11 - Peter objected to Jesus' washing His feet. Jesus said Peter could have no part with him if Peter refused. Then Peter wanted his hands and head washed too, but Jesus said these were already clean (he had already bathed) and only his feet needed to be washed.
Vv 12-17 - He asked if they understood what He had done. If He, as the Teacher and Lord, had washed their feet, then they should wash one another's feet. He had given them an example, that they should do as He had done to them. A servant is not greater than His master, so they would be blessed if they did these things.
Observations regarding Jesus' actions
* The disciples must have needed to have their feet washed.
Jesus refused to wash Peter's hands and head, since those had already been bathed. But Jesus' expressly stated that their feet needed to be washed in order to make them completely clean. So, washing their feet met a physical "need." It follows that, just as He did not wash their hands and heads, so He would not have washed their feet if they were already clean. (Presumably, their feet had become dirty on the way to the meeting room.)
* Jesus washed both feet of each disciple.
This expressly follows from the fact that He was washing what needed to be washed. If one foot needed washed, then both feet needed it. He and Peter expressly stated that Jesus washed Peter's "feet" (plural), just as He had also done for the others.
* He said they should wash one another's feet (v14).
This was not something that certain designated foot washers should do for others who don't wash feet. But all were equally responsible to do it.
* But Jesus was teaching also a deeper lesson than just the need for clean feet.
He stated or implied more than once that they did not understand (or needed to consider carefully so they would understand) what He was doing - vv 7,23. Peter obviously misunderstood. The disciples obviously understood that He was washing their feet, but His statements show that He was teaching a deeper lesson.
* By washing the disciples' feet, Jesus took upon Himself the humblest of duties, generally left to a servant.
None of the other disciples would lower himself to do this for the others, so Jesus did it Himself. Hence, the One, Whom they all knew to be the greatest among them, voluntarily chose to do the humblest task among them. This is exactly what He had taught them in words on other occasions (see the passages above).
* After washing their feet, Jesus said they should wash one another's feet as He had done (v14).
He had given them an example, so they should do as He had done (v15). They would be happy if they did as He had done (v17).
This would sound like a direct command to imitate His example. But the question remains as to exactly what it was that the disciples should imitate. Must they literally wash feet? Did He mean for them to practice a regular church worship ritual, like the Lord's Supper? Or did He set some other example? As already stated, His statements implied a deeper meaning than just washing of feet. What was the lesson to be imitated?
II. Other Bible Passages about Foot Washing
Washing of Feet as an Act of Hospitality
Bible examples
Old Testament examples
Genesis 18:1-5 - Three men (angels) came to Abraham's tent as they traveled to Sodom. He offered water to wash their feet and food to refresh them. It is not clear here who washed the men's feet; but it is clear that, like the offer of food, this was an act of hospitality to provide refreshment for travelers.
A nearly identical event occurred in each of the following cases:
* When the men visited Lot (Genesis 19:1-3)
* When Abraham's servant visited Laban (Genesis 24:17-24,31-33)
* When Joseph's brothers went to Egypt for food (Genesis 43:24,25).
* When an old man in Gibeah provided lodging for a Levite and his concubine who were traveling (Judges 19:16-21). [Note that the old man said he was providing for their "needs."]
* When David's servants visited Abigail to invite her to become David's wife, she said she would be a servant to wash the feet of David's servants (1 Samuel 25:40,41). Note that Abigail stated that washing their feet would be an act of service to them, and she willingly offered to do that service.
In each case, hospitality was shown to travelers by offering food for the people (and perhaps their animals), a place to spend the night (if needed), and washing their feet or at least offering them water to wash their feet.
Two other Bible examples describe people who wash their own feet in their own dwelling as an act of personal refreshment or hygiene (2 Samuel 11:8; Song of Solomon 5:3).
New Testament examples
Luke 7:37,38,44-46 - In the home of Simon the Pharisee, a woman washed Jesus' feet with her tears. When Simon criticized her, Jesus pointed out that, when He entered Simon's house, Simon provided no water for Him to wash His feet, nor had he greeted Him with a kiss, nor anointed His head with oil. All these acts were intended as expressions of hospitality and respect for one who visited. Simon had not done them for Jesus, but the woman had done them for Him.
1 Timothy 5:10 - Paul described a widow indeed as one who lodged strangers, washed the saints feet, relieved the afflicted, and diligently followed every good work. All the other works in the list were acts of service to meet the needs of others. Washing the feet of saints is expressly associated with hospitality in lodging strangers, just as in the Old Testament cases.
Observations
Note the following facts based on these Scriptures.
* Washing feet was an act of hospitality or personal hygiene.
This is the pattern of each of these Scriptures. This makes sense in that land where people often traveled by foot, wearing sandals, walking in hot, dusty sand. Washing the feet was done to comfort guests, meet their needs, and welcome them. When one person did it for others, it was considered a menial task of service.
* It follows that washing of feet was an act of service to meet a need.
It was not a ritual done as an act of worship. People had a physical need, just like they might need food or a place to spend the night. Hospitality involved providing whatever would meet that need.
It also follows that there was no purpose in washing the feet of those whose feet were clean. Such people would not need their feet washed.
* Since the purpose was to meet a need, both feet were washed for those who needed it.
It makes no sense to wash one foot. If people came from a journey, both feet would need to be washed. Meeting their need would require washing both feet.
* In none of these cases was washing of feet a worship ritual done in the context of worship meetings.
It was an individual act done as an act of hospitality to visitors.
Washing the Feet of Priests in the Tabernacle
Passages
Exodus 30:19-21; 40:30-32 - God commanded Moses to make a laver to place outside the tabernacle where the priests could wash their hands and feet before entering the tabernacle or offering sacrifices. They were commanded to do this on penalty of death.
Observations
This was done in religious worship, but note its characteristics:
* The priests washed, not just their feet, but also their hands.
* The priests were to wash their own hands and feet, not the feet of others.
* This was done by priests in the tabernacle. There is no evidence the people in general were commanded to wash the feet of others or to have their own feet washed.
* The time, place, and occasion was specifically stated: when they went into the tabernacle and when they offered sacrifices. There is no evidence it was done to other people in the midst of a worship assembly.
* Specific penalty was stated for failure: death.
* This pertained entirely to the Old Testament tabernacle and animal sacrifices, none of which is part of the New Testament church.
These examples of the priests in the tabernacle are included in this study simply for completeness. It should be quite obvious that Jesus' act in John 13 is not at all the same. He was not a priest under the Old Law (those priests had to be of the tribe of Levi), He did not wash the disciples' feet at the tabernacle, nor was He offering animal sacrifices, He washed other people's feet rather than His own hands and feet, etc. The example of the priests does not in any way explain what Jesus did, nor does it authorize a church foot washing ritual.
III. Foot Washing as a Modern Church Worship Ritual
As quoted in our introduction, churches that practice foot washing do so as a religious ritual in their worship assemblies, like the Lord's Supper (in fact, it is often associated with the Lord's Supper). Did Jesus intend to institute foot washing as a church worship ritual (or even like the priest's washing before entering the tabernacle), or should His example be associated with hospitality and serving others as an individual act?
Consider the differences between what Jesus did and church worship rituals:
1. John 13 nowhere states this should be a ritual of worship done in the assemblies of the church.
Where does the passage say feet should be washed in a worship meeting or as an act of worship? Nothing is the passage so states. Any such conclusion is an assumption.
2. No other passage gives any example or any indication that Christians did this in church worship assemblies.
If the Lord intended this to be a religious ritual done in their assemblies, would we not find examples of it being done, like we find examples of the Lord's Supper being done in assemblies?
3. The only passage after this that even mentions feet washing is 1 Timothy 5:10.
The context there shows that the act is a personal, individual act done as one has the opportunity, like other qualities listed in that context. The widow indeed is hospitable to strangers, washes feet of the saints, and relieves the afflicted. There is no indication of church assemblies or church action of any kind.
4. No passage anywhere states when or how often this ritual should be practiced or what purpose it would serve.
It is true that Jesus at this time instituted the Lord's Supper. But when the Lord instituted a religious rite, we would expect Him to give us the necessary information to carry it out. So, we have other Scriptures that teach Christians to have the Lord's Supper in their worship assemblies (1 Corinthians 11:17ff). The time and frequency when it should be done are also taught (Acts 20:7). The meaning and purpose of the Lord's Supper is also clearly stated several times (1 Corinthians 11:17ff; 10:16f; Matthew 26:26-28; etc.).
What the Old Testament priests did when they washed their hands and feet was different from what Jesus taught. But it too illustrates that the Lord gave all necessary instructions for religious rites. He said exactly who should do it, where it should be done, when it should be done, and what the penalty would be for failure.
Regarding foot washing, we have no instruction to do it as a church function, no instruction to do it in the worship assembly, we are never told what purpose any such act might serve, nor are we told when or how often to do it. Washing of feet lacks every essential element of a church ritual.
5. Other Old and New Testaments passages regarding washing of feet generally view it as an act of hospitality and service done by individuals to meet people's needs.
See the references already studied.
Even when the priests washed in tabernacle service, they did not wash the feet of others, nor did they do so in a congregational worship assembly.
There is simply no evidence that foot washing is a church worship ritual.
6. When modern denominations attempt to practice "foot-washing," that which they do is surely not what the Scriptures describe.
"How to Conduct a Foot Washing Service," by Ken Collins, says:
"For the people whose feet are being washed: Instruct them to come to the service with clean feet in clean footgear ... Each person removes the footgear from one foot. It doesn't matter which foot. The foot-washer places the bowl under the person's bare foot, pours water on the foot, and dries it with the towel." [emphasis added]
In denominations people know ahead of time their feet will be washed, so they make sure they are clean!
Who wants everybody in a church assembly seeing and smelling your dirty feet? But this defeats the whole purpose of the washing, which was to meet a need as an act of hospitality. Jesus clearly said that what was already clean did not "need" to be washed. The feet washed in ritual ceremonies today are clean; therefore, by Jesus' own statement they need not be washed. His act was intended to meet a "need." Modern denominational ritual foot washing involves just the opposite: Feet are washed that do not need to be washed.
Denominations wash only one foot of each person who is washed, because it is only a ritual: people don't need both feet washed.
But Jesus washed both feet (plural), because if a man had one foot dirty the other would be too. But the same reasoning that leads people to leave one foot unwashed would likewise tell them to not wash either foot. Neither foot really needs to be washed; so as Jesus explained, there is no purpose in washing either one!
Nor can they appeal to the Old Testament example of the priests, since they washed both their feet and their hands.
Jesus said that the disciples should wash one another's feet, not just that certain designated leaders (priests or Pope) should wash the feet of others.
It was a responsibility of all to do.
And again, they cannot appeal to the Old Testament priests, since they washed their own feet and hands.
Further, the main lesson Jesus was trying to teach His apostles was humility.
But the modern denominational ritual involves making show and pomp of ones humility! One who is truly humble does not seek or deliberately set up rituals by which he can demonstrate his humility!
So the modern denominational ritual violates both aspects of what the Lord intended: It is not really an act of humility, and it does not really meet a need. It is nothing like what the Lord really did.
7. The fact Jesus said more than once that the disciples did not understand what He was doing, indicates that simply washing feet was not the real point of the lesson.
They could clearly see He was doing that (note John 13:7,12).
III. The Lesson Jesus Intended to Teach
If Jesus did not intend to institute a church worship ritual, what lesson did He intend to teach?
Jesus example had all the characteristics of an act of hospitality and humble service to meet the needs of others.
Perhaps there is even more to it than this, but at least this much seems to be involved: The 12 had disputed among themselves about which of them would have the greatest place of honor in Jesus' kingdom (see notes above). Jesus' act showed that what is important is service, not authority or greatness in man's ways of looking at greatness. (Cf. Matthew 20:20-28.)
The disciples needed a lesson on having the humility to serve one another with kindness, rather than competing with one another to see who can excel others in honor and power. The 12 refused to humble themselves to serve one another in this way. So, Jesus took the opportunity to serve them and thereby teach them the lesson of humble service to meet the needs of others. If the Lord performed this kind of humble service, surely the disciples should do the same. To make this a ritual in the church assembly misses the point.
Compare this to Luke 10:37.
Here Jesus plainly described how a Samaritan helped a needy Jew, who had been beaten and robbed. Then Jesus commanded us to "go and do likewise" -- just like in John 13. Was Jesus here making a church ritual out of helping people beaten by robbers! Obviously, not. He was illustrating love for our neighbor, teaching us to show care and kindness to help people in whatever their need.
The application to today would be that anytime others really need our help, we should be humble and kind enough to willingly serve in whatever capacity they need. We must not think we are too good to do certain tasks.
Some people today may actually need their feet washed (such as elderly people, sick people, or children who cannot bathe themselves, etc.), though this would be much less common in our society than in theirs. But it is done to meet a genuine need, not as a church ritual for people whose feet are already clean.
And there are plenty of other opportunities to serve. The lesson to be learned is that every Christian should be humble enough to do for others what they need someone to do for them. When we understand that this is the example Jesus set, then we should do as He did.
Note: If you would like to study further about related Bible topics, we have a number of other study materials on our web site that should interest you. Please see the links listed below.
(C) Copyright 2007, David E. Pratte

"What does it mean that ‘the truth will set you free’ (John 8:32)?"

Question: "What does it mean that ‘the truth will set you free’ (John 8:32)?"

Answer: “The truth will set you free” is a common saying in academic circles that want to promote academic freedom and the power of learning. Many universities have this statement emblazoned on a sign near the entrance of a building. But “the truth will set you free” did not originate in academia; Jesus said it in John 8:32. In context, Jesus’ statement has nothing to do with classroom learning. In fact, John 8:32 speaks of a higher form of knowledge than is capable of being learned in a classroom.

Jesus had just finished a speech at the temple where He delineated differences between Himself and His listeners. “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins” (John 8:23–24). The result of Jesus’ message was that “even as he spoke, many believed in him” (verse 30). Then, in verse 31, Jesus begins to speak just to those who had believed.

“Jesus said, ‘If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples’” (John 8:31). True discipleship is more than intellectual assent; those who are “really” followers of Christ will “hold to” His Word. That means they will not only accept His teachings as truth, but they will also obey His teachings. Action is proof of faith (cf. James 2:17).

True disciples of Jesus believe that He speaks the truth about God and the Scriptures. They also know that He is who He claims to be. Back in verse 25, the people asked Jesus who He was, and He responded, “Just what I have been telling you from the beginning.” There may be a tinge of exasperation in His response; He had repeatedly made known that He was the Messiah, the one they had anticipated for many years.

Verse 32 begins with, “Then you will know the truth.” “You” refers to those who are true disciples of Jesus. True disciples will know the truth. More than that, their eyes are opened to a greater understanding of the truth (cf. 1 John 5:20).

The truth Jesus’ disciples receive brings with it freedom. Jesus continues, “And the truth will set you free” (verse 32). At that point in history, the Jews were under the rule of the Roman government. Even though Rome gave them an exceptional amount of autonomy, they were keenly aware of the Roman presence around them in the form of soldiers, governors, and empirically appointed kings. When Jesus said the truth would set them free, however, He was not talking about political freedom (though the following verses indicate that’s how the Jews took it). Jesus provides the best commentary for His own statement in verse 34. Jesus explains, “Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin.” Being a slave to sin is the ultimate bondage.

The freedom Jesus offers is a spiritual freedom from the bondage of sin—that is, release from the lifestyle of habitual lawlessness. He continues with an analogy: “Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever” (verse 35). The people would have understood Jesus to mean that they were not members of God’s family, despite their biological relationship to Abraham (verse 37), because they were slaves to sin. If they were to become disciples of Jesus, they would know the truth of their condition and the truth about Christ, and Jesus would set them free. Believers would be freed from their bondage and brought into the family of God.

Jesus is the Truth (John 14:6). Knowing the Truth will set one at liberty—free from sin, free from condemnation, and free from death (Romans 6:22; 8:1–2). Jesus came to proclaim liberty to the captives (Luke 4:18). “Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God” (1 Peter 2:16, ESV).


Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/the-truth-will-set-you-free.html#ixzz3PpMyot2f

BAPTIST DISTINCTIVES

BAPTIST DISTINCTIVES

“Out of all the available options, which church should I attend?”

People often choose a church based on the appearance of the building, the friendliness of the people, or the programs that are offered.

As important as these qualities are, other qualities surpass them all . . .

First and foremost, the church you choose should hold to the fundamentals of the Christian faith: the inspiration and authority of the Bible and Jesus’ virgin birth, eternal deity, substitutionary death, bodily resurrection, and literal return. Bible-teaching churches of all varieties hold these primary beliefs as essential truths.

But beyond these fundamentals, there are specific teachings that set one church apart from the others.

Baptists are distinguished from other Christian groups by specific Biblical distinctives. The name “Baptist” identifies people who hold those distinctives.These Baptist distinctives relate to questions of vital interest today. For example, Does absolute truth exist, or are all belief systems relative? Who controls the program, property, finances, staffing, and doctrinal position of a local church? How does being a representative of God on earth affect the believer’s marriage, work, or relationship to government and society? Does God dispense His grace through religious rituals? Should a free society “legislate righteousness”? Is it right to “judge” anything about another person? Is there a Biblical model for church leadership? What is the proper relationship between church and state?

Why Is It Important to Know the Baptist Distinctives?

They are Biblical! They are part of God’s truth as revealed in His Word.

The knowledge of these facts provides practical benefits relevant to today.

Such knowledge enables one to select a church that is faithful to these Biblical truths.
It demonstrates the meaning, worth, and significance of the name “Baptist.”
General titles that lack identification, such as “Christian” or “Christ” and churches labeled “community” or “nondenominational,” leave much room for ambiguities and misunderstandings. The name “Baptist” is understood through its distinctives. Baptists should be confident that when their name is heard, no ambiguities are left in defining what they stand for. Certain Biblical distinctives have distinguished their doctrinal position.
It helps members maintain the Baptist position of their church, preventing digression into unscriptural positions.
Each member of a Baptist church needs to know what a Biblical Baptist individual and a Biblical Baptist church does and then do these things faithfully.

How Did These Distinctives Originate?

Baptists arrived at these distinctives through careful study of the Bible. That is why these teachings are more precisely called the Biblical distinctives of Baptists rather than Baptist distinctives.

These teachings emerged as Baptist distinctives because individual Baptist churches have consistently and independently held to them, not because some group of Baptist leaders composed the list and then imposed the distinctives on local churches.

Church groups other than Baptists have held some of the Baptist distinctives, and one may even find churches that hold all of the distinctives but do not call themselves Baptist. Such groups are “baptistic,” but for some reason they choose not to be identified as Baptists. On the other hand, some churches naming themselves “Baptist” are not truly Baptist because they no longer hold the historic Baptist beliefs or even the fundamentals of the Christian faith.

Baptists are people of the Book above all else. And Baptists enjoy a priceless heritage of generations who have exalted God’s Son our Savior and have proclaimed God’s inspired Word.

What Are the Eight Baptist Distinctives?

These teachings may be remembered by associating them with the letters that form the word “BAPTISTS.”

Biblical Authority

The Bible is the final authority in all matters of belief and practice because the Bible is inspired by God and bears the absolute authority of God Himself. Whatever the Bible affirms, Baptists accept as true. No human opinion or decree of any church group can override the Bible. Even creeds and confessions of faith, which attempt to articulate the theology of Scripture, do not carry Scripture’s inherent authority.
2 Timothy 3:15–17; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Peter 1:20, 21
Autonomy of the Local Church

The local church is an independent body accountable to the Lord Jesus Christ, the head of the church. All human authority for governing the local church resides within the local church itself. Thus the church is autonomous, or self-governing. No religious hierarchy outside the local church may dictate a church’s beliefs or practices. Autonomy does not mean isolation. A Baptist church may fellowship with other churches around mutual interests and in an associational tie, but a Baptist church cannot be a “member” of any other body.
Colossians 1:18; 2 Corinthians 8:1–5, 19, 23
Priesthood of the Believer

“Priest” is defined as “one authorized to perform the sacred rites of a religion, especially as a mediatory agent between humans and God.” Every believer today is a priest of God and may enter into His presence in prayer directly through our Great High Priest, Jesus Christ. No other mediator is needed between God and people. As priests, we can study God’s Word, pray for others, and offer spiritual worship to God. We all have equal access to God—whether we are a preacher or not.
1 Peter 2:5, 9; Revelation 5:9, 10
Two Ordinances

The local church should practice two ordinances: (1) baptism of believers by immersion in water, identifying the individual with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection, and (2) the Lord’s Supper, or communion, commemorating His death for our sins.
Matthew 28:19, 20; 1 Corinthians 11:23–32
Individual Soul Liberty

Every individual, whether a believer or an unbeliever, has the liberty to choose what he believes is right in the religious realm. No one should be forced to assent to any belief against his will. Baptists have always opposed religious persecution. However, this liberty does not exempt one from responsibility to the Word of God or from accountability to God Himself.
Romans 14:5, 12; 2 Corinthians 4:2; Titus 1:9

Saved, Baptized Church Membership

Local church membership is restricted to individuals who give a believable testimony of personal faith in Christ and have publicly identified themselves with Him in believer’s baptism. When the members of a local church are believers, a oneness in Christ exists, and the members can endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Acts 2:41–47; 1 Corinthians 12:12; 2 Corinthians 6:14; Ephesians 4:3
Two Offices

The Bible mandates only two offices in the church–pastor and deacon. The three terms—”pastor,” “elder,” and “bishop,” or “overseer”—all refer to the same office. The two offices of pastor and deacon exist within the local church, not as a hierarchy outside or over the local church.
1 Timothy 3:1–13; Acts 20:17–38; Philippians 1:1
Separation of Church and State

God established both the church and the civil government, and He gave each its own distinct sphere of operation. The government’s purposes are outlined in Romans 13:1–7 and the church’s purposes in Matthew 28:19 and 20. Neither should control the other, nor should there be an alliance between the two. Christians in a free society can properly influence government toward righteousness, which is not the same as a denomination or group of churches controlling the government.
Matthew 22:15–22; Acts 5:17–29
What sets one church apart from all the others? We have seen that it is the church’s distinctive beliefs that set it apart from all others and that Baptists in general hold to some convictions that make them different from all other groups. Regular Baptist churches will continue to hold to the Baptist distinctives because these distinctives are historically Biblical. They are relevant to the issues facing contemporary society and the church. So when “shopping” for a church, look for the name “Baptist” and then take a closer look to make sure that church is upholding the Biblical Baptist distinctives.

On Being Politically or Biblically Correct

On Being Politically or Biblically Correct

"A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways."1

It has been said that if you stand for something worthwhile, you will have some people for you and some against you. But if you stand for nothing, you will have nobody against you—but neither will you have anybody for you.

In today's society there is tremendous pressure to be politically correct and open minded; that is, except towards evangelical Christianity. If you make a stand for Christian convictions, you are just as likely to be labeled intolerant, bigoted and/or narrow minded. Funny how those who so aggressively oppose Christianity don't see themselves as rigid, inflexible, dogmatic and intolerant!

What many don't seem to realize is that if you stand for nothing, you can easily fall for anything. Or as E. Stanley Jones put it, "The difference between a swamp and a river is that a river has banks, and a swamp has none—it spreads over everything. Some people are rivers: they know where they want to go, and they confine themselves to the banks that lead to that goal. But some people are swamps: they spread over everything; their minds are so open they cannot hold a conviction."

I'd much rather be a "river for God" and know where I stand and where I'm going and be labeled narrow minded than to be a swamp for "anything goes" and be popular with the crowd! It is much wiser to be biblically correct than politically correct.

As martyred missionary Jim Elliot, who stood firmly on the Word of God, said, "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose."

Suggested prayer: "Dear God, please give me the courage to stand firmly on your foundation of truth based on your Word, the Bible, knowing that in the long run truth will survive the test of time. Thank you for hearing and answering my prayer. Gratefully, in Jesus' name, amen."

Quotations about Prayer

Quotations about Prayer


I pray on the principle that wine knocks the cork out of a bottle. There is an inward fermentation, and there must be a vent. ~Henry Ward Beecher


God punishes us mildly by ignoring our prayers and severely by answering them. ~Richard J. Needham


When we pray to God we must be seeking nothing — nothing. ~Saint Francis of Assisi


"Give us this day our daily bread" is probably the most perfectly constructed and useful sentence ever set down in the English language. ~P.J. Wingate


Prayer does not change God, but it changes him who prays. ~Søren Kierkegaard


No one is a firmer believer in the power of prayer than the devil; not that he practices it, but he suffers from it. ~Guy H. King


Trouble and perplexity drive me to prayer and prayer drives away perplexity and trouble. ~Philip Melanchthen


Don't pray when it rains if you don't pray when the sun shines. ~Satchel Paige, 1974


The value of consistent prayer is not that He will hear us, but that we will hear Him. ~William McGill


Prayer may not change things for you, but it for sure changes you for things. ~Samuel M. Shoemaker


Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer. ~Author Unknown


Give a man a fish, and you'll feed him for a day; give him a religion, and he'll starve to death while praying for a fish. ~Author Unknown


I prayed for twenty years but received no answer until I prayed with my legs. ~Frederick Douglass, escaped slave


Practical prayer is harder on the soles of your shoes than on the knees of your trousers. ~Austin O'Malley


As long as there are tests, there will be prayer in schools. ~Author Unknown


When we talk to God, we're praying. When God talks to us, we're schizophrenic. ~Jane Wagner, In Search for Signs of Intelligent Life in the Universe, 1985, performed by Lily Tomlin


We have to pray with our eyes on God, not on the difficulties. ~Oswald Chambers


When at night you cannot sleep, talk to the Shepherd and stop counting sheep. ~Author Unknown


When a man is at his wits' end it is not a cowardly thing to pray, it is the only way he can get in touch with Reality. ~Oswald Chambers


Many people pray as if God were a big aspirin pill; they come only when they hurt. ~B. Graham Dienert


Some have been to the mountain. I have been to my knees by the side of my bed. ~Robert Brault, rbrault.blogspot.com


Prayer is when you talk to God; meditation is when you listen to God. ~Author Unknown


Prayer is not merely an occasional impulse to which we respond when we are in trouble: prayer is a life attitude. ~Walter A. Mueller


The Lord's Prayer may be committed to memory quickly, but it is slowly learnt by heart. ~Frederick Denison Maurice


I used to think the Lord's Prayer was a short prayer; but as I live longer, and see more of life, I begin to believe there is no such thing as getting through it. If a man, in praying that prayer, were to be stopped by every word until he had thoroughly prayed it, it would take him a lifetime. ~Henry Ward Beecher


Deep down in me I knowed it was a lie, and He knowed it. You can't pray a lie — I found that out. ~Mark Twain


It is good for us to keep some account of our prayers, that we may not unsay them in our practice. ~Matthew Henry


Prayer gives a man the opportunity of getting to know a gentleman he hardly ever meets. I do not mean his maker, but himself. ~William Inge


Grow flowers of gratitude in the soil of prayer. ~Terri Guillemets


If we could all hear one another's prayers, God might be relieved of some of his burdens. ~Ashleigh Brilliant




Prayers not felt by us are seldom heard by God. ~Philip Henry


The trouble with our praying is, we just do it as a means of last resort. ~Will Rogers


To be present is to be prayerful. ~Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh


When you pray, rather let your heart be without words than your words without heart. ~John Bunyan


And help us, this and every day, to live more nearly as we pray. ~John Keble


I believe in prayer. It's the best way we have to draw strength from heaven. ~Josephine Baker


Prayer must never be answered: if it is, it ceases to be prayer and becomes correspondence. ~Oscar Wilde


Saying one's prayers isn't exactly the same thing as praying.... ~L.M. Montgomery, Anne of Green Gables


Prayer is the soul's sincere desire,
Uttered or unexpressed;
The motion of a hidden fire
That trembles in the breast.
~James Montgomery, What is Prayer?


Prayer is communication with the Divine. It can be whispered or chanted or written or expressed in the work you do. However it is expressed, it is never in vain. ~Donna Wilk Cardillo


It is not well for a man to pray cream and live skim milk. ~Henry Ward Beecher


Certain thoughts are prayers. There are moments when, whatever be the attitude of the body, the soul is on its knees. ~Victor Hugo, Les Misérables, 1862


Complaint is the largest tribute heaven receives and the sincerest part of our devotion. ~Jonathan Swift


I have been driven many times to my knees by the overwhelming conviction that I had nowhere else to go. ~Abraham Lincoln


It is not eloquence, but earnestness, not the definition of helplessness, but the feeling of it; not figures of speech, but compunction of soul. ~Hannah More, "Prayer," Practical Piety


God can pick sense out of a confused prayer. ~Richard Sibbes


Prayer is the coin paid to Gratitude. ~Terri Guillemets


Pray, v. To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy. ~Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, 1911


I often pray, though I'm not really sure Anyone's listening; and I phrase it carefully, just in case He's literary. ~Mignon McLaughlin, The Second Neurotic's Notebook, 1966


Prayer requires more of the heart than of the tongue. ~Adam Clarke


when it's a glorious day
I pray
and
it's a glorious day
when I pray
~Terri Guillemets


God answers first the prayers we should have prayed. ~Robert Brault, rbrault.blogspot.com


My father prayed because he had a good Friend with whom to share the problems of the day. ~Corrie Ten Boom, Clippings from My Notebook


When we pray, our hearts glow a glorious joy that lights our souls and all the world around us. ~Terri Guillemets


God always answers our prayers, but sometimes the answer is no. ~Author Unknown


God speaks in the silence of the heart. Listening is the beginning of prayer. ~Mother Teresa


Prayer is a triumph, in whatever form. ~Terri Guillemets


There come times when I have nothing more to tell God. If I were to continue to pray in words, I would have to repeat what I have already said. At such times it is wonderful to say to God, "May I be in Thy presence, Lord? I have nothing more to say to Thee, but I do love to be in Thy presence." ~O. Hallesby


It is of course possible to dance a prayer. ~Terri Guillemets


Divine Protector! let my prayer
Be wafted on the morning air,
Bright as the bird that soars on high,
Light as the breeze which fans the sky,
Swift as the light'ning through the air...
All nature flows in rapturous lay,
Life beams in one eternal ray...
The prayer of soul—the soul of prayer,
How unrestrained upon the air,
As perfume from the beauteous flower
Is breathed in sweetness more than power,
So let our incense fill the air
With deep humility and prayer.
~"The Prayer of Soul," written from impression by the spirit of Mrs. Hemans, by Mrs. H.A. Adams (medium), in The Sacred Circle, Volume I, edited by Judge Edmonds, Dr. Dexter, and O.G. Warren, 1855


When prayers go up, blessings come down. ~Author Unknown


When you bow deeply to the universe, it bows back; when you call out the name of God, it echoes inside you. ~Morihei Ueshiba


Whatever a man prays for, he prays for a miracle. Every prayer reduces itself to this: "Great God, grant that twice two be not four." ~Ivan Turgenev


Most people do not pray; they only beg. ~George Bernard Shaw


Sometimes the answer to our prayers is to become the answer to someone else's prayers. ~Robert Brault, rbrault.blogspot.com


Prayer draws us near to our own souls. ~Herman Melville, Mardi and A Voyage Thither, 1849


Prayer is more than meditation. In meditation, the source of strength is one's self. When one prays, he goes to a source of strength greater than his own. ~Anne Louise Germaine de Staël-Holstein


To give thanks in solitude is enough. Thanksgiving has wings and goes where it must go. Your prayer knows much more about it than you do. ~Victor Hugo


What we usually pray to God is not that His will be done, but that He approve ours. ~Helga Bergold Gross


We must move from asking God to take care of the things that are breaking our hearts, to praying about the things that are breaking His heart. ~Margaret Gibb


We cannot ask in behalf of Christ what Christ would not ask Himself if He were praying. ~A.B. Simpson


Our prayers should be for blessings in general, for God knows best what is good for us. ~Socrates


Just pray for a tough hide and a tender heart. ~Ruth Graham


God tells us to burden him with whatever burdens us. ~Author Unknown


You know I ain't never prayed before
'Cause it always seemed to me
That prayin's the same as beggin' Lord,
I don't take no charity.
~Steve Earle, "Tom Ames' Prayer," 1994


Before we can pray, "Lord, Thy Kingdom come," we must be willing to pray, "My Kingdom go." ~Alan Redpath


Some people think that prayer just means asking for things, and if they fail to receive exactly what they asked for, they think the whole thing is a fraud. ~Gerald Vann


Who rises from prayer a better man, his prayer is answered. ~George Meredith


Pray on the shadowy hillside of hardship and on the sunny hillside of happiness. ~Terri Guillemets


God has editing rights over our prayers. He will... edit them, correct them, bring them in line with His will and then hand them back to us to be resubmitted. ~Stephen Crotts


Be thankful that God's answers are wiser than your answers. ~William Culbertson


Prayer is the language of a man burdened with a sense of need. ~E.M. Bounds


Oh! none are so absorb'd, as not to feel
Sweet thoughts like music coming o'er the mind:
When prayer, the purest incense of a soul,
Hath risen to the throne of heaven, the heart
Is mellow'd, and the shadows that becloud
Our state of darken'd being, glide away;...
~Robert Montgomery, "Beautiful Influences," A Universal Prayer; Death; A Vision of Heaven; and A Vision of Hell; &c. &c., 1829


Prayer is exhaling the spirit of man and inhaling the spirit of God. ~Edwin Keith


When you are unwell, you must cough, sneeze, and ache prayer. ~Terri Guillemets


Prayer is the spirit speaking truth to Truth. ~Philip James Bailey


The Lord longs to hear all of our concerns — any concern too small to be turned into a prayer is too small to be made into a burden. ~Corrie Ten Boom, Clippings from My Notebook


Call on God, but row away from the rocks. ~Indian Proverb

"Is entire sanctification / sinless perfection possible in this life?"

Question: "Is entire sanctification / sinless perfection possible in this life?"

Answer: Ephesians 4:13 says that the spiritual gifts are given to build up the body of Christ “until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.” Some translations say that we will become “perfect” (instead of “mature”), and from this some people have mistakenly thought that we can reach sinless perfection in this life. The Bible teaches that, while we are in the flesh, we will always struggle with a sin nature (see Romans 7:14-24). No one will be “perfect” (sinless) until we reach heaven.

The word translated “mature” in Ephesians 4:13 is the Greek word teleios. It is used throughout the New Testament to mean “perfect,” “complete,” “full-grown,” and “mature.” What Ephesians 4:13 teaches is that, the more we grow in Christ, the stronger and more unified we will be as a church. The verse does not teach that we will stop sinning.

Another passage that sometimes causes confusion is Colossians 1:28, which says, in some translations, that Paul wants to “present every man perfect in Christ Jesus.” Also, in Colossians 4:12 Paul prays that we would “stand perfect and complete in all the will of God.” In both verses, the word perfect should be translated as “mature” or “full-grown,” not “perfect,” in the sense of having no sin.

As human beings we are bound under the curse of Adam in this world. No matter how hard we try not to, we will still sin against God. The apostle Paul rebuked Peter for showing favoritism (Galatians 2:11-13). Late in his ministry, Paul calls himself the chief of sinners (1 Timothy 1:15). Peter, James, John, and Paul all admitted that they were imperfect. How could you or I claim anything different?

True perfection will not come until the Rapture of the church, when we rise to meet Jesus in the air (1 Thessalonians 4:17). At that time we will receive a new body (Philippians 3:20,21; 1 Corinthians 15:54). We will attend the Judgment Seat of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:10) where our works will be judged and rewards will be given (1 Corinthians 3:9-15). We will then live forever and reign with Christ in sinless perfection.

"Are we to love the sinner but hate the sin?"

Question: "Are we to love the sinner but hate the sin?"

Answer: Many Christians use the cliché “Love the sinner; hate the sin.” This saying is not found in the Bible in so many words; however, Jude 1:22–23 contains a similar idea: “Be merciful to those who doubt; save others by snatching them from the fire; to others show mercy, mixed with fear—hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh.” According to this, our evangelism should be characterized by mercy for the sinner and a healthy hatred of sin and its effects.

We are to have compassion on sinners for whom Christ died, and we are also to keep ourselves “from being polluted by the world”—part of what constitutes “pure and faultless” religion (James 1:27). But we also realize that we are imperfect human beings and that the difference between us and God in regard to loving and hating is vast. Even as Christians, we cannot love perfectly, nor can we hate perfectly (i.e., without malice). But God can do both of these perfectly, because He is God. God can hate without any sinful intent. Therefore, He can hate the sin and the sinner in a perfectly holy way and still lovingly forgive the sinner at the moment of repentance and faith (Malachi 1:3; Revelation 2:6; 2 Peter 3:9).

The Bible clearly teaches that God is love. First John 4:8–9 says, “Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him.” Mysterious but true is the fact that God can perfectly love and hate a person at the same time. This means He can love him as someone He created and can redeem, as well as hate him for his unbelief and sinful lifestyle. We, as imperfect human beings, cannot do this; thus, we must remind ourselves to “love the sinner; hate the sin.”

How exactly does that work? We hate sin by recognizing it for what it is, refusing to take part in it, and condemning it as contrary to God’s nature. Sin is to be hated, not excused or taken lightly. We love sinners by showing them respect (1 Peter 2:17), praying for them (1 Timothy 2:1), and witnessing to them of Christ. It is a true act of love to treat someone with respect and kindness even though you do not approve of his or her lifestyle or sinful choices.

It is not loving to allow a person to remain stuck in sin. It is not hateful to tell a person he or she is in sin. In fact, the exact opposites are true. Sin leads to death (James 1:15), and we love the sinner by speaking the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15). We hate the sin by refusing to condone, ignore, or excuse it.


Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/love-sinner-hate-sin.html#ixzz3OtQRPlOx

THREE TEBSES OF SALVATION

THREE TENSES OF SALVATION

When we first become Christians most of us can think of only one type of salvation, the salvation of our souls. In our Bible study we automatically try to fit this meaning into every occurrence of the word. But soon we find that it will not always fit.
Then we come to realize that salvation is a very general word meaning deliverance, safety, or soundness. In Philippians 1: 19, for example, Paul uses it concerning his expected release from prison:

For I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ.

In Philippians 2:12 salvation means something quite different; it means the solution of a problem that had broken out in the church at Philippi. A serious case of disunity had arisen (Phil. 2:1-4; 4:2). Paul reminds the Christians that the answer to the problem was for them all to have the humble, self-sacrificing mind of the Lord Jesus. Then in verse 12 he says:

Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

In other words, "I have told you the way of deliverance from the problem that vexes you. Now work out the solution with fear and trembling.

In three passages salvation is used to describe deliverance from drowning:

And as the shipmen were about to flee out of the ship, when they had let down the boat into the sea, under colour as though they would have cast anchors out of the foreship, Paul said to the centurion and to the soldiers, Except these abide in the ship, ye cannot be saved (Acts 27:30, 31).

By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house (Heb. 11:7).

...he went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight, persons were saved through water (1 Pet. 3:19, 20 RSV).

But the uses of the words "salvation" or "saved" in which we are principally interested are those which have to do with deliverance from sin. This is the most common meaning in the New Testament.

Here we must learn to distinguish the three tenses of salvation-past, present, and future:

Past-I was saved from the penalty of sin.
Present-I am being saved from the power of sin.
Future-I shall be saved from the presence of sin.

Past Tense
Here are some verses which speak primarily of salvation from the penalty of sin:

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God (Eph. 2:8 RSV).

(God) who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling (2 Tim. 1:9).

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost (Tit. 3:5).

Note: In these three examples the word "saved" is in the past tense. However, there are other verses which speak of our deliverance from the penalty of sin where the verb is not in the past tense.

Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved (Acts 4:12).

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved (Rom. 10:9).

So you must decide by the contents of the verse rather than by the tense of the verb whether the past tense of salvation is meant. If the subject is the once-for-all deliverance from the condemnation of sin, then you know it is the past tense of salvation.

Present Tense
Although it is true that I have been saved, it is equally true that I am being saved day by day. I have been saved from damnation; I am being saved from damage. I have been saved from the penalty of sin; I am being saved from the power of sin. I have been saved through the finished work of Christ on the Cross; I am being saved through His life and ministry for me at the right hand of God. That is what is meant, for example, in Romans 5:10:

For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more being reconciled we shall be saved by his life.

The present tense of salvation is much the same as sanctification-the process of being separated to God from sin and defilement. It is this salvation as a continuing process that we read about in Hebrews 7:25:

Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

Future Tense
Finally, there is the future aspect of salvation. When we meet the Savior face-to-face we shall be saved from sin's presence. Our bodies will be redeemed and glorified. The following verses describe the glorious-future consummation of our salvation.

For now is our salvation nearer than when we believed (Rom. 13:11).

But let us who are of the day be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love, and for an helmet the hope of salvation. For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Thess. 5:8,

Unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation (Heb. 9:28).

(You) who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time (1 Pet. 1:5).

All Three Tenses
If you have difficulty fitting a verse into one of these classes, remember that it might be applicable to all three tenses. Here are a couple of examples:

Thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins (Matt. 1:21).

In him you also who have heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and have believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit (Eph. 1:13 RSV).
So in cases like these you don't have to choose, because they apply with equal force to all three phases of salvation.

Kingdom of God

Kingdom of God
The presence and coming of the Kingdom of God was the central message of Jesus. For example, "his teaching was designed to show men how they might enter the Kingdom of God (Matt. 5:20; 7:21). His mighty works were intended to prove that the Kingdom of God had come upon them (Matt. 12: 28). His parables illustrated to His disciples the truth about the Kingdom of God (Matt. 13:11). And when He taught His followers to pray, at the heart of their petition were the words, "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven" (Matt. 6:10). On the eve of His death, He assured His disciples that He would yet share with them the happiness and the fellowship of the Kingdom (Luke 22:22-30). And He promised that He would appear again. on the earth in glory to bring the blessedness of the Kingdom to those for whom it was prepared (Matt. 25:31, 34)." ^[1]^

The term "Kingdom of God" occurs four times in Matthew (12:28; 19:24; 21:31; 21:43), fourteen times in Mark, thirty-two times in Luke, twice in the Gospel of John (3:3, 5), six times in Acts, eight times in Paul, and once in Revelation (12:10). Matthew actually prefers the term "Kingdom of heaven" which he uses over 20 times in his gospel.

While Matthew primarily uses the term “kingdom of heaven” and other gospel writers (notably Luke) use the term “kingdom of God,” it is clear that these two expressions mean exactly the same thing (e.g. compare Matt. 5:3 with Luke 6:20). In the past some have tried to maintain a distinction between the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God;^[2]^ however, the vast majority of theologians today recognize the terms as synonymous.

Revelation 6 part 2

Revelation 6

Will we recognize and be reunited with our loved ones in heaven?

Will we recognize and be reunited with our loved ones in heaven?

Yes! In the Old Testament, when a person died, the biblical writers said he was "gathered to his people" (cf. Gen. 25:8; 35:29; 49:29; Num. 20:24; Judg. 2:10). In 2 Samuel 12, when David's infant child died, David confidently said, "I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me" (v. 23). David evidently expected to see the child again--not just a nameless, faceless soul without an identity, but that very child.

The New Testament indicates even more clearly that our identities will remain unchanged. While sharing the Passover meal with His disciples, Christ said, "Take this [cup] and divide it among yourselves; for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes" (Luke 22:17-18). Christ was promising that He and His disciples would drink the fruit of the vine together again--in heaven. Elsewhere Jesus makes a similar, but even more definite, promise: "Many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 8:11).

Furthermore, Moses and Elijah appeared with Christ on the Mount of Transfiguration. Even though it had been centuries since Moses died and Elijah was taken to heaven, they still maintained a clear identity (Matt. 17:3)--Peter, James, and John evidently recognized them (v. 4), which implies that we will somehow be able to recognize people we've never even seen before.

All the redeemed will maintain their identity forever, but in a perfected form. We will be able to have fellowship with Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Samuel, Moses, Joshua, Esther, Elijah, Elisha, Isaiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, David, Peter, Barnabas, Paul, or any of the saints we choose. For that to be possible, we must all retain our individual identities, not turn into some sort of generic beings.

Describing the Lord's appearing and the resurrection of the saints who have died, Paul writes, "Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord" (1 Thess. 4:17).

Paul's purpose in writing was to comfort some of the Thessalonians who evidently thought their dying loved ones would miss the return of Christ. He says in verse 18, "Comfort one another with these words." The comfort comes from the prospect of reunion. Little comfort this would be if in the reunion we could not even recognize one another. But Paul's promise that we will all be "together" forever implies that we shall renew fellowship with all whom we have known.

We will be reunited not only with our own families and loved ones, but also with the people of God from all ages. In heaven we will all be one loving family. The immense size of the family will not matter in the infinite perfection of heaven. There will be ample opportunity for close relationships with everyone, and our eternity will be spent in just that kind of rich, unending fellowship.

If you're worried about feeling out of place in heaven, don't. Heaven will seem more like home than the dearest spot on earth to you. It is uniquely designed by a tender, loving Savior to be the place where we will live together for all eternity and enjoy Him forever--in the fullness of our glorified humanity.

Is it any wonder that the psalmist said, "Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints" (Ps. 116:15)?

Adapted from John MacArthur, The Glory of Heaven (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1996), 138-41.

English Bible History

English Bible History


The fascinating story of how we got the Bible in its present form actually starts thousands of years ago, as briefly outlined in our Timeline of Bible Translation History. As a background study, we recommend that you first review our discussion of the Pre-Reformation History of the Bible from 1,400 B.C. to 1,400 A.D., which covers the transmission of the scripture through the original languages of Hebrew and Greek, and the 1,000 years of the Dark & Middle Ages when the Word was trapped in only Latin. Our starting point in this discussion of Bible history, however, is the advent of the scripture in the English language with the “Morning Star of the Reformation”, John Wycliffe.

John Wycliffe
The first hand-written English language Bible manuscripts were produced in the 1380's AD by John Wycliffe, an Oxford professor, scholar, and theologian. Wycliffe, (also spelled “Wycliff” & “Wyclif”), was well-known throughout Europe for his opposition to the teaching of the organized Church, which he believed to be contrary to the Bible. With the help of his followers, called the Lollards, and his assistant Purvey, and many other faithful scribes, Wycliffe produced dozens of English language manuscript copies of the scriptures. They were translated out of the Latin Vulgate, which was the only source text available to Wycliffe. The Pope was so infuriated by his teachings and his translation of the Bible into English, that 44 years after Wycliffe had died, he ordered the bones to be dug-up, crushed, and scattered in the river!

John Hus
One of Wycliffe’s followers, John Hus, actively promoted Wycliffe’s ideas: that people should be permitted to read the Bible in their own language, and they should oppose the tyranny of the Roman church that threatened anyone possessing a non-Latin Bible with execution. Hus was burned at the stake in 1415, with Wycliffe’s manuscript Bibles used as kindling for the fire. The last words of John Hus were that, “in 100 years, God will raise up a man whose calls for reform cannot be suppressed.” Almost exactly 100 years later, in 1517, Martin Luther nailed his famous 95 Theses of Contention (a list of 95 issues of heretical theology and crimes of the Roman Catholic Church) into the church door at Wittenberg. The prophecy of Hus had come true! Martin Luther went on to be the first person to translate and publish the Bible in the commonly-spoken dialect of the German people; a translation more appealing than previous German Biblical translations. Foxe’s Book of Martyrs records that in that same year, 1517, seven people were burned at the stake by the Roman Catholic Church for the crime of teaching their children to say the Lord’s Prayer in English rather than Latin.

Johann Gutenberg

Johann Gutenberg invented the printing press in the 1450's, and the first book to ever be printed was a Latin language Bible, printed in Mainz, Germany. Gutenberg’s Bibles were surprisingly beautiful, as each leaf Gutenberg printed was later colorfully hand-illuminated. Born as “Johann Gensfleisch” (John Gooseflesh), he preferred to be known as “Johann Gutenberg” (John Beautiful Mountain). Ironically, though he had created what many believe to be the most important invention in history, Gutenberg was a victim of unscrupulous business associates who took control of his business and left him in poverty. Nevertheless, the invention of the movable-type printing press meant that Bibles and books could finally be effectively produced in large quantities in a short period of time. This was essential to the success of the Reformation.

Thomas Linacre

In the 1490’s another Oxford professor, and the personal physician to King Henry the 7th and 8th, Thomas Linacre, decided to learn Greek. After reading the Gospels in Greek, and comparing it to the Latin Vulgate, he wrote in his diary, “Either this (the original Greek) is not the Gospel… or we are not Christians.” The Latin had become so corrupt that it no longer even preserved the message of the Gospel… yet the Church still threatened to kill anyone who read the scripture in any language other than Latin… though Latin was not an original language of the scriptures.

John Colet
In 1496, John Colet, another Oxford professor and the son of the Mayor of London, started reading the New Testament in Greek and translating it into English for his students at Oxford, and later for the public at Saint Paul’s Cathedral in London. The people were so hungry to hear the Word of God in a language they could understand, that within six months there were 20,000 people packed in the church and at least that many outside trying to get in! (Sadly, while the enormous and beautiful Saint Paul’s Cathedral remains the main church in London today, as of 2003, typical Sunday morning worship attendance is only around 200 people… and most of them are tourists). Fortunately for Colet, he was a powerful man with friends in high places, so he amazingly managed to avoid execution.


Erasmus
In considering the experiences of Linacre and Colet, the great scholar Erasmus was so moved to correct the corrupt Latin Vulgate, that in 1516, with the help of printer John Froben, he published a Greek-Latin Parallel New Testament. The Latin part was not the corrupt Vulgate, but his own fresh rendering of the text from the more accurate and reliable Greek, which he had managed to collate from a half-dozen partial old Greek New Testament manuscripts he had acquired. This milestone was the first non-Latin Vulgate text of the scripture to be produced in a millennium… and the first ever to come off a printing press. The 1516 Greek-Latin New Testament of Erasmus further focused attention on just how corrupt and inaccurate the Latin Vulgate had become, and how important it was to go back and use the original Greek (New Testament) and original Hebrew (Old Testament) languages to maintain accuracy… and to translate them faithfully into the languages of the common people, whether that be English, German, or any other tongue. No sympathy for this “illegal activity” was to be found from Rome… even as the words of Pope Leo X's declaration that "the fable of Christ was quite profitable to him" continued through the years to infuriate the people of God.

William Tyndale
William Tyndale was the Captain of the Army of Reformers, and was their spiritual leader. Tyndale holds the distinction of being the first man to ever print the New Testament in the English language. Tyndale was a true scholar and a genius, so fluent in eight languages that it was said one would think any one of them to be his native tongue. He is frequently referred to as the “Architect of the English Language”, (even more so than William Shakespeare) as so many of the phrases Tyndale coined are still in our language today.

Martin Luther
Martin Luther had a small head-start on Tyndale, as Luther declared his intolerance for the Roman Church’s corruption on Halloween in 1517, by nailing his 95 Theses of Contention to the Wittenberg Church door. Luther, who would be exiled in the months following the Diet of Worms Council in 1521 that was designed to martyr him, would translate the New Testament into German for the first time from the 1516 Greek-Latin New Testament of Erasmus, and publish it in September of 1522. Luther also published a German Pentateuch in 1523, and another edition of the German New Testament in 1529. In the 1530’s he would go on to publish the entire Bible in German.

William Tyndale wanted to use the same 1516 Erasmus text as a source to translate and print the New Testament in English for the first time in history. Tyndale showed up on Luther's doorstep in Germany in 1525, and by year's end had translated the New Testament into English. Tyndale had been forced to flee England, because of the wide-spread rumor that his English New Testament project was underway, causing inquisitors and bounty hunters to be constantly on Tyndale's trail to arrest him and prevent his project. God foiled their plans, and in 1525-1526 the Tyndale New Testament became the first printed edition of the scripture in the English language. Subsequent printings of the Tyndale New Testament in the 1530's were often elaborately illustrated.

They were burned as soon as the Bishop could confiscate them, but copies trickled through and actually ended up in the bedroom of King Henry VIII. The more the King and Bishop resisted its distribution, the more fascinated the public at large became. The church declared it contained thousands of errors as they torched hundreds of New Testaments confiscated by the clergy, while in fact, they burned them because they could find no errors at all. One risked death by burning if caught in mere possession of Tyndale's forbidden books.

Having God's Word available to the public in the language of the common man, English, would have meant disaster to the church. No longer would they control access to the scriptures. If people were able to read the Bible in their own tongue, the church's income and power would crumble. They could not possibly continue to get away with selling indulgences (the forgiveness of sins) or selling the release of loved ones from a church-manufactured "Purgatory". People would begin to challenge the church's authority if the church were exposed as frauds and thieves. The contradictions between what God's Word said, and what the priests taught, would open the public's eyes and the truth would set them free from the grip of fear that the institutional church held. Salvation through faith, not works or donations, would be understood. The need for priests would vanish through the priesthood of all believers. The veneration of church-canonized Saints and Mary would be called into question. The availability of the scriptures in English was the biggest threat imaginable to the wicked church. Neither side would give up without a fight.

Today, there are only two known copies left of Tyndale’s 1525-26 First Edition. Any copies printed prior to 1570 are extremely valuable. Tyndale's flight was an inspiration to freedom-loving Englishmen who drew courage from the 11 years that he was hunted. Books and Bibles flowed into England in bales of cotton and sacks of flour. Ironically, Tyndale’s biggest customer was the King’s men, who would buy up every copy available to burn them… and Tyndale used their money to print even more! In the end, Tyndale was caught: betrayed by an Englishman that he had befriended. Tyndale was incarcerated for 500 days before he was strangled and burned at the stake in 1536. Tyndale’s last words were, "Oh Lord, open the King of England’s eyes". This prayer would be answered just three years later in 1539, when King Henry VIII finally allowed, and even funded, the printing of an English Bible known as the “Great Bible”. But before that could happen…

Myles Coverdale
Myles Coverdale and John “Thomas Matthew” Rogers had remained loyal disciples the last six years of Tyndale's life, and they carried the English Bible project forward and even accelerated it. Coverdale finished translating the Old Testament, and in 1535 he printed the first complete Bible in the English language, making use of Luther's German text and the Latin as sources. Thus, the first complete English Bible was printed on October 4, 1535, and is known as the Coverdale Bible.


John Rogers
John Rogers went on to print the second complete English Bible in 1537. It was, however, the first English Bible translated from the original Biblical languages of Hebrew & Greek. He printed it under the pseudonym "Thomas Matthew", (an assumed name that had actually been used by Tyndale at one time) as a considerable part of this Bible was the translation of Tyndale, whose writings had been condemned by the English authorities. It is a composite made up of Tyndale's Pentateuch and New Testament (1534-1535 edition) and Coverdale's Bible and some of Roger's own translation of the text. It remains known most commonly as the Matthew-Tyndale Bible. It went through a nearly identical second-edition printing in 1549.


Thomas Cranmer
In 1539, Thomas Cranmer, the Archbishop of Canterbury, hired Myles Coverdale at the bequest of King Henry VIII to publish the "Great Bible". It became the first English Bible authorized for public use, as it was distributed to every church, chained to the pulpit, and a reader was even provided so that the illiterate could hear the Word of God in plain English. It would seem that William Tyndale's last wish had been granted...just three years after his martyrdom. Cranmer's Bible, published by Coverdale, was known as the Great Bible due to its great size: a large pulpit folio measuring over 14 inches tall. Seven editions of this version were printed between April of 1539 and December of 1541.


King Henry VIII
It was not that King Henry VIII had a change of conscience regarding publishing the Bible in English. His motives were more sinister… but the Lord sometimes uses the evil intentions of men to bring about His glory. King Henry VIII had in fact, requested that the Pope permit him to divorce his wife and marry his mistress. The Pope refused. King Henry responded by marrying his mistress anyway, (later having two of his many wives executed), and thumbing his nose at the Pope by renouncing Roman Catholicism, taking England out from under Rome’s religious control, and declaring himself as the reigning head of State to also be the new head of the Church. This new branch of the Christian Church, neither Roman Catholic nor truly Protestant, became known as the Anglican Church or the Church of England. King Henry acted essentially as its “Pope”. His first act was to further defy the wishes of Rome by funding the printing of the scriptures in English… the first legal English Bible… just for spite.


Queen Mary
The ebb and flow of freedom continued through the 1540's...and into the 1550's. After King Henry VIII, King Edward VI took the throne, and after his death, the reign of Queen “Bloody” Mary was the next obstacle to the printing of the Bible in English. She was possessed in her quest to return England to the Roman Church. In 1555, John "Thomas Matthew" Rogers and Thomas Cranmer were both burned at the stake. Mary went on to burn reformers at the stake by the hundreds for the "crime" of being a Protestant. This era was known as the Marian Exile, and the refugees fled from England with little hope of ever seeing their home or friends again.


John Foxe
In the 1550's, the Church at Geneva, Switzerland, was very sympathetic to the reformer refugees and was one of only a few safe havens for a desperate people. Many of them met in Geneva, led by Myles Coverdale and John Foxe (publisher of the famous Foxe's Book of Martyrs, which is to this day the only exhaustive reference work on the persecution and martyrdom of Early Christians and Protestants from the first century up to the mid-16th century), as well as Thomas Sampson and William Whittingham. There, with the protection of the great theologian John Calvin (author of the most famous theological book ever published, Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion)and John Knox, the great Reformer of the Scottish Church, the Church of Geneva determined to produce a Bible that would educate their families while they continued in exile.


John Calvin
The New Testament was completed in 1557, and the complete Bible was first published in 1560. It became known as the Geneva Bible. Due to a passage in Genesis describing the clothing that God fashioned for Adam and Eve upon expulsion from the Garden of Eden as "Breeches" (an antiquated form of "Britches"), some people referred to the Geneva Bible as the Breeches Bible.

John Knox
The Geneva Bible was the first Bible to add numbered verses to the chapters, so that referencing specific passages would be easier. Every chapter was also accompanied by extensive marginal notes and references so thorough and complete that the Geneva Bible is also considered the first English "Study Bible". William Shakespeare quotes hundreds of times in his plays from the Geneva translation of the Bible. The Geneva Bible became the Bible of choice for over 100 years of English speaking Christians. Between 1560 and 1644 at least 144 editions of this Bible were published. Examination of the 1611 King James Bible shows clearly that its translators were influenced much more by the Geneva Bible, than by any other source. The Geneva Bible itself retains over 90% of William Tyndale's original English translation. The Geneva in fact, remained more popular than the King James Version until decades after its original release in 1611! The Geneva holds the honor of being the first Bible taken to America, and the Bible of the Puritans and Pilgrims. It is truly the “Bible of the Protestant Reformation.” Strangely, the famous Geneva Bible has been out-of-print since 1644, so the only way to obtain one is to either purchase an original printing of the Geneva Bible, or a less costly facsimile reproduction of the original 1560 Geneva Bible.

With the end of Queen Mary's bloody reign, the reformers could safely return to England. The Anglican Church, now under Queen Elizabeth I, reluctantly tolerated the printing and distribution of Geneva version Bibles in England. The marginal notes, which were vehemently against the institutional Church of the day, did not rest well with the rulers of the day. Another version, one with a less inflammatory tone was desired, and the copies of the Great Bible were getting to be decades old. In 1568, a revision of the Great Bible known as the Bishop's Bible was introduced. Despite 19 editions being printed between 1568 and 1606, this Bible, referred to as the “rough draft of the King James Version”, never gained much of a foothold of popularity among the people. The Geneva may have simply been too much to compete with.

By the 1580's, the Roman Catholic Church saw that it had lost the battle to suppress the will of God: that His Holy Word be available in the English language. In 1582, the Church of Rome surrendered their fight for "Latin only" and decided that if the Bible was to be available in English, they would at least have an official Roman Catholic English translation. And so, using the corrupt and inaccurate Latin Vulgate as the only source text, they went on to publish an English Bible with all the distortions and corruptions that Erasmus had revealed and warned of 75 years earlier. Because it was translated at the Roman Catholic College in the city of Rheims, it was known as the Rheims New Testament (also spelled Rhemes). The Douay Old Testament was translated by the Church of Rome in 1609 at the College in the city of Douay (also spelled Doway & Douai). The combined product is commonly referred to as the "Doway/Rheims" Version. In 1589, Dr. William Fulke of Cambridge published the "Fulke's Refutation", in which he printed in parallel columns the Bishops Version along side the Rheims Version, attempting to show the error and distortion of the Roman Church's corrupt compromise of an English version of the Bible.


King James I
With the death of Queen Elizabeth I, Prince James VI of Scotland became King James I of England. The Protestant clergy approached the new King in 1604 and announced their desire for a new translation to replace the Bishop's Bible first printed in 1568. They knew that the Geneva Version had won the hearts of the people because of its excellent scholarship, accuracy, and exhaustive commentary. However, they did not want the controversial marginal notes (proclaiming the Pope an Anti-Christ, etc.) Essentially, the leaders of the church desired a Bible for the people, with scriptural references only for word clarification or cross-references.

This "translation to end all translations" (for a while at least) was the result of the combined effort of about fifty scholars. They took into consideration: The Tyndale New Testament, The Coverdale Bible, The Matthews Bible, The Great Bible, The Geneva Bible, and even the Rheims New Testament. The great revision of the Bishop's Bible had begun. From 1605 to 1606 the scholars engaged in private research. From 1607 to 1609 the work was assembled. In 1610 the work went to press, and in 1611 the first of the huge (16 inch tall) pulpit folios known today as "The 1611 King James Bible" came off the printing press. A typographical discrepancy in Ruth 3:15 rendered a pronoun "He" instead of "She" in that verse in some printings. This caused some of the 1611 First Editions to be known by collectors as "He" Bibles, and others as "She" Bibles. Starting just one year after the huge 1611 pulpit-size King James Bibles were printed and chained to every church pulpit in England; printing then began on the earliest normal-size printings of the King James Bible. These were produced so individuals could have their own personal copy of the Bible.

John Bunyan
John Bunyan
The Anglican Church’s King James Bible took decades to overcome the more popular Protestant Church’s Geneva Bible. One of the greatest ironies of history, is that many Protestant Christian churches today embrace the King James Bible exclusively as the “only” legitimate English language translation… yet it is not even a Protestant translation! It was printed to compete with the Protestant Geneva Bible, by authorities who throughout most of history were hostile to Protestants… and killed them. While many Protestants are quick to assign the full blame of persecution to the Roman Catholic Church, it should be noted that even after England broke from Roman Catholicism in the 1500’s, the Church of England (The Anglican Church) continued to persecute Protestants throughout the 1600’s. One famous example of this is John Bunyan, who while in prison for the crime of preaching the Gospel, wrote one of Christian history’s greatest books, Pilgrim’s Progress. Throughout the 1600’s, as the Puritans and the Pilgrims fled the religious persecution of England to cross the Atlantic and start a new free nation in America, they took with them their precious Geneva Bible, and rejected the King’s Bible. America was founded upon the Geneva Bible, not the King James Bible.

Protestants today are largely unaware of their own history, and unaware of the Geneva Bible (which is textually 95% the same as the King James Version, but 50 years older than the King James Version, and not influenced by the Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament that the King James translators admittedly took into consideration). Nevertheless, the King James Bible turned out to be an excellent and accurate translation, and it became the most printed book in the history of the world, and the only book with one billion copies in print. In fact, for over 250 years...until the appearance of the English Revised Version of 1881-1885...the King James Version reigned without much of a rival. One little-known fact, is that for the past 200 years, all King James Bibles published in America are actually the 1769 Baskerville spelling and wording revision of the 1611. The original “1611” preface is deceivingly included by the publishers, and no mention of the fact that it is really the 1769 version is to be found, because that might hurt sales. The only way to obtain a true, unaltered, 1611 version is to either purchase an original pre-1769 printing of the King James Bible, or a less costly facsimile reproduction of the original 1611 King James Bible.

John Eliot
John Eliot
Although the first Bible printed in America was done in the native Algonquin Indian Language by John Eliot in 1663; the first English language Bible to be printed in America by Robert Aitken in 1782 was a King James Version. Robert Aitken’s 1782 Bible was also the only Bible ever authorized by the United States Congress. He was commended by President George Washington for providing Americans with Bibles during the embargo of imported English goods due to the Revolutionary War. In 1808, Robert’s daughter, Jane Aitken, would become the first woman to ever print a Bible… and to do so in America, of course. In 1791, Isaac Collins vastly improved upon the quality and size of the typesetting of American Bibles and produced the first "Family Bible" printed in America... also a King James Version. Also in 1791, Isaiah Thomas published the first Illustrated Bible printed in America...in the King James Version. For more information on the earliest Bibles printed in America from the 1600’s through the early 1800’s, you may wish to review our more detailed discussion of The Bibles of Colonial America.

Noah Webster
Noah Webster
While Noah Webster, just a few years after producing his famous Dictionary of the English Language, would produce his own modern translation of the English Bible in 1833; the public remained too loyal to the King James Version for Webster’s version to have much impact. It was not really until the 1880’s that England’s own planned replacement for their King James Bible, the English Revised Version(E.R.V.) would become the first English language Bible to gain popular acceptance as a post-King James Version modern-English Bible. The widespread popularity of this modern-English translation brought with it another curious characteristic: the absence of the 14 Apocryphal books.

Up until the 1880’s every Protestant Bible (not just Catholic Bibles) had 80 books, not 66! The inter-testamental books written hundreds of years before Christ called “The Apocrypha” were part of virtually every printing of the Tyndale-Matthews Bible, the Great Bible, the Bishops Bible, the Protestant Geneva Bible, and the King James Bible until their removal in the 1880’s! The original 1611 King James contained the Apocrypha, and King James threatened anyone who dared to print the Bible without the Apocrypha with heavy fines and a year in jail. Only for the last 120 years has the Protestant Church rejected these books, and removed them from their Bibles. This has left most modern-day Christians believing the popular myth that there is something “Roman Catholic” about the Apocrypha. There is, however, no truth in that myth, and no widely-accepted reason for the removal of the Apocrypha in the 1880’s has ever been officially issued by a mainline Protestant denomination.

The Americans responded to England’s E.R.V. Bible by publishing the nearly-identical American Standard Version (A.S.V.) in 1901. It was also widely-accepted and embraced by churches throughout America for many decades as the leading modern-English version of the Bible. In the 1971, it was again revised and called New American Standard Version Bible (often referred to as the N.A.S.V. or N.A.S.B. or N.A.S.). This New American Standard Bible is considered by nearly all evangelical Christian scholars and translators today, to be the most accurate, word-for-word translation of the original Greek and Hebrew scriptures into the modern English language that has ever been produced. It remains the most popular version among theologians, professors, scholars, and seminary students today. Some, however, have taken issue with it because it is so direct and literal a translation (focused on accuracy), that it does not flow as easily in conversational English.

For this reason, in 1973, the New International Version (N.I.V.) was produced, which was offered as a “dynamic equivalent” translation into modern English. The N.I.V. was designed not for “word-for-word” accuracy, but rather, for “phrase-for-phrase” accuracy, and ease of reading even at a Junior High-School reading level. It was meant to appeal to a broader (and in some instances less-educated) cross-section of the general public. Critics of the N.I.V. often jokingly refer to it as the “Nearly Inspired Version”, but that has not stopped it from becoming the best-selling modern-English translation of the Bible ever published.

In 1982, Thomas Nelson Publishers produced what they called the “New King James Version”. Their original intent was to keep the basic wording of the King James to appeal to King James Version loyalists, while only changing the most obscure words and the Elizabethan “thee, thy, thou” pronouns. This was an interesting marketing ploy, however, upon discovering that this was not enough of a change for them to be able to legally copyright the result, they had to make more significant revisions, which defeated their purpose in the first place. It was never taken seriously by scholars, but it has enjoyed some degree of public acceptance, simply because of its clever “New King James Version” marketing name.

In 2002, a major attempt was made to bridge the gap between the simple readability of the N.I.V., and the extremely precise accuracy of the N.A.S.B. This translation is called the English Standard Version (E.S.V.) and is rapidly gaining popularity for its readability and accuracy. The 21st Century will certainly continue to bring new translations of God’s Word in the modern English language.

As Christians, we must be very careful to make intelligent and informed decisions about what translations of the Bible we choose to read. On the liberal extreme, we have people who would give us heretical new translations that attempt to change God’s Word to make it politically correct. One example of this, which has made headlines recently is the Today’s New International Version (T.N.I.V.) which seeks to remove all gender-specific references in the Bible whenever possible! Not all new translations are good… and some are very bad.

But equally dangerous, is the other extreme… of blindly rejecting ANY English translation that was produced in the four centuries that have come after the 1611 King James. We must remember that the main purpose of the Protestant Reformation was to get the Bible out of the chains of being trapped in an ancient language that few could understand, and into the modern, spoken, conversational language of the present day. William Tyndale fought and died for the right to print the Bible in the common, spoken, modern English tongue of his day… as he boldly told one official who criticized his efforts, “If God spare my life, I will see to it that the boy who drives the plowshare knows more of the scripture than you, Sir!”

Will we now go backwards, and seek to imprison God’s Word once again exclusively in ancient translations? Clearly it is not God’s will that we over-react to SOME of the bad modern translations, by rejecting ALL new translations and “throwing the baby out with the bathwater”. The Word of God is unchanging from generation to generation, but language is a dynamic and ever-changing form of communication. We therefore have a responsibility before God as Christians to make sure that each generation has a modern translation that they can easily understand, yet that does not sacrifice accuracy in any way. Let’s be ever mindful that we are not called to worship the Bible. That is called idolatry. We are called to worship the God who gave us the Bible, and who preserved it through the centuries of people who sought to destroy it.

We are also called to preserve the ancient, original English translations of the Bible… and that is what we do here at WWW.GREATSITE.COM

Consider the following textual comparison of the earliest English translations of John 3:16, as shown in the English Hexapla Parallel New Testament:

1st Ed. King James (1611): "For God so loued the world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life."
Rheims (1582): "For so God loued the vvorld, that he gaue his only-begotten sonne: that euery one that beleeueth in him, perish not, but may haue life euerlasting"
Geneva (1560): "For God so loueth the world, that he hath geuen his only begotten Sonne: that none that beleue in him, should peryshe, but haue euerlasting lyfe."
Great Bible (1539): "For God so loued the worlde, that he gaue his only begotten sonne, that whosoeuer beleueth in him, shulde not perisshe, but haue euerlasting lyfe."
Tyndale (1534): "For God so loveth the worlde, that he hath geven his only sonne, that none that beleve in him, shuld perisshe: but shuld have everlastinge lyfe."
Wycliff (1380): "for god loued so the world; that he gaf his oon bigetun sone, that eche man that bileueth in him perisch not: but haue euerlastynge liif,"
Anglo-Saxon Proto-English Manuscripts (995 AD): “God lufode middan-eard swa, dat he seade his an-cennedan sunu, dat nan ne forweorde de on hine gely ac habbe dat ece lif."
Timeline of Bible Translation History

1,400 BC: The first written Word of God: The Ten Commandments delivered to Moses.

500 BC: Completion of All Original Hebrew Manuscripts which make up The 39 Books of the Old Testament.

200 BC: Completion of the Septuagint Greek Manuscripts which contain The 39 Old Testament Books AND 14 Apocrypha Books.

1st Century AD: Completion of All Original Greek Manuscripts which make up The 27 Books of the New Testament.

315 AD: Athenasius, the Bishop of Alexandria, identifies the 27 books of the New Testament which are today recognized as the canon of scripture.

382 AD: Jerome's Latin Vulgate Manuscripts Produced which contain All 80 Books (39 Old Test. + 14 Apocrypha + 27 New Test).

500 AD: Scriptures have been Translated into Over 500 Languages.

600 AD: LATIN was the Only Language Allowed for Scripture.

995 AD: Anglo-Saxon (Early Roots of English Language) Translations of The New Testament Produced.

1384 AD: Wycliffe is the First Person to Produce a (Hand-Written) manuscript Copy of the Complete Bible; All 80 Books.

1455 AD: Gutenberg Invents the Printing Press; Books May Now be mass-Produced Instead of Individually Hand-Written. The First Book Ever Printed is Gutenberg's Bible in Latin.

1516 AD: Erasmus Produces a Greek/Latin Parallel New Testament.

1522 AD: Martin Luther's German New Testament.

1526 AD: William Tyndale's New Testament; The First New Testament printed in the English Language.

1535 AD: Myles Coverdale's Bible; The First Complete Bible printed in the English Language (80 Books: O.T. & N.T. & Apocrypha).

1537 AD: Tyndale-Matthews Bible; The Second Complete Bible printed in English. Done by John "Thomas Matthew" Rogers (80 Books).

1539 AD: The "Great Bible" Printed; The First English Language Bible Authorized for Public Use (80 Books).

1560 AD: The Geneva Bible Printed; The First English Language Bible to add Numbered Verses to Each Chapter (80 Books).

1568 AD: The Bishops Bible Printed; The Bible of which the King James was a Revision (80 Books).

1609 AD: The Douay Old Testament is added to the Rheims New Testament (of 1582) Making the First Complete English Catholic Bible; Translated from the Latin Vulgate (80 Books).

1611 AD: The King James Bible Printed; Originally with All 80 Books. The Apocrypha was Officially Removed in 1885 Leaving Only 66 Books.

1782 AD: Robert Aitken's Bible; The First English Language Bible (KJV) Printed in America.

1791 AD: Isaac Collins and Isaiah Thomas Respectively Produce the First Family Bible and First Illustrated Bible Printed in America. Both were King James Versions, with All 80 Books.

1808 AD: Jane Aitken's Bible (Daughter of Robert Aitken); The First Bible to be Printed by a Woman.

1833 AD: Noah Webster's Bible; After Producing his Famous Dictionary, Webster Printed his Own Revision of the King James Bible.

1841 AD: English Hexapla New Testament; an Early Textual Comparison showing the Greek and 6 Famous English Translations in Parallel Columns.

1846 AD: The Illuminated Bible; The Most Lavishly Illustrated Bible printed in America. A King James Version, with All 80 Books.

1863 AD: Robert Young's "Literal" Translation; often criticized for being so literal that it sometimes obscures the contextual English meaning.

1885 AD: The "English Revised Version" Bible; The First Major English Revision of the KJV.

1901 AD: The "American Standard Version"; The First Major American Revision of the KJV.

1952 AD: The "Revised Standard Version" (RSV); said to be a Revision of the 1901 American Standard Version, though more highly criticized.

1971 AD: The "New American Standard Bible" (NASB) is Published as a "Modern and Accurate Word for Word English Translation" of the Bible.

1973 AD: The "New International Version" (NIV) is Published as a "Modern and Accurate Phrase for Phrase English Translation" of the Bible.

1982 AD: The "New King James Version" (NKJV) is Published as a "Modern English Version Maintaining the Original Style of the King James."

1990 AD: The "New Revised Standard Version" (NRSV); further revision of 1952 RSV, (itself a revision of 1901 ASV), criticized for "gender inclusiveness".

2002 AD: The English Standard Version (ESV) is Published as a translation to bridge the gap between the accuracy of the NASB and the readability of the NIV.