Sketches from Church History by S M Houghton Chapter 13

Some of us are going through Sketches from Church History by S M Houghton one small chapter at a time. (By the way, the book has pictures.) Aiding us in this study is the work book by Rebecca Frawley. Both are Banner of Truth books.
Now we are at
Chapter 13  The Papacy at its height

The struggle between Henry II, King of England and Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury
Becket felt that it was enough for corrupt church officials to be ‘defrocked’. The king was of the opinion that in addition, they must be tried in the civil court. In a fit of temper the king ordered Becket dead. Becket was regarded as a martyr and the church of the day became stronger for it.

General Council of Churches convened by Pope Innocent III in 1215
In 1215, the same year that the English barons required King John to sign the Magna Carta, Pope Innocent III called a General Council at Rome.
The Pope announced that the Lord had given Peter (read ‘the Popes’) headship of the church and dominion over the whole world.
The Pope also introduced the doctrine of transubstantiation and, in so doing, legislated idolatry in the church.

Bernard of Clairvaux
If any of us were disappointed by this man’s connection with the Second Crusade, which we looked at in the previous lesson, here is something to warm the heart. Bernard of Clairvaux was a man who loved God from a true heart. He declined the honours that came to him in the church. His followers held high positions and one of them even became a pope. To him, Bernard said: Remember that you are a successor of him who said, “Silver and gold have I none.” Gold and silk and pearls and soldiers you have not received of Christ, but they came to you from Constantine. Never strive after these things. Would to God that before I die, I might see the Church as it was in olden times when the apostles cast their nets, not to catch gold and silver but the souls of men!

Pitiful condition of the church of the middle ages
The masses of people had blind faith in the church and tradition. They did not know what the Bible taught about sin and redemption from it. Sometimes external abuses were corrected but corrupt doctrine was left untouched. There was no appeal to the word of God. Houghton ends the chapter like this:

Dark was the night, and more than human power was needed to drive away the thick clouds. But, as we shall see, in God’s time, dawn came.

To read more about Sketches from Church History

The Bible in contemporary English

The Lord's Prayer in the Message, a modern-day Bible version

If you are looking for a good translation of the Bible, here is some thing that you should consider.
Do you want a Bible that helps you understand what you are reading?
or
Do you want a Bible that helps you understand God’s word correctly?

Recently, I went to a church in Auckland and was impressed that they had copies of the Bible in the pews, for everyone. But I was sad to find that the Bible was a paraphrase that was not accurate.

Fox News has an article today entitled Best-Selling Bible for Conservative Evangelicals to Undergo Revision

“We want to reach English speakers across the globe with a Bible that is accurate, accessible and that speaks to its readers in a language they can understand,” said Keith Danby, global president and CEO of Biblica, a Colorado Springs, Colo.-based Christian ministry that holds the NIV copyright.

This sounds so noble. And the intentions may be good. But there is a serious danger here that most Christians seem to be blissfully unaware of.

Please don’t get me wrong, I am not advocating a King-James-only approach. I like the Bible I use to be in contemporary English. I would rather not use ‘thee’s, ‘thou’s, ‘thine’s, and ‘wherefore’s. So what is the fuss about?

I believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. Do you believe in it? Does your church? Virtually all conservative churches believe it. One definition of verbal plenary inspiration goes like this:

“God the Holy Spirit so supernaturally directed the human writers of Scripture that, without waiving their intelligence, their individuality, their personal feelings, their literary style, or any other human factor of expression, His Complete and Coherent Message to mankind was recorded with perfect accuracy in the original languages of Scripture: the very words bearing the Authority of Divine Authorship.”

It becomes crucial to all those who believe this, to ensure that they hold a Bible that is as close to the original as is possible. The modern-ness of the language is not as important as the integrity of the text.  The text must attempt to mirror the original grammar and sense. This is a tall order.
Great attempts were made by men of God over the ages to translate and bring the text to us in its purity. Many have lost their lives to accomplish what they did.

So the criterion when looking for a Bible should be faithfulness to the original first and only then should you look for modern language. Please read my post about the English Standard Version translation where the advantages of literal translations over paraphrases has been discussed.

Satan is so crafty that he is placing a piece of fine literature in the hands of church goers who will imagine that they hold the word of God, and in so doing he is taking people further away from the life-giving words of his Arch Enemy.

Two Ethiopian eunuchs

I am thrilled that the Bible speaks of two foreigners, who were also eunuchs, who trusted in the God of Israel. As foreigners, they could go no further than the Court of the Gentiles in the temple grounds, a noisy place, hardly suited for the kind of worship a true believer would want to offer. Even if they had not been foreigners, as eunuchs, they could not have congregated with the people of God. All these ceremonial restrictions changed when God established the new covenant through Jesus Christ.

Ebedmelech the Ethiopian eunuch [Approx 588 B.C.] recorded in Jeremiah 38,39
Jeremiah proclaimed, “Thus says the Lord: This city shall surely be given into the hand of the army of the king of Babylon and be taken.” In obedience to God, he also encouraged the people to surrender to the Chaldeans. Officials of King Zedekiah had strong objections against the words of Jeremiah, and the king gave let them do whatever they wished with him. They threw him into a cistern that had wet mud at the bottom into which Jeremiah gradually sank.

A godly eunuch Ebedmelech, an Ethiopian, who lived in the king’s house, trusted the Lord and bravely confronted the king. The king then commanded him to take 30 men with him and lift Jeremiah out before he died. The mud must have had a strong hold on Jeremiah for Ebedmelech thoughtfully gave Jeremiah old rags and used-clothes to place under his armpits so that the ropes did not cut him when he was being pulled up.

God punished the city but this godly man’s life was preserved because he trusted in the Lord with a living faith that was accompanied by good works.

The Ethiopian eunuch, official of Queen Candace [Approx 33 A.D.] recorded in Acts 8
Philip was sent by an angel to intercept this high official who was returning to his country after worshiping God in Jerusalem. Philip found him seated in his chariot and reading from the book of Isaiah.
Philip enquired, “Do you understand what you are reading?”
The official replied, “How can I, unless someone guides me?”

He invited Philip to come up and sit with him. The Bible tells us that the passage he was reading was Isaiah 53, the passage about the suffering Saviour. But the official did not know about whom the passage spoke.  Philip  began with this Scripture and proceeded to tell him the good news about Jesus.

On the way, they came to some water and the official wanted to be baptised. When he had confessed his faith in the Lord Jesus, Philip baptised him. The Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away from that place. The Bible records that the eunuch went on his way rejoicing.

And why not? He had much to rejoice about.
for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave  nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise. (Gal 3:26-29)

God’s Show and Tell: Obedience of the Rechabites

All the Bible stories that I learned before the age of 20 are etched more deeply in my mind. Here is one of the new ones that I am trying to become more familiar with. You’ll find it in Jeremiah chapter 35.

Jehoiakim, the son of Josiah was king of Judah. God told Jeremiah to bring the Rechabites into one of the chambers in the temple and offer them wine to drink.

So Jeremiah spoke to one of them, a man called Jaazaniah, to tell the other Rechabites—his bothers, sons, and others—to come to the temple.

When they came, Jeremiah set pitchers of wine and cups and told them to drink. They did not touch the wine. They were teetotallers.

They told Jeremiah that they would not touch the wine; they did not drink wine because their ancestor Jonadab, the son of Rechab, had bound the family under an oath before God that they would never drink wine. In fact, Jonadab’s oath involved more than just wine-drinking. The Rechabites were not to build houses or farm or have vineyards; they had to live in tents and live a nomadic life. This family had been faithful to the oath and had lived like nomads. In fact, even at that point in time, they were in the city of Jerusalem only because Nebuchadnezzar had come against the land.

God told Jeremiah to use the Rechabites for a Show and Tell lesson to the Israelites. What a contrast! Here, on the one hand, was a family that had been faithful to the commands of thier ancestor Jonadab, and there, on the other hand, was a nation that was disobedient to many (and persistant) messages from the God of heaven to stay away from idolatory. “I have called to them and they have not answered,” God said.

God would punish the nation with terrible disaster. But the Rechabites, He would bless with godly descendants.

Sweetness upon sweetness

Lagging behind by many days in my Bible reading, I was glad to be able to take a day off today. At about 10:00 in the morning, I took off by myself to a quiet spot to catch up with my reading. The first few chapters of Joshua, the last few chapters of Isaiah, the first two chapters of Jeremiah, and about 10 psalms. I was even able to compose a tune for Psalm 133.

Surely the scriptures are ’sweeter than honey and the drippings of the honeycomb.’  To makes things sweeter, I realised that I had parked at a lovely spot. A quiet beach-side street. It was windy and wet outside and I could see the boats bobbing in the water through the rain.

The sun came out  again around 1:00 in the afternoon, and I drove home in the sunshine.

John MacArthur’s faithfulness to God’s word

I came across a Christian blog, that too a New Zealand one, today called I am Jonny King and chanced upon a post called ‘Happy Anniversary to “the General, the Mac Attack, the Mac Daddy” John MacArthur’

I was curious to see if the writer liked MacArthur or didn’t. It was not easy to find out, because his language needed more concentration than I was giving it. But before I reached the middle of the post I was pretty sure, he liked the man. This is how the post ends:

“Therefore, we should thank God for John MacArthur’s commitment over these forty years to Christ as outworked in the multiplying ministries around the world, which are not ashamed to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help him God, and we should be asking God to lengthen his days and increase His wisdom, so that he can continue to speak the truth in love… after all, love is not mere sentimentality, is it about doing what is best for the person (I am confident that this is MacArthur’s motivation).

“And, when MacArthur does speak strong words that may irk, we should remember the man, his motivation, and hold fire in humility, digging deeper both into the Scriptures and our hearts that, without the grace of God move mercilessly to wanton destruction.”

Amen

How was it to die?

Today’s CNN has a piece about Friedel and Robert Borisewitz, aged 92 and 97.

Friedel admits she sometimes thinks about death: “I just wonder how it will happen. It’s like being pregnant with your first child — you wonder how it’s going to happen.

“The difference is that when you are pregnant for the first time, people give you advice and tell you how it’s going to be.”

Makes you think, doesn’t it? There isn’t really much advise going around about dying. This makes the Bible all the more valuable because it claims to be the only source of any possible knowledge about life beyond the grave.  When it stands up for itself so wonderfully in provable matters, is it not wise to look into what it says about matters such as . . . death?

Righteous indignation

My friend Laurie has written a letter to Bart Ehrman, a New Testament scholar and textual critic of early Christianity. Laurie sounds angry but makes beautiful sense at the same time. Maybe this is what is known as righteous indignation.

Here is an excerpt:

You’ve devoted your life to undermining the authority of Scripture – to destroying, if possible, any faith that has been placed in it. I doubt you would express it in those terms. I believe you feel you’re doing a good thing. Setting people free from slavery to superstition. But I couldn’t help but wonder, nor could your interviewer, what’s left in the absence of faith. She asked you where you now find meaning in life. And you went on to proclaim your own gospel – a gospel of freedom from the knowledge of God. You described how your hope now lies in, well, the knowledge that after this life there’s nothing – no one to answer to, nothing to account for, nothing to fear, nothing to anticipate. You describe the freedom that comes from knowing that – freedom to live each moment to the fullest, freedom to work to alleviate the suffering around you, etc.

This freedom you speak of has captured my imagination these last few days. I’ve thought long and hard about what would be the way to live if this is all there is, there is no God, no judge of the universe, no standards, no accountability, no ultimate right or wrong, no punishments, no rewards. There would be no sin, it is true. There would be no guilt. There would also be no reason to respect human life or laws, other than to avoid arbitrarily established penalties. If men are not all created in the image of God, then there’s no reason for me not to detest any person of a color not my own, or less intelligent, or uglier, or meaner, or nicer, or more beautiful, or richer, or weaker, or older, or sicker. And don’t try to speak to me of dignity, the higher good and perpetuation of the species. What on earth difference does that make? If it’s all just random, what the hell difference does any of it really make? There is no benefit, or lack thereof in the continuation of any species, or this world as we know it. There is no reason for me to watch my language, to be kind, or to seek not to offend. As to those who suffer around me – there is no reason to feel anything but glad that it is them and not me who is suffering – unless of course I could think of something tangible to be gained in assisting them. There is no reason for me to love anyone except to the extent that they please me, and only for as long. There is no reason for me to love my children or care for them. There is no reason to refrain from abusing them, if it gives me relief or pleasure. There is no reason for me not to seek revenge if I feel “wronged” – though how I could be wronged, when there’s no such thing as right – well…. (If I don’t make it “right”, who will?) In a godless world all there is for me, a being formed by random happenings, is my moment by moment sense of pleasure and pain (though why I would interpret one as “good” and the other as “bad” is a mystery) – or, as the Scripture so succinctly puts it: “Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die”.

To read the entire letter, click A letter to Bart Ehrman.

English Standard Version

Our pastor told us a year or two ago to wait before using the ESV version, till the “stalwarts” have had the chance to go through it for a while, a year’s reading and study, maybe.  And now here is what some of the men of God I admire have to say.

John Piper writes in his article called Good English With Minimal Translation: Why Bethleham Uses the ESV:

Why I would like to see the English Standard Version become the most common Bible of the English-speaking church, for preaching, teaching, memorizing, and study . . .

Piper explains why he thinks that the more literal translation of the ESV is better than a version like the NIV that uses more paraphrasing.

1. A more literal translation respects the original author’s way of writing. It is a way of honoring the inspired writers.
2. Translators are fallible and they may mislead the English reader if they use unnecessary paraphrases to bring out one possible meaning and conceal others.
3. A more literal translation gives preachers more confidence that they can preach what the English text says with authority that it reflects what the original Greek or Hebrew text says.
4. A more literal translation which preserves ambiguities that are really there in the original keeps open the possibility of new insight by future Bible readers.

But he is careful not to discourage people who are using other translations.

A Bible does not cease to be precious and powerful because its translators overuse paraphrase and put way too much of their own interpretation into the Bible. That’s the way God’s Word is! It breaks free from poor translations and poor preaching—for which I am very thankful. But even though the weakest translation is precious, and is used by God to save and strengthen sinful people, better translations would be a great blessing to the church and an honor to Christ.

John MacArthur has this to say (taken from Questions and Answers by John MacArthur)

I believe anything other than a literal translation of the Bible is a serious breach—serious breach—of God’s intention for how we handle His word.  I think it’s a violation.  Now, there are some that are worse than others . . .
Anytime you open a Bible and it says, “A translation for our times,”  “a translation for modern times,”  “a translation for people to understand,” you have a problem.  “Modern times” has no right to determine what God said.  Translation is translation.  Interpretation is interpretation.  Paraphrase is paraphrase.  But when you blend those, you have very serious issues.  We would say, perhaps, that the NIV is maybe the least troublesome of dynamic equivalency translations, but it’s the old slippery slope issue again.

And it just goes from there—and watch where the NIV has gone!  From the NIV now to the TNIV and who knows where else it’s going to go, because once you have taken the step to say, “We have the right to change the original text so that people can understand it better,” you have just stepped away from what is the Word of God.  That is why I always land on the NAS, the New King James or the new ESV, which is also formal equivalency and an excellent translation as such.

Other well-known people who endorse this translation are:

• Joni Eareckson Tada
• Nancy Leigh DeMoss
• Dr. Ravi Zacharias
• Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr.

You can read (or even listen to) the ESV Bible for free at www.esv.org/.

And you may win the Boomer’s draw and get a calfskin version of the ESV Study Bible. Click here for details.

Hawking’s hope(lessness)

An article entitled, ‘Hawking: If we survive the next 200 years, we should be OK,’ CNN.com reveals some conclusions reached in the mind of the greatest scientist of our times, Stephen Hawking. Hawking thinks that the only hope for the survival of the human race is to establish pockets of human communities in space.

“It will be difficult enough to avoid disaster on planet Earth in the next 100 years, let alone next thousand, or million. The human race shouldn’t have all its eggs in one basket, or on one planet. Let’s hope we can avoid dropping the basket until we have spread the load.”

This is what brilliance sans the knowledge of God concludes.

The very environment in which we live—education, entertainment, and society—has helped many to suppress the knowledge of the existance of God, which each one of us is gifted with.

The Bible says:

” . . . because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God . . . Professing to be wise, they became fools . . .”

Having allowed our knowledge of God to be suppressed and boxed in by strong forces in the world in which we live, can we please dare to think outside the box? Can we please be brave enough to at least consider that perhaps the foolishness of the Greatest Book of all time is wiser than the greatest scientist of the present time?

Only one way is open for the human race to survive. The Book says that only few will find it.