Truth versus

Hopefully discussing the truth, over fancy tea.

I listened to this sermon recently. I will comment briefly on the introductory comments from the message.

Cited

False Doctrine - by Michael Phillips Spiritual Depression - Part 10 of 13 Sermon Notes Galatians 4:15 Jan 27, 2008 am

Link

Cited

Please rank the following five things in order of importance for living the Christian Life. So as to not tip my hand on what I think most important, I'll give them to you in alphabetical order and with a short, neutral description of what I mean by each one of them: 

(My comments)

Activity

Morality 

Niceness 

Sincerity 

Truth 

By activity I mean doing things for Christ, the Church, and the Kingdom. Things like praying, reading the Bible, attending church, putting money in the offering box, witnessing to the lost, helping out at the Rescue Mission, and voting for good causes and candidates. 

(Activity can be for the good or the bad)

By morality I mean living a good life, working hard, paying your bills, being faithful to your spouse, telling the truth, not stealing, cussing, or watching immoral movies.

(Morality and ethics are good, but according to the New Testament, persons are not saved, post-mortem, through morality and ethics; people are not saved by good works, Ephesians 2, for example. People are saved, including being made legally justified, through the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ, by the applied atoning and resurrection of Jesus Christ by grace alone, through faith alone, which should lead to good works for God, when divine regeneration of persons takes place.)

By niceness I mean being easy to get along with, friendly, helpful, and pleasant. 

(Niceness is generally better to use, but sometimes stating the truth, even in love, at least risks being perceived as not nice. It has been stated that the gospel, the good news, is bad news for those that do not embrace it.)

By sincerity I mean really believing what you believe and trying to live up to it. 

(People can be sincerely right or sincerely wrong and there are degrees of each)

By truth I mean the main doctrines of the Bible. I'm not sure which of the four would be at the top of the list for most believers, but I know very well which one would be at the bottom! Truth.

Cited

And the not-so-good, II Thessalonians 2:12- That they may all be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. 

I'll put it to you as plainly as I can: Receiving the Truth will promote your salvation, while rejecting or ignoring it will put you in grave danger of not being saved at all. The Truth matters!
---

God reveals himself supernaturally, primarily and as the final authority, through the Hebrew Bible and New Testament books. By definition a reasonable understanding of biblical and theological premises and conclusions that teaches essential doctrines, the nature of God, salvation, sin and humanity, as examples, requires understanding, accepting and applying truth.

Truth is the most important concept of those mentioned and listed in the sermon, in my view. Equally important is love. In other words, divine directed truth and divine directed love.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

BOICE, JAMES, MONTGOMERY (1981) Foundations of the Christian Faith, Downers Grove, IVP Press.

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (2003) What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Questions: Matthew 21: 28-32

Greek Islands: Facebook

Questions with my finalized copy for Easter church devotional series

In regards to Matthew 21: 28-32 

Matthew 21:28-32 English Standard Version (ESV) 28 “What do you think? A man had two sons. And he went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ 29 And he answered, ‘I will not,’ but afterward he changed his mind and went. 30 And he went to the other son and said the same. And he answered, ‘I go, sir,’ but did not go. 31 Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes go into the kingdom of God before you. 32 For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him. And even when you saw it, you did not afterward change your minds and believe him.

Questions 

1. How does conflicting Kingdoms impact us?

(We embrace the gospel Kingdom through Christ, but we are only part of the true Kingdom of God because God has regenerated us (Titus 3), as we are born again (John 3).)

(We are citizen of the Kingdom of God by grace through faith by the applied atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ, for good works, but not by our own works. (Ephesians 1-2))

(We embrace salvation, given to us by God.)

2. What do we practically do with knowledge of conflicting Kingdoms? 

(We prayerfully ask that God will guide us to be humble, obedient citizens that can assist in the growth of other citizens (Christians) and be good witnesses to non-citizens.)

3. Who are we in this story? 

(If we become too judgmental and arrogant in looking down on others that do not confess Jesus, we can be like persons with a false view of God. When we prayerfully, in humility, being saved by grace through faith, act Christ-like, we can be effective Christians with gospel witness.)

4. How should we treat others that are within the false Kingdom?

(We should treat others with love and respect. Living the gospel and presenting it where good situations arise.)

5. How should we act when we are hated for our Kingdom citizenship?

(We can be relatable as human beings that are finite and sinful, as are all human beings that live today. When reasonably possible, we can lovingly explain that we relate with our non-Christian fellow human beings, but that the gospel provides us with forgiveness of sins, through Christ.)  

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville.

ELLISON, H.L. (1986) ‘Matthew’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

FRANCE, R.T. (1985) Matthew, Grand Rapids, IVP, Eerdmans.

MARSHALL, ALFRED (1975)(1996) The Interlinear KJV-NIV, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

MEYER, HEINRICH, AUGUST, WILHELM (1884-1887) Meyer's Commentary on the New Testament, New York, Funk and Wagnalls.

Matthew 21: 28-32 -- Devotional III

Las Vegas

Thank you to Mr. James Zombie Clarke

Finalized copy for Easter church series

Matthew 21:28-32 English Standard Version (ESV) 28 “What do you think? A man had two sons. And he went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ 29 And he answered, ‘I will not,’ but afterward he changed his mind and went. 30 And he went to the other son and said the same. And he answered, ‘I go, sir,’ but did not go. 31 Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes go into the kingdom of God before you. 32 For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him. And even when you saw it, you did not afterward change your minds and believe him.

MEYER, HEINRICH, AUGUST, WILHELM (1884-1887) Meyer's Commentary on the New Testament, New York, Funk and Wagnalls.

Meyer cited:

'The publicans and harlots are represented by the first mentioned son; for previous to the days of John they refused to obey the divine call in answer to the command to serve Him, which God addressed to them through the law and the prophets, they practically said: ('I will not' translated from Greek), but when John appeared they accorded him the faith of their hearts, so that, in conformity with his preaching, they were now amending their ways, and devoting themselves to the service of God.

The members of the Sanhedrin are represented by the second son; for, while pretending to yield obedience to the law of God revealed in the Scriptures by the submissive airs which they assumed, they practically uttered the insincere ('I will go, Lord' translated from the Greek), they in reality disregarded it, and, unlike the publicans and the harlots, they would not allow themselves to be influenced by the movement that followed the preaching of the Baptist, so that neither the efforts of John nor the example of the publicans and harlots had any effect upon them in the way of producing conversion.'

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville.

Courson cited:

'Jesus likened the prostitutes and publicans (tax-collectors, from the ESV) to the first son. They seemed unlikely candidates to receive John's message, but receive it they did.' On the other hand, like the second son, the pseudo-religious scribes and Pharisees gave only lip service to the preaching of John.' Courson (158).

Devotional

Conflicting Kingdoms 

The first group of tax-collectors and prostitutes were within the actual Kingdom of God, as although their fallen and corrupted nature led to disobedience to God, eventually God was trusted and obeyed in faith. Therefore, these people were covered by the applied righteousness of God preached by John the Baptist and Jesus Christ. Practically these social outcasts grew in godliness as new members of the Kingdom of God. They now also had everlasting life, by grace through faith, within the future culminated Kingdom.

The second group of Hebrew religious leaders were excluded from the actual Kingdom of God, because although they claimed to worship in divine truth and righteousness, the God of the Old Testament, and used the Old Testament within their form of Judaism, these religious leaders depended on their own religious system, religious righteousness and spirituality. This was a false representation of whom God actually is. These religious leaders claimed allegiance and obedience to God, but in actuality rejected the God of the Old Testament by rejecting progressive divine revelation from the ministries of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ and the actual, divine righteousness they represent.

The Judaism of these leaders fused the teachings of the Old Testament and Mosaic Law with religious rules and social norms which made the divine work of God, void in their lives. Therefore, they naturally rejected the forerunner of the Messiah and the Messiah, himself. Practically, these people were ungodly and part of a false Kingdom of God.

We can grant that some in Judaism were true to the Old Testament, in true faith and are in the Kingdom. These people would have accepted Jesus Christ as the Messiah if they existed in his time or later.

True faith in God, through Jesus Christ, is equated with true imputed (attributed) divine righteousness and salvation, and not necessarily religiosity.

Brief on Bible contradictions

Thanks to James Zombie Clarke
from Las Vegas.

Sermon

The Lord Has Risen Indeed - by Michael Phillips Apr 12, 2009 am - Easter, 2009

Grace Baptist Church

Cited

The most serious thing he brought up was the conflicting reports of the Resurrection. All four Gospel say Mary Magdalene and her friends were the first to see the empty tomb. But just what was it they saw? Matthew says they saw an angel; Mark said they saw a young man; Luke says it was two men they saw; and John says they saw two angels. So, which is it? Angels or men, one or two? 

If you read the Bible and apply common sense, you see no conflict at all. Since angels are spirits and spirits are invisible, angels cannot appear to us in their true form, for if they did, we could not see them! Most of the time, therefore, they spoke to humans in a human form. As to the difference in number, it seems only one of the angel/men spoke, and he's the only one Matthew and Mark mention-not because the other one's not there, but because the other one had nothing to say. 

Cited 

We speak this way all the time. My wife and I invite a family to dinner. We both come up to them, and I say, 'If you're free for dinner on Saturday, come over at six'. The husband might say, 'Michael asked us to dinner'; the wife, 'Michael and Gladys asked us to dinner'; the son would say, 'Gladys invited to dinner'. Who's lying? Where's the contradiction? Nobody would find fault in these discrepancies-unless he wanted to. 

Can I straighten out every crooked place in the Bible? Of course not; nobody can do that...

Based on four academic degrees in both Christian and secular, (varying degrees of) conservative and liberal, academic institutions, I agree with Pastor Phillips' explanation for bible difficulties.

Research of biblical manuscript evidence does find variant readings. These are attributed to scribal errors and perhaps in some cases, harmonization and clarification.

From

Bible.org: Daniel B. Wallace has taught Greek and New Testament courses on a graduate school level since 1979. He has a Ph.D. from Dallas Theological Seminary

Cited

Ancient scribes who copied the handwritten texts of the New Testament frequently changed the text intentionally. Although unintentional changes account for the vast majority of textual corruption, intentional alterations also account for thousands of corruptions. In some cases, to be sure, it does seem that the scribes were being malicious. But these instances are few and far between. The majority of the intentional changes to the text were done by scribes who either thought that the text they were copying had errors in it or by scribes who were clarifying the meaning, especially for liturgical reasons.

Cited

Some of the commonest intentional changes involve parallel passages. This is where the passage that the scribe is copying out has a parallel to it of which the scribe is aware. For example, about 90% of the pericopes (or stories) in Mark’s Gospel are found in Matthew. When a scribe was copying Mark, after he had just finished copying Matthew, he would frequently remember the parallel in Matthew and make adjustments to the wording of Mark so that it would conform to the wording of Matthew. This alteration is known as harmonization.

Cited

Scribes also were prone to clarify passages, especially for liturgical reasons.

Cited

Scribes also were prone to clarify what they thought the text meant. Sometimes they were right, sometimes they were wrong. There could be theological issues involved, or issues of mere orthopraxy (proper conduct in the church). 

Cited

Some have attempted this as a primary explanation for the apparent theological changes in the NT, but what they haven’t done is sufficiently anchor a particular reading to a particular time and place in which such a reading would probably arise. Thus, the theological argument must give way to the textual evidence, since the textual variants are capable of being explained by several different factors.

My brief time at the University of Manchester, before I completed MPhil/PhD work at the University of Wales, had me discuss bible and theology with a world-class, Dead Sea Scrolls scholar that told me that the New Testament featured different 'theologies.' Fair enough, writers can present revelation from different perspectives, but in basic agreement with Dr. Wallace, the manuscript evidence and textual variants provide evidence to work through possible theological interpretations. As I did recently:

2 Peter 3: 10

Wallace again

Cited

...we can have a great deal of confidence that the essential message of the original text can be recovered, for there is always a witness to it.

Looking at biblical manuscripts extant, especially New Testament ones, in my case, there are scribal errors and likely scribal harmonization and clarifications at parts. But, biblical theology is logically consistent. It is also without theological or philosophical error, in my view, in the original documents.

This based on a view of divine revelation through human agents.

Primary doctrines, theology (theologies from various biblical writers, prophets, apostles, associates and their scribes) are consistent with the gospel message, and secondary doctrines and theology can be reasoned out and debated with the use of textual variants, when needed.

(Such as with my 2 Peter 3: 10 example)

BAUER, WALTER. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

MARSHALL, ALFRED (1975)(1996) The Interlinear KJV-NIV, Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

STRONG, J. (1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.