Sunday, October 27, 2024

REFORMATION DAY 2024!

 







Reformation Day celebrates the joyful beauty of the liberating gospel of Jesus Christ.

A single event on a single day changed the world. It was October 31, 1517. Brother Martin, a monk and a scholar, had struggled for years with his church, the church in Rome. He had been greatly disturbed by an unprecedented indulgence sale. The story has all the makings of a Hollywood blockbuster. Let’s meet the cast.

First, there is the young bishop—too young by church laws—Albert of Mainz. Not only was he bishop over two bishoprics, he desired an additional archbishopric over Mainz. This, too, was against church laws. So Albert appealed to the pope in Rome, Leo X. From the De Medici family, Leo X greedily allowed his tastes to exceed his financial resources. Enter the artists and sculptors, Raphael and Michelangelo.

When Albert of Mainz appealed for a papal dispensation, Leo X was ready to deal. Albert, with the papal blessing, would sell indulgences for past, present, and future sins. All of this sickened the monk Martin Luther. Can we buy our way into heaven? Luther had to speak out.

But why October 31? November 1 held a special place in the church calendar as All Saints’ Day. On November 1, 1517, a massive exhibit of newly acquired relics would be on display at Wittenberg, Luther’s home city. Pilgrims would come from all over, genuflect before the relics, and take hundreds, if not thousands, of years off time in purgatory. Luther’s soul grew even more vexed. None of this seemed right.


Martin Luther, a scholar, took quill in hand, dipped it in his inkwell and penned his Ninety-Five Theses on October 31, 1517. These were intended to spark a debate, to stir some soul-searching among his fellow brothers in the church. The Ninety-Five Theses sparked far more than a debate. The Ninety-Five Theses also revealed the church was far beyond rehabilitation. It needed a reformation. The church—and the world—would never be the same.

One of Luther’s Ninety-Five Theses simply declares, “The Church’s true treasure is the gospel of Jesus Christ.” That alone is the meaning of Reformation Day. The church had lost sight of the gospel because it had long ago papered over the pages of God’s Word with layer upon layer of tradition. Mere tradition often brings about systems of works, of earning your way back to God. It was true of the Pharisees, and it was true of medieval Roman Catholicism. Didn’t Christ Himself say, “My yoke is easy and My burden is light”? Reformation Day celebrates the joyful beauty of the liberating gospel of Jesus Christ.

What is Reformation Day? It is the day the light of the gospel broke forth out of darkness. It was the day that began the Protestant Reformation. It was a day that led to Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox, and many other Reformers helping the church find its way back to God’s Word as the only supreme authority for faith and life and leading the church back to the glorious doctrines of justification by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. It kindled the fires of missionary endeavors, it led to hymn writing and congregational singing, and it led to the centrality of the sermon and preaching for the people of God. It is the celebration of a theological, ecclesiastical, and cultural transformation.

So we celebrate Reformation Day. This day reminds us to be thankful for our past and to the monk turned Reformer. What’s more, this day reminds us of our duty, our obligation, to keep the light of the gospel at the center of all we do.

(taken from Ligonier.org)
===============


 





What is the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture?




The word perspicuity means “clarity.” To say that something is perspicacious is to say that it is clear. The doctrine of the perspicuity (clarity) of Scripture is one of the basic tenets of Protestant evangelicalism regarding the Bible, along with the doctrines of the inspirationinerrancy, and sufficiency of Scripture. In short, the doctrine of perspicuity means that the central message of the Bible is clear and understandable and that the Bible itself can be properly interpreted in a normal, literal sense.


The doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture was a main belief of the Reformers. Martin Luther taught against the Roman Catholic claim that the Bible is imperspicuous, that is, too obscure and difficult for the common people to understand. The Bible, the priests and bishops taught, was unclear, and the people should not be trusted to interpret or even read it for themselves. On the contrary, the Reformers encouraged lay Christians to study and interpret God’s Word on their own. The Reformers believed that the Bible proclaimed itself to be inherently clear and that God is able to communicate His message to all men, even the unlettered. A main tenet of the Reformation is that Scripture is clear enough for the simplest person to live by. Because of their belief in the perspicuity of Scripture, men like John WycliffeWilliam TyndaleMartin LutherMyles CoverdaleThomas Matthew, and Pierre Olivétan went to great lengths to translate the Bible into the vernacular.

The Bible itself proclaims its own perspicuity. Deuteronomy 6:6–7 exhorts parents to teach the Scriptures to their children, indicating that they can be understood by children. The New Testament confirms this when the apostle Paul encourages Timothy to continue in the things he has known of the Holy Scriptures from childhood (2 Timothy 3:14–15a). Psalm 19:7 declares that the “testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple” (ESV). Surely, the simple cannot be made wise by something they are unable to understand. Psalm 119:130 further explains that God’s Word “gives understanding to the simple,” meaning that it is not necessary to be highly educated to comprehend its truths. The Bible’s meaning is clear to all.

The doctrine of perspicuity means the Bible is clear in its essential matters and able to expose to man that which is comprehensible to him about God—His nature, His character, His dealings with mankind in the past, and His plans for the future. The Bible is clear in all that is necessary for man to know in regard to his sinful state, his need for salvation, and the means of attaining that salvation, faith in Christ (Romans 3:22).

The doctrine of perspicuity does not mean that every passage of Scripture is equally clear as to its precise meaning. Certainly, there are passages that can be obscure to modern readers due to historical or cultural references. And some of the theology is difficult; Peter said that Scripture contains “some things that are hard to understand” (2 Peter 3:16). The perspicuity of the Word of God does not eliminate the need for interpretation, explanation, and exposition of the Bible by diligent scholars.
(To continue this article, click on this link)



===================




Thursday, October 24, 2024

END TIMES REVELATION!

 


Most western Christians are still not used to considering themselves to be currently IN THE END TIMES or living THROUGH the reign of Christ on the earth!   This is because of the lens we use to interpret Bible End Times prophesy.  


Sunday, October 13, 2024

Listen to Dr. Jay Smith's Lecture on the Quran


 Dr. Jay Smith's lecture on The Quran will be featured 

on BXBLUES RADIO every Monday to Saturday 4:00pm (Est).

DON'T MISS IT!

Important details western scholars have been unraveling now for some time.  


Click here or at the top of the page for 24/7 Christian Radio:

BXBLUES RADIO


      "For God will bring every work to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil."-- Ecc 12:14


The Gospels vs Apocrypha (Michael Kruger)

 DR. MICHAEL KRUGER


WHICH CANON IS RIGHT?


https://youtu.be/p2upKk_5Bhk


-The Canon of scripture isn't something that was found or formulated or instituted in the early centuries of the church but instead it was what was already devotional to the early Christians as they gathered and copied apostolic instruction from the apostles and eventually ran from area to area to escape persecution.


Early Christians already knew what they had in their possession from the beginning of the collecting of what we now know to be Christian manuscripts.  They knew what was authoritative and what came from the apostles either by their own pen or the pen of those who were instructed by the apostles.


-The Canon of scripture was not created or instituted as authoritative by a church creed or council.  Instead, even early church fathers will write concerning its self-authenticating authority of these books and differentiate them from others w/ regard to importance and sacredness.  


-The authoritativeness of scripture is not only seen in scripture directly (2 Peter 3:16; 1 Timothy 5:18, etc.) but easily perceived by the authoritative writing accounts of the Apostles and those they instructed to write concerning their witness of Christ's commandments and the gospel.


-Long before Emperor Constantine (300's AD) there were a core of (approximately 22 out of 27 books of our NT Canon) which were mentioned among the early patristic church fathers (starting from 101AD) demonstrating their sacred relevance. Among these were the gospels and Paul's epistles.


-The question of why NOT the Apocryphal writings in the NT and OT?


Simply because Protestants wanted to use the Bible (scriptures) that was around during the days of Christ and what He would have used in the OT.


The NT quotes an extraordinary amount of the OT and the NT never quotes from apocryphal texts.


It was only as a counter-reformation reaction that the Roman Catholic Church decided on an official Church Canon.  


So, the idea that books at any time were "taken out" of the Canon is a gross misunderstanding of history.


The OT Canon which Jesus followed included The Law, The Prophets and the Psalms, and so these were what needed to be included within a complete Canon of scripture for Protestant Christians.  


*** Note that these decisions are ones that are made with a full scope on honoring and making SCRIPTURE exclusively authoritative above and beyond outward tradition, ecclesiastic councils, etc.


Not that apostolic traditional churches have less care or concern over scripture but that nothing FALLIBLE should get in the way of scriptural INFALLIBLE teaching and authority.



DO WE NEED AN AUTHORITATIVE CHURCH TO DECIDE WHAT BOOKS ARE IN THE CANON?


-NO.   When Jesus told the Jewish leaders, "Have you not read what God said to YOU.." (Concerning David, Moses, the resurrection, the prophets, etc.)


There was an already established OT Canon which was authoritative without an official COUNCIL to establish it other than God Himself.


Therefore, the same thing goes for our NT Canon:


Hebrews 1:1-2 -  


"God, having spoken long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways,


in these last days spoke to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds,.."




==============


The NT books we have now ARE THE EARLIEST written works we have for the formation of the Christian faith.


The earliest books are the gospels (except for Galatians and perhaps James which are argued to possibly be earlier than the gospels).


-The differences found among the manuscripts are dealt with by going back and tracing all the copies we have and judging on what might have happened along the way, etc. The more copies we have of a certain manuscript the better it is to critically examine what happen.


==========



Michael Kruger: God’s Word in the Early Church:


https://youtu.be/u2F0Kp-CjgM?list=TLPQMDQxMDIwMjTO30-fodg4aA



Mohammad Ali - (not the boxer) The shepherd.

The discovery of the gnostic texts.  Gospel of Thomas and a collection of books.


-The question of what are the right gospels?


*Why the gospels (Matt, Mark, Luke and John) are unique and ended up in the Canon of scripture and no other gospels.


*** THE CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF THE GOSPELS:


1-EARLY ATTESTATION

2-CLOSEST EYEWITNESSES 

3-THE GOSPELS LACK LEGENDARY EMBELLISHMENTS OF THE APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS.

4- OBSSERVATION - RECOGNIZED AS AUTHORITATIVE FROM A VERY EARLY DATE.



-THE CANONICAL GOSPELS ARE THE EARLIEST WRITINGS DATING TO THE FIRST CENTURY.

-THEY WERE WRITTEN DURING THE TIME WHILE SOME EYEWITNESSES WERE STILL ALIVE.

-PEOPLE COULD HAVE DISAGREED W/ THE FACTS OF THE EVENTS IF THEY WERE EYEWITNESSES TO THE ACCOUNTS - SO WHAT IS WRITTTEN DOWN NEEDED TO BE FACTUAL OR NO ONE WOULD HAVE BELIEVED IT, NOR KEPT IT, NOR COLLECTED IT, ETC.

-THE CANONICAL GOSPELS HAVE THE BEST CONNECTIONS TO THE APOSTLES.


-EARLY IS GOOD BUT ALSO A GOSPEL WRITTEN BY A GOOD EYEWITNESS.

(CLOSE RELATION TO JESUS)

WRITTEN BY AN APOSTLE OR A COMPANION OF AN APOSTLE.


-HOW DO WE KNOW JOHN WROTE JOHN?

THE TESTIMNONY OF THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS.


IRANAES STATES JOHN WROTE JOHN.

IRANAUS WAS MENTORED BY POLYCARP WHO WAS MENTORED BY JOHN THE APOSTLE.


-THE APOCRYPHA GOSPELS WERE WRITTEN IN THE LATER 2ND CENTURY - MUCH TIME REMOVED IN COMPARISON TO THE CANONICAL GOSPELS.

THE FIRST CENTURY EYEWITNESSES WERE ALREADY DEAD YET THE APOCRYPHAL TEXTS STATE THAT THE APOSTLES WROTE IT.


THE NAMING OF THE APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS WERE AN ATTEMPT TO GET A HEARING.


**** 

EMBELLISHMENTS OF THE APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS:


*Most people haven't read these gospels.

-qualitatively difference than the canonical gospels.

-The canonical gospels read like a narrative of a newspaper, but the apocrypha writings are dramatical and embellished.

In the Gospels, there's no seeing of the resurrection but in the apocrypha, you get the drama described in a bizarre way.


The early life of Jesus is silent in the Gospels but in the apocrypha there's unnecessary embellishments.


There's an appeal to human curiosity.


The gospel of Thomas, Peter, etc.


The gospel of Peter shows the resurrection...

Jesus is a giant Jesus AND also the cross floats and which literally talks!  ...What the??


Bizarre!  


Jesus was extremely mean in the infancy gospel of Thomas!

He kills another kid and then resurrects him.  He breaks the sabbath, etc.



OBSSERVATION - RECOGNIZED AS AUTHORITATIVE FROM A VERY EARLY DATE.



-WHICH GOSPELS DID THE EARLY CHRISTIANS COPY THE MOST, COLLECT THE MOST; THE MOST POPULAR, ETC.


The number of manuscript evidence demonstrates which were the most important to early Christians.  (Matt, Mark, Luke, John)


Irenaeus states ONLY FOUR.

Clement (2nd century) four and only four.



-The apocrypha texts were never found among the Gospels in history when they were found.

No caudexes which include a mix of gospels and apocrypha.


We don't have a list of a mix of them from the early church.


The gospels are always set apart.


The apocrypha manuscript evidence is very small as opposed to the Gospels demonstrating that they were not very popular.


5700 NT manuscripts

several thousands only of the apocryphal texts.


-the gospel of Mary (only about 3 copies but has never ever been mentioned by any church father in history)


we only know about it b/c it was found in the desert.


=================================



An In Depth Study of Tradition and the Canon


https://youtu.be/RR0RXeCQdL0?list=TLPQMDQxMDIwMjTO30-fodg4aA



What is the Canon?

Canon means a "rule" or standard against which something is judged and measured.


The term came to mean an authoritative listing of books or works.



Romans 15:4


For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, so that through the perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.


1 Corinthians 10:11


Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have arrived.


How is canon determined:


The OT canon is the same version of the Jewish Canon w/out the apocrypha texts.

The Canon of scripture is part of revelation of God.

Canon is an artifact of revelation not an object of revelation itself.

God is the One who has inspired some writings and not other writings.  

Man RECOGNIZES CANON AND DOESN'T CREATE CANON.

=====================================================


Which Old Testament books are not quoted in the New Testament?

The books of Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Zephaniah, Nahum, Ezra, Nehemiah, Obadiah, and Esther are not quoted either. Yet no Protestant has a problem with including them in their canon.

Because, these books are also the ones that were laid up by the Jews in their temple, and so early Protestants wanted to use the official canon which were accepted the Jews.

*The argument is that the OT depended upon oral tradition therefore, the NT church also depended upon oral tradition of the NT.   But this is not an adequate argument b/c The NT quotes the OT 283 times!


How many times is the Torah quoted in the New Testament?

There are in all 283 direct quotations from the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) in the New Testament. New Testament authors also quote from other sources.
Did the Old Testament exist during Jesus' time?

The Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrate that the Old Testament Scriptures (copies of all books except Esther have been found in the caves) were being copied and used at least 200 years before Christ. (Septuagint)
How long has the Hebrew Bible been around?

The sacred books that make up the anthology modern scholars call the Hebrew Bible - and Christians call the Old Testament - developed over roughly a millennium; the oldest texts appear to come from the eleventh or tenth centuries BCE.











Friday, October 4, 2024

CANON and SOLA SCRIPTURA

 


-The Canon of scripture isn't something that was found, formulated or instituted in the early centuries of the church or by the church but instead it was what had already been devotional to the early Christians as they gathered and copied apostolic instruction from the apostles and eventually ran from area to area to escape persecution.


Early Christians already knew what they had in their possession from the beginning of the collecting of what we now know to be the Christian manuscripts.  They knew what was authoritative and what came from the apostles either by their own pen or the pen of those who were instructed by the apostles.


-The Canon of scripture was not created or instituted as authoritative by a church creed or council.  Instead, even early church fathers wrote concerning its self-authenticating authority of these books and differentiate them from others with regard to importance and sacredness.  


-The authoritativeness of scripture is not only seen in scripture directly (2 Peter 3:16; 1 Timothy 5:18, etc.) but easily perceived by the authoritative writing accounts of the Apostles and those they instructed to write concerning their witness of Christ's commandments and the gospel.


-Long before Emperor Constantine (300's AD), there were a core of (approximately 22 out of 27 books of our NT Canon) which were mentioned among the early patristic church fathers (starting from 101AD) demonstrating their sacred relevance. Among these were the gospels and Paul's epistles.


-Why NOT the apocryphal writings in the NT and OT?


Simply because Protestants wanted to use the Bible (scriptures) that was around during the days of Christ and what He would have used in the OT.


The NT quotes an extraordinary amount of the OT and the NT never quotes from apocryphal texts.


**It was only as a counter-reformation reaction that the Roman Catholic Church decided on their own official Church Canon of scripture.  


So, the idea that books at any time were "taken out" of the Canon is a gross misunderstanding of history.


The OT Canon which Jesus followed included The Law, The Prophets and the Psalms, and so these were what needed to be included within a complete Canon of scripture for Protestant Christians.  


*** Note that these decisions are ones that are made with a full scope on honoring and making SCRIPTURE exclusively authoritative above and beyond outward tradition, ecclesiastic councils, etc.


Not that apostolic traditional churches have less care or concern over scripture but that nothing FALLIBLE should get in the way of scriptural INFALLIBLE teaching and authority.


DO WE NEED AN AUTHORITATIVE CHURCH TO DECIDE WHAT BOOKS ARE IN THE CANON?


-NO.   When Jesus told the Jewish leaders, "Have you not read what God said to YOU.." (Concerning David, Moses, the resurrection, the prophets, etc.)


There was an already established OT Canon which was authoritative without an official COUNCIL to establish it other than God Himself.


Therefore, the same thing goes for our NT Canon:


Hebrews 1:1-2 -  


"God, having spoken long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways,

in these last days spoke to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds,.."


Which Old Testament books are not quoted in the New Testament?


The books of Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Zephaniah, Nahum, Ezra, Nehemiah, Obadiah, and Esther are not quoted in the NT. 

HOWEVER, ALL OT books in the Hebrew Canon were laid up by the Jews in their temple, and so early Protestants wanted to use the official canon which were accepted by the Jews.


*There's an argument  that claims that the OT depended upon oral tradition therefore, the NT church also depends upon oral tradition of the NT.   But this is not an adequate argument b/c The NT quotes the OT 283 times!


Included therein are the four books of Moses (Torah).  So if the OT is inadequate because it depended upon any oral traditions, then the NT can't be reliable either because the reliability of the NT is dependent upon the reliability of the OT.


Thanks for stopping by and God bless!