We know...

We know God, we know the Spirit of God, we know the spirit of truth. 1 John 4:1-6. (Click the link to read the text at King James Bible Online™)

Beloved little children need to hear and heed the message of the beloved apostle. Error is widely dispersed in the world; we need to try all things that are being promoted in the name of God and truth.

Do not believe every spirit, 1 John 4:1.

Rather than believe any and everything we hear pawned off in the name of God and the Bible, we must try the spirits. Do not just foolishly trust; instead, faithfully try. To try the spirits means to test, examine, put on trial – to prove and know what is right and what is wrong.

The spirits may be earthly or ethereal, “though we, or an angel from heaven” (Galatians 1:8), but it matters not. All must be put to the test of truth, to accordingly find the principle that inspires or animates what is preached. “Whether they are of God” indicates that not all are from God (John 8:47). In John’s day and now, many false prophets are in the world. The Old Testament provided the people of Israel ways to test false prophets (Deuteronomy 13:1-3; 18:19-22) In that same spirit, John will provide us a way.

The fact that “many false prophets are gone out into the world” suggests those departing from the Christian faith to go back to the world (cf. 2 Timothy 4:10). “They went out from us, but they were not of us” (2:19) All false prophets are false, even those who may have previously presented themselves among the saints of God as true.

How shall we try the spirits? By the word of God (Acts 17:11). By measuring and aligning what is said by and with the truth. It is not just applying some feeling, but addressing the facts. As Isaiah said: (Isaiah 8:20) To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

How to know the Spirit of God, 1 John 4:2-3.

John not only commands his readers to try the spirits, but gives a way to try them. When John speaks of knowing the Spirit of God, he particularly addresses the way whereby we know that what is said and taught actually proceeds from the Spirit of God. We know that the Spirit of God testifies of Christ (John 15:26).

Hereby, by the test of the prophet’s confession, one can know whether what is said proceeds from the Spirit of God. “Every spirit that confesseth…every spirit that confesseth not…” One begins by measuring how they “measure” Christ (Matthew 22:41-46). “These spirits set up for prophets, doctors, or dictators in religion, and so they were to be tried by their doctrine” (Matthew Henry). The test is confessional; that is, it concerns what a person confesses, or believes. The test is theological or Christological; that is, it concerns what a person confesses or believes about Jesus Christ. The test is applied both positively and negatively. A false confession arises from that spirit of antichrist, the contrary and supplanting spirit which is in the world and which manifests itself in these false teachers.

What does such a Christological confession imply, and of what does it consist? First, it recognizes and confesses Jesus, the historical child, born of the virgin Mary in Bethlehem. Second, it recognizes and confesses that this historical Jesus, and he alone, is the Christ, the Messiah of God. Third, it recognizes and confesses that he is “come in the flesh,” that is, he existed as God before and apart from the flesh, was made flesh and dwelt among us – “and the Word was God” (John 1:1, 14). Or, as John Gill wrote, “The proper deity and sonship of Christ, his true and real humanity, and his Messiahship.”

The ones written to are of God, 1 John 4:4.

John calls upon the ones to whom he is writing to remember they are “of God” – you have God living within you (Colossians 1:27). Because of this you are overcomers (5:4-5; Romans 8:37), you have overcome “them,” the false prophets and that spirit of antichrist. “All that is in the world” is temporal, “is not of the Father” but is animated by the wicked one (2:14-17). God is greater than our heart, the witness of God is greater than the witness of men (3:20; 5:9) – and God in you is greater than he that is in the world (cf. John 6:45).

Such transcendent knowledge as supplied by the apostle comforts, establishes, and encourages (Psalm 124:1-8; 2 Thessalonians 2:16-17). The Lord hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee (Hebrews 13:5).

“They” are of the world, 1 John 4:5.

They – false prophets, every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh – are of the world and speak of and to the world. Man by nature knows the things of the world (1 Corinthians 2:11). The world hears and recognizes their own. The world loves its own (John 15:19). Let a prophet speak falsely, and in doing so he speaks recognizably, smoothly, and soothingly to those who are of the world, who are animated by its spirit.

If someone is in a crowd of people speaking foreign languages, they know not what is being said. If suddenly someone speaks a word in their own tongue, they “recognize their own” (cf. 1 Corinthians 14:19). Those who have the Spirit of God recognize the voice of God (John 10:5, 17). Those who have not the Spirit of God recognize the spirit of the world and the spirit of error. It calls to them, as deep calleth unto deep.

The ones writing are of God, 1 John 4:6.

By “we” in context John seems to mean the apostolic witnesses (1 John 1:1-4). They were chosen, called, and sent by God (Luke 6:13; John 20:21). “We are of God.” Certainly, he considers those to whom he is writing to be “of God” (v. 4). However, he is giving a principle of “deep calling unto deep,” so to speak. “Ye of are God” and “We are of God.” Because of this, you recognize the words of truth being spoken. Those who know God listen to the apostolic witness (1 Corinthians 14:37). Those in their natural and unregenerate state do not know God, do not listen to the apostolic witness, and will be carried about with every wind of doctrine (1 Corinthians 2:14).

The spirit of truth consists of a true Christology proceeding from the Spirit of God (John 1:14; 1 Corinthians 12:3; 1 John 5:1). The spirit of error is that which is a false Christology proceeding from the spirit of antichrist, yea even Satan (2 John, v. 7). That which is book-ended between the “hereby” of 3:24 and the “hereby” of 4:6 gives the confessional Christological test to confirm the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. It begins with having the spiritual ability to hear the voice of the Jesus the Shepherd and concludes with the conjoining truth about Jesus the Christ. The Spirit and the word always agree.

We know (concluding thoughts), 1 John 3:24, 4:6.

“And hereby we know… Hereby know we…”

Do you listen to truth or to error? How do you know the difference? If someone is speaking and sharing for and from the Lord, then their words will align with the word of God and agree with the Spirit in us. Search the scriptures, whether the things are so or no (John 5:39; Acts 17:11). Let God be true, but every man a liar.

What do you confess? Do you know the Spirit of God? Do you know God? Do you hear the apostolic witness, spoken by the Spirit through the word? Does the witness of the Spirit witness to your spirit? (Psalm 42:7; Romans 8:16).

What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? (Matthew 22:42). Can you answer with Peter, “Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God?” Has flesh and blood given you a lie, or has the Father revealed to you the truth? (Matthew 16:15-17.) Do you confess that Jesus Christ come in the flesh is of God, or do you stand with the spirit of antichrist now in the world?

“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” Acts 16:31.

Dispensational salvation: IFB and false gospel

Because of a common interest in supporting and defending the King James Bible, we sometimes “rub shoulders” with some folks who hold some pretty tainted tenets. While we agree on the King James Bible being the word of God and its use for English-speaking people, we disagree on some other very important issues. Some are important enough to require ecclesiastical separation, while recognizing those persons are still teachers of the truth of the gospel. Some are so rank that they incite marking and naming the persons as teaching soteriological doctrine outside the purview of orthodoxy.[i]

I am an independent Baptist, in the sense that our church is unaffiliated with any Baptist association, convention, or fellowship. I am a fundamental Baptist, in the sense that I agree with the doctrines that have traditionally been identified as the fundamentals of the Christian faith. If called on to identify myself beyond just “Baptist,” I prefer to say “old-time” Baptist, which will usually elicit the response, “What do you mean by that?” I do not identify myself as an Independent Fundamental Baptist.[ii] There are good people and churches who use that terminology, but there is also a lot of doctrine of putrid smell housed under that roof.

One of these putrid precepts seems to be most commonly identified as “dispensational salvation.”[iii] This is a false gospel that denies that only one way of Jesus Christ, a lamb slain from the foundation of the world (John 14:6; Acts 4:12: 1 Timothy 2:5; Revelation 13:8). In this post I will not spend time trying to prove the orthodox position, but will operate from that presupposition. The purpose of this post is to warn King James Bible defenders of the error of “dispensational salvation” and to name and warn against some of the promoters of it. No doubt there are many more. Be warned. Be careful. Naming and marking will doubtless be offensive to some, perhaps many, but the Bible is clear. Perverting the gospel of Christ is a damnable issue.

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. Galatians 1:6-9

IFB purveyors of false gospels.

Peter Ruckman.

Peter S. Ruckman seems the ringleader of the bunch. Others may have taught such before him, but likely most of the living Independent Fundamental Baptist promoters of multiple salvations across multiple dispensations generally accept Ruckman and his views. Here are a couple of excerpts of his claptrap. I do not think more is necessary. It is unlikely anyone will deny he taught such heresy; his followers gladly rejoice in lauding him and in purveying his views. Here are three examples of the teaching of Ruckman.

“Those silly asses actually teach that salvation is the same in the Church Age, the Tribulation, the Millennium, and the Old Testament. You never met a more gullible, blind, deceived bunch of Bible-rejecting apostates in your life.” (Bible Believers’ Bulletin, November 2001, p. 13)

“Whenever you hear any heretic say that ‘men are saved in the Old Testament by looking forward to the cross and after the New Testament by looking back at the cross,’ you are dealing either with a lazy preacher or a stupid preacher or a crooked, lying fool. (Bible Believers’ Bulletin, April 2004, p. 18)

“We have learned that before the law a man was saved by grace through faith, if his works showed he had faith. Under the Mosaic Law, a man was saved by grace through faith and works, if he was short on either item (faith or works) he could die in his sins and go to hell…Here, again, [i.e., during the Millennium] we will encounter salvation by Works, through Works, and ‘that of YOURSELVES’ for there is no ‘gift’ to it. (How to Teach Dispensational Truth, Pensacola: Bible Believers Press, 1996, pp. 60-61, 91)

I generally do not like to strike too harsh a tone on my blog, but dealing with the heretical views of Peter Ruckman requires it. “Answer a fool according to his folly…” (Proverbs 26:5). I must honestly say that I do not think Peter Ruckman was lazy or stupid – but I do think he was a crooked, lying fool, and worse – as well as a Bible-truth-rejecting apostate and a disqualified minister with two divorces and three marriages under his belt.

Other followers.

I initially thought to give sort of exhaustive quotations from those who hold this variant view. I decided that would become tedious and tiresome. Instead, I will give a few quotes and just identify others by linking to their writings. Be warned of these. These are not personal people problems, but biblical issues of a doctrinal nature.

Ken Blue.

“It will be obvious to the open mind and anointed eye that more than one gospel in found in Scripture. A right division of the Word of God is necessary in order to distinguish between these gospels and place them in their proper dispensations.” (Dispensational Salvation)

Robert Breaker.

“Are we going to follow Peter, or are we going to follow Paul. … We are supposed to follow Paul. … In Acts chapter 8, verse 36 [reads 36 and following] …Here we see a Gentile saved…He was saved by believing. So this Gentile was saved differently than these Jews back here in Acts chapter 2...

“You cannot say that people are saved the same in the Old Testament as the New Testament. It just does not work.” (Dispensational “Salvation”)

Gene Kim.

“Old Testament salvation is by faith and works. Christian salvation is by faith alone. Tribulation salvation is by faith and works. Millennium salvation is by works.” (Dispensational Salvation – God always gave salvation by faith alone … WRONG)

Andrew Sluder and Randy Keener.

“When we have people who fail to rightly divide the word of truth, they end up saying crazy things like ‘There is only one gospel that has ever been preached.’ Now folks, If you’ve seen my other videos, you’ve seen the fact that I believe that there are three Gospels laid out in the Scriptures.”

“We believe that a man today is saved by believing on the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ as the payment for his sin – plus nothing, minus nothing. … We don’t even believe in repent of your sins … We do not believe that men were always saved by the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. In fact, in the Old Testament there was a mixture of works and faith involve … (3 Gospels, Dispensational Salvation & Hyper-Dispensationalism)

Cody Watters.

“There are also verses in Revelation that make it clear that the Tribulation Saint is saved by faith and works.” (Dispensational Salvations)

Cody Zorn.

“You know why people say that people can lose their salvation here (pointing to the church age on his white board)? Because there’s people that can lose their salvation here (pointing to the tribulation on his white board). And there’s people that can lose their salvation back there (pointing to the Old Testament period on his white board). But we’re living in the day and time (pointing to the church age) where we don’t … we can’t lose what we didn’t work for.” (Starts about 1:05:50 in End Time Explained, Part 1)

Others who appear to promote this viewpoint include: Gary N. Alford, Jerry L. Holcomb, Bandi Arjuna Kiran Kumar, Vince Larue, Donald Thomas, David E. Walker, and probably any close follower of Peter Ruckman. If I have misidentified anyone, I will be glad to correct it.

Deflection.

One interesting idea I ran across is the “defense” of “dispensational salvation” on the grounds that the view does not affect anyone in the present – since these folks are preaching salvation by grace through faith without works in the present. This occurs both within and without those who hold the view, and is a strange way to support something one believes to be a major doctrinal truth.

Randy Keener, who holds dispensational salvation, sort of flippantly suggests it is a meaningless difference in the present “unless you have a time machine.” At about 16:15 “It doesn’t affect your salvation, our salvation, or anybody else’s salvation – unless you have a time machine – so don’t worry about it.” (3 Gospels, Dispensational Salvation & Hyper-Dispensationalism)

James Melton, who does not seem to hold the view himself, seemed to be okay with it, on the grounds that these people are currently preaching the right way of salvation. Melton writes, “Those who teach what you might call dispensational salvation do not teach anything wrong with the salvation plan today. I don’t know of anybody that differs—any fundamental Bible-believing Baptists that disagree with me on how one is to be saved today… Why does it really matter to you and I today how somebody got saved over 2,000 years ago?” (Understanding Dispensational Salvation)

Well, if nothing else, it matters that we rightly divide the word of truth and hold fast the faithful word as we have been taught.[iv] Additionally, to suggest multiple plans of salvation, even promoting dispensational views that include salvation by works and falling from grace, gives cover to those who hold that today. As Cody Zorn said, “You know why people say that people can lose their salvation here (pointing to the church age on his white board)? Because there’s people that can lose their salvation here (pointing to the tribulation on his white board). And there’s people that can lose their salvation back there (pointing to the Old Testament period on his white board).” To be fair, he goes on to say that we are living in a time where one cannot lose his salvation. Nevertheless, he made a clear excuse for those who get confused on it.

One salvation, Jesus Christ.

It seems to me that some King James Defenders may be “closing ranks” and not calling out this serious soteriological error because many (most? all?) who hold this view also defend the King James Bible. However, we need to not only be correct in our bibliology, but also in our soteriology, our ecclesiology, and so on.

There are not multiple gospels. There is one everlasting gospel created in the mind and purpose of God. It has been progressively revealed under various terms that refer to that one gospel, but it is one! If salvation could be accomplished by works in any generation (or dispensation), there was no need for Christ to die for that generation.

To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. Acts 10:43

And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters. Revelation 14:6-7

If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds. 2 John, verses 10-11

Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth? Galatians 4:16

---

[i] Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. It is biblical to “call names” when necessary. See “Is It Right: To Judge, To Expose Error, & To Call Names?” by E. L. Bynum.
[ii] In its natural and simple form, Christian fundamentalism emphasizes five fundamental points of faith (as clarified in the face of the rise of modernism and liberalism at the end of the 19th and beginning of 20th centuries): (1) the inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures; (2) the deity of Jesus Christ; (3) the virgin birth of Jesus Christ; (4) the substitutionary blood atonement of Christ for sins; and (5) the physical resurrection and bodily return to Christ. I hold these five fundamentals, but “Fundamentalist” is not my preferred self-descriptor. I am a Bible-believing Baptist. (Baptist born. Baptist bred. When I die, I’ll be Baptist dead.) Many modern Fundamentalists are befuddled by schismatic soteriology, adrift on the sea of bad ecclesiology, while filled with fussy fighting factions full of a bad spirit.
[iii] “Dispensational salvation” is a teaching that people at different times in history (dispensations) have been given different ways to be saved. For example, saying that under the Old Testament law dispensation people had to keep the law (good works) in order to be saved, but under the New Testament church dispensation people are saved by grace through faith (without good works).
[iv] This view of accommodation seems to be somewhat rooted in a largely “semi-pelagian” view of salvation that has become diffused among Baptists who hold a general atonement position. This view, in the minds of many (though they may not vocalize it) holds not that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation, but the power unto salvation is in how well they present the gospel and harangue those to whom they present it.

The Unorthodox C. S. Lewis

“C.S. Lewis (1898-1963) is loved with an equal fervor by conservative evangelicals, emergents, Roman Catholics, Mormons, even atheists, a fact that speaks volumes to those who have ears to hear” (David Cloud, “C. S. Lewis’s Denial of the Blood Atonement”).

I have no desire to trash C. S. Lewis. He said a lot of good things, and is eminently quotable. He excelled as a writer. On the other hand, there are so many starry-eyed love-struck devotees among American evangelicals when it comes to Lewis, I also believe it is imminent that we orthodox “Biblicists” fire a warning shot across the bow. The fundamental theology of Lewis lacked orthodoxy, and folks should be told that.

“…the whole point of that book [The Pilgrim’s Regress by C. S. Lewis, rlv] is to say that by clear thinking, you can think yourself from a rationalist or atheistical position into the Christian position. And he actually, at one time, founded in Oxford what he called the Socratic Club, which used to meet on Monday nights, in which he used to try to show people how to reason themselves into Christianity. ‘With the heart man believeth unto righteousness.’ You cannot do it merely by a process of intellectual reasoning” (D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, “A Change of Heart,” a sermon on Romans 10:9-10). Martyn Lloyd-Jones also said:

“C. S. Lewis had a defective view of salvation and was an opponent of the substitutionary and penal view of the atonement.” (Christianity Today, Dec. 20, 1963; as requoted in “Mere Atonement,” Ariel James Vanderhorst, Touchstone Magazine, March 2009)

David Cloud further points out that C. S. Lewis not only “denied Christ’s substitutionary atonement,” but also “held a sacramental view of salvation…did not hold to the infallible inspiration of Scripture,” and called the six-day creation “a Hebrew folk tale.” In The Problem of Pain, Lewis wrote, “If by saying that man rose from brutality you mean simply that man is physically descended from animals, I have no objection.” I cannot see how such a statement can be recycled into orthodox biblicism.

If you read Lewis, read with both eyes open.

Say, Do We Have the Text of John 11?

Mark Ward posted “Do We Have the Text of John 11” on YouTube December 15, 2022. In it, Mark “interviews” Darrell Post, a former teacher at Maranatha Baptist University,[i] about the Greek text/manuscripts of the Gospel of John, chapter 11. I write “interview” because it is short on interview, and long on presentation. The material presented by Post is quite interesting.

Details presented

“There are 945 words [in John chapter 11] in two of the three current edition of the Greek NT, with a third edition including 952 words.”[ii]

In the 1390 manuscripts Post has checked thus far, there are 3785 variations.[iii] He breaks them down in this way.

• Nonsense readings/Obvious errors - 950
• Easily identified mistakes - 1577[iv]
• Singular readings (variation found in only one manuscript) - 856
• Sort order (words not in dispute, only the order) - 75
• 3785 minus 3458 leaves 327 variations that are omissions (175), additions (87), and substituted words (65).

Post says that the only variants of these 327 that should concern readers are those that are (1) difficult to resolve and (2) affect the meaning of the text. Of the 327 left, Post believes only five of those could be concerning. He concludes that even these five difficult to resolve variations do not affect our understanding of the text.[v]

In this (above) we have a quick breakdown of the information Darrell Post produces, whether or not we agree.

Coopting a presentation

Post refers to an attack on the historicity of John 11 by a Duke PhD student. He says, “That’s where I got started with John 11.” So Darrell Post did this work in response to Duke PhD student Elizabeth Schrader attacking the historical content of John chapter 11. She suggests that the sister named Martha was added to this story in John 11 in the second century, and that the Mary of the story was originally Mary Magdalene before scribes changed the context. (See “Was Martha of Bethany Added to the Fourth Gospel in the Second Century?” Harvard Theological Review, Volume 110, Issue 3, July 2017, pp. 360 – 392.)

In discussing the manuscripts of John 11, Post responds to skeptics like Schrader and Bart Ehrman. However, Mark coopts this presentation out of its context to take jabs at “Textual Absolutists” – Christians who, unlike Schrader and Ehrman, believe the Bible is inspired, infallible, and providentially preserved. Nice.

Practically every time Darrell Post mentions something about skeptics, Mark breaks in to make a comment on “Textual Absolutists” (as if the word “skeptic” triggers him).

For examples:

0:10:40 Post discusses that the number of variations to words (3785 to 945) is troubling to people. It is one reason why the extreme skeptical side has such force. Mark breaks in and comments that the “Textual Absolutist” view is so appealing because “They don’t even have to think about all these variations because they can just pick one...” This is a horrible mischaracterization from the lowest common denominator. We don’t even think about it? Moreover, eventually, our problem is their problem as well, because they also have to “pick one.”

0:45:10 Post talks about skeptics having so much “fuel” (“the embarrassment of riches”) from which to argue. Mark jumps in again to take another swipe at the TR/KJV folks (Textual Absolutists). Folks in that world don’t “talk at this level of detail.” Another mischaracterization from the lowest common denominator. Some TR and/or KJV folks can and do discuss the manuscript evidence. However, “most people” – including Mark Ward – do not talk at the level of detail presented by Darrel Post in this video, having collated 1390 manuscripts (as well as 57 lectionaries).

1:04:00 Post is excited when he says this real data shows his students that they do not have to follow the skeptics. They can be confident in the face of the arguments of people like Ehrman and Schrader. Mark breaks in to assure his listeners that “They also don’t have to listen to the Textual Absolutists who say that any textual variation is demonic.” Can we say again “lowest common denominator?” In addition, I wonder if Mark believes any textual variation could be either deliberate or demonic?

I realize Mark’s wheelhouse is fighting the “Textual Absolutists,” but this constant cutting in on Post and down of Christians who believe their Bible really blunts the force of Posts’s arguments against biblical skepticism and would have been better left to another day. However, that is not Mark’s way.

The evidentiary method

0:06:45 Post says he has collated about 75% of the continuous manuscripts and “I don’t expect to find much new or different.”[vi] Yes, it is probable that there are no major differences in the remaining uncollated manuscripts. However, we don’t know until we find out! When manuscript evidence drives the conclusions, then the conclusions are only as good as the amount of evidence inspected. The conclusions are subject to change when new evidence is uncovered. They must usually remain “as far as we know.”

This is the basic difference between a presuppositional approach and an evidentiary approach. The presuppositional approach looks at the biblical data first – that is, what the Bible says about itself. The manuscript evidence should be dealt with – and honestly sometimes can be hard to account for. However, the Bible itself establishes our doctrine of bibliology, just as it establishes every other doctrine we believe. The evidentiary approach looks at the manuscript data first, then seeks to conform what the Bible says about itself to the data. This is a reason many modern evangelical scholars now reject providential preservation as a biblical doctrine.[vii]

Don’t miss the irony

In “Was Martha of Bethany Added to the Fourth Gospel in the Second Century,” Elizabeth Schrader attacks the historicity of the Lazarus, Martha, and Mary story of John 11. The Mary Magdalene research and biography of this Duke PhD student manifests to be both augural and feminist-agenda driven.[viii] She describes the inauguration of her research as being an answer to prayer given while she was praying to the Virgin Mary. “Maybe you should talk to Mary Magdalene about this,” Schrader relates. What’s more, biblical writers and later scribes were guilty of misogyny.

“Schrader’s central discovery, which she wrote about in a paper published by the Harvard Theological Review two years ago, is that Mary Magdalene’s role was deliberately downplayed by biblical scribes to minimize her importance… Schrader argues that the Mary of the original text is Mary Magdalene, not Martha or Martha’s sister, Mary... The reason for the change, Schrader said, was that later scribes did not want to give Mary Magdalene too big a role in the events of Jesus’ life... Schrader posited that Mary Magdalene caused tension with Jesus’ male disciples, especially his handpicked deputy, Peter, that is evident in several noncanonical gospels... Schrader’s paper comes at a time when many scholars are trying to recover women’s roles in early Christianity – roles the early church fathers tried to suppress.”[ix]

The Evangelical Textual Criticism blog made three posts for Elizabeth Schrader to discuss/promote her idea about John 11. Tommy Wasserman, the editor who posted it for her, disagreed with her overall conclusion, but wrote, “I think her findings are very significant”. Furthermore, he writes, “I have invited Elisabeth to share her research.” There was some pushback by commenters, but also quite a bit of breathless gushing over her presentation.[x]

Don’t miss the irony. Darrell Post researches and opposes Elizabeth Schrader’s unorthodox work against biblical texts and biblical truth. Mark Ward coopts this discussion derived from opposition to Schrader’s work, to use (at least in part) against “Textual Absolutists.” Mark’s friends at the Evangelical Textual Criticism[xi] blog invite and promote Schrader’s work as at least something important for evangelical text critics to consider “significant.” Hmm. “People are strange.” So says Jim Morrison.

Miscellaneous

0:05:20 Darrell Post mentions the shift in the goalposts of textual criticism. Most text critical scholarship has shifted and is no longer trying to reconstruct the original text. Rather than trying to rediscover what the original says, some of them even present the text of the first 200 years of church history as “chaotic.” This is a fact some evangelical text critics have tried to deny or obfuscate.

1:08:10 Near the conclusion of the video, Mark takes down those of us who stand where we have always stood and use what we always have. He lectures us about sowing discord among the brethren. Nothing for the new guys who come along and want to change. Never discord sown by them, right? Unbelievable. It no longer takes two to tango.

In summation, with this video Mark gets “utter gold” and “Textual Absolutists” get the shaft.

---

[i] He is also a teacher at Freedom Baptist Church of Chesapeake, Virginia, where he presented this material in Adult Bible Study.
[ii] 945 words in the NA-28 and Tyndale House Greek NT. 953 words in the 2005 Robinson-Pierpont Majority Text. In addition, there are 942 Greek words in 1881 Westcott-Hort text, and 958 in 1894 Scrivener Textus Receptus.
[iii] Note, for example, that the same variation in two different texts is counted as two variations. Update Note: As of 24 April 2025, Darrell Post reports “I have now collated 2,192 manuscripts against John 11…”
[iv] This includes minor variations of spelling, abbreviations, different form of the same word, confusing vowel sounds, corrected mistakes and mistaken corrections.
[v] John 11:19 (“the Jews came to Martha and Mary” or “the Jews came to ‘the ones around’ Martha and Mary”); John 11:31 “saying” or “thinking”); John 11:45 (“things” or “thing”); John 11:50 (“for us” or “to you”); John 11:57 (“a commandment” or “commandments”). Post also asserts that outside of issues like the Pericope Adulterae, the Long Ending of Mark, and some few others, most of the stuff of variants is innocuous like what he presents about John 11.
[vi] Darrell has also collated about 3% of the available lectionaries. In a comment posted on YouTube, he points out some difficulties with the accuracy of the numbers – “the INTF keeps cataloging newly found minuscules” (which increases the number) and “as I collate, I occasionally find manuscripts where chapter 11 was lost from a damaged manuscript, and so this reduces the number.”
[vii] They merely accept preservation of artifacts as an historical reality.
[viii] Schrader’s Duke Scholar page states, “Her research interests include the New Testament Gospels, the Nag Hammadi corpus, Mary Magdalene, textual criticism, and feminist theology.”

[ix] See Scribes tried to blot her out and How a singer-songwriter from Portland became a Mary Magdalene scholar.
[x] And apparently there were several comments that Wasserman did not like and deleted. One commenter was accused of “mansplaining” (the explanation of something by a man, typically to a woman, in a manner regarded as condescending or patronizing).
[xi] Mark has posts there. Additionally, he and ETC co-editor/contributor Elijah Hixson are members together of the Textual Confidence Collective.

Sacred Name Movement, IDMR

Until now, at best the “Sacred Name Movement” was only in my peripheral vision, something of which I vaguely knew. Recent events changed that, and I have sought to read and know more about it – not because I think it a viable teaching, but because it is in error.

In short, the “Sacred Name Movement” is or includes any church or denomination that teaches the use of only the original Hebrew names for God and Jesus. Therefore, only “Yahweh” is to be used as the name for the one whom Christians recognize as God the Father, and only “Yahshua” is to be used as the name for Jesus (or the Holy Spirit).[i] Names such as God and Jesus are pagan and blasphemous.

According to many sources, the Sacred Name Movement developed within the Church of God, Seventh Day in the 1930s, chiefly by the instrument of Clarence O. Dodd and his periodical The Faith.[ii] The movement attempts to answer Proverbs 30:4, “What is his name, and what is his son’s name, if thou canst tell?” In October 1938, The Faith magazine carried an article by Angelo B. Traina, who later developed the Holy Name Bible. Triana’s titled his article “What is His Son’s Name?” In the article, his answer was “Jahovah” for the Father and “Jah-hoshua” for the Son.[iii] The movement wavered and wandered from name to name, Jehovah, Jahovah, Jahweh, Yahvah, and so on, finally settling on Yahweh as the preferred spelling.[iv] By 1941 Dodd was settled, and November of that year he placed the names of Yahweh and Yahshua in the masthead of his magazine. Further, he concluded that the titles Lord, God, and Jesus Christ would no longer appear in The Faith.

Angelo B. Traina created the first “Sacred Name Bible.” In 1950, he published the New Testament. The complete Bible, Old and New Testaments, was published in 1963 – called The Holy Name Bible, Containing the Holy Name Version of the Old and New Testaments. The Holy Name Bible is a reworked King James Version of the Bible. Traina founded the Scripture Research Association, to distribute the Holy Name Bible.[v]

Most of the Sacred Name Movement brings its followers under the Old Testament Law, the seventh-day Sabbath, the food laws, and the Jewish feasts.[vi] However, the body I encountered, the Institute of Divine Metaphysical Research (IDMR), distinctly departs from this method in a very opposite direction. Not only does IDMR not hold its followers under the Old Testament Law, neither do they observe New Testament ordinances such as baptism and the Lord’s supper. The Institute of Divine Metaphysical Research pronounces salvation as by grace through faith, and not by works of righteousness. However, it must come through the right name. The name chart at IDMR’s website claims the true names are Yahweh (the Father), Yahshua (Holy Spirit), and Yahweh Elohim (Word or Son). On the other hand, Yesu, Yeshua, Yehowah, Jehovah, Adonai, Jesus, Lord, and God are all “false and vain names and titles.”

The Institute of Divine Metaphysical Research originated with Henry Clifford Kinley, a Church of God preacher, and what he called a divine panoramic vision that occurred in 1931. Kinley thus describes his experience:

I have repeatedly declared and avowed that I, Henry C. Kinley, received a Divine Vision and Revelation in the Year 1931 just as Moses, Paul and other of the Prophets and Apostles and it was one of the most Panoramic and Stupendous visions ever given unto man…. with this Divine Vision and Revelation, I received power to foretell every world-wide event and happening and to heal all manner of physical illness as a witness to the fact…[vii]

Henry C. Kinley founded his teachings in a grand vision, this revelation that he received in 1931. He said he saw “the happenings of all the patriarchs from Adam on down” and “understood the whole Purpose of Yahweh from start to finish.” Nevertheless, the God of his vision inexplicably forgot to inform Kinley about the Sacred Name! Thirty years after the vision – 1961 – Kinley wrote his magnum opus and titled it God: the Archetype (Original) Pattern of the Universe![viii] In the second edition of 1969, he corrected this to Elohim: the Archetype (Original) Pattern of the Universe.[ix]

Numerous flaws exist in Sacred Name theology in general, and in the Institute of Divine Metaphysical Research in particular – which I will address next, briefly. Some of the flaws are readily apparent, while others will require deeper digging.

The Institute of Divine Metaphysical Research considers itself a school of research rather than a church. However, Jesus did not promise to build a school, but said rather, “upon this rock I will build my church” (Matthew 16:18). If IDMR is not his church, it is a false church and rightly no church at all (as they admit).

The Institute of Divine Metaphysical Research is grounded in a vision of its founder. In the vision which purportedly revealed to Henry Kinley the whole purpose of Yahweh from start to finish, the “Sacred Name” obviously was not revealed, since Kinley was not consistently using it until some 35 or so years later. How could one have confidence in a vision that was deficient in the Sacred Name department, if the Sacred Name theology were really true?

The Institute of Divine Metaphysical Research creates fake history – that the New Testament was written originally in Hebrew. There is zero evidence of this made-up fact. A. B. Traina calls mistaken the belief that “the New Testament originals were written in, nay inspired in, the Greek language.” Yet, there are thousands of Greek manuscripts and fragments of the New Testament. In addition, there are thousands of manuscripts in Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopic, Syriac, etc. On the other hand, there are NO Hebrew manuscripts of the New Testament.

The Institute of Divine Metaphysical Research mistakes the text of the Old Testament, which does not have ONLY ONE Bible name for “God.”[x] The Old Testament applies many names – Yahweh, Adonai, Elohim, El Shaddai, etc. In his Bible “Preface,” A. B. Traina writes, “For Yahweh they have substituted Baal, the Babylonian deity, and Adonay, the Canaanitish deity of the Phoenicians, both corresponding to the English word Lord.” Despite Traina’s asseration, Adon, Adonai or Adonay (Hebrew: אֲדֹנָי) is found over 400 times in the Hebrew Old Testament referring to Jehovah Yahweh God. It is first used in Genesis 15:2. Cf. Joshua 3:11. Yahweh himself makes clear he does not have just one name – Exodus 6:3 “and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name YAHWEH was I not known to them.”

The Institute of Divine Metaphysical Research fails to follow the example of Yahshua the Messiah. He prays and teaches us to pray using the title Abba/Father rather than a name.

The Institute of Divine Metaphysical Research does not trust the Bible, does not really believe it is inerrant, and does not believe it is preserved. According to Traina, until 1963 translation efforts were faulty. The “extant translations,” he writes, “have failed to bring out the true message of the Scriptures.” He would have us believe, however, that his random “corrections” of the King James Bible render the Holy Name Bible acceptable “to bring out the true message of the Scriptures.”

The Institute of Divine Metaphysical Research is cultic in their approach to knowledge. They own hidden knowledge. Neither their Bible nor their writings are readily accessible. Nonetheless, if they supply to you and you read their material and do not come to the right conclusion, members will say that you need to attend their meetings to understand their teachings.

In conclusion, it is safe to say that both the Sacred Name Movement and the Institute of Divine Metaphysical Research misinterpret scripture and misunderstand language – both the language of scripture and how language works. A word or name is not the thing or person, but represents it. I can be Robert in English, Roberto in Spanish, Robrecht in German, Rupert in Dutch, Robertus in Latin, Bob or Bobby for short, but what matters is who you are talking about, not in what language you are speaking. The God of the Bible and his name transcends languages; he is the God of all the earth who hast redeemed us out of “every tongue.”

---

[i] The exact names are not consistent throughout the movement.

[ii] The Church of God, Seventh Day is part of the larger Adventist movement, and is among those who reject the teachings of Ellen G. White and the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

[iii] Jehovah is a Latinization of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton יהוה. The name Jehovah/Iehouah appeared in most early in English Bibles, but not to any great degree. It appears eight times in the 1599 Geneva Bible, and seven times in the 1611 King James (according to Bible Gateway). They most frequently give “the Lord” as the equivalent of the Tetragrammaton. The 1901 American Standard Version of the Bible might be considered the pioneer in a standard translation using Jehovah, the “Sacred Name.” The name appears in the American Standard Version in 5831 different verses of the Old Testament. The Young’s Literal Translation has “Jehovah” in 5787 verses; the new Lexham English Bible uses “Yahweh” in 5824 verses – but does not use Yahshua in the New Testament.

[iv] Though this generally seems to be the preferred spelling, it certainly is not the sole spelling, and some publications choose simply to insert the Hebrew Tetragrammaton יהוה instead of an English translation. The four Hebrew letters, reading from right to left, are yodh, he, waw and he. Curiously, though IDMR makes much of the “Y” in creation – the y in trees, grass, the nose & eyebrows – the Hebrew “yodh” does not look like an English “Y”.

[v] The Holy Name Bible is not a translation, but rather changes names and words in the English KJV text to Hebrew-based forms. The “Preface” to the Holy Name Bible can be read HERE.

[vi] While the Sacred Name Movement seems very pro-Jewish, it can range from that to ambivalent to anti-Semitic. Traina’s Holy Name Bible “Preface” has an odd footnote that “The Caucasian people are Israel.”

[vii] Elohim the Archetype (Original) Pattern of the Universe, p. 3.

[viii] A copy of God: the Archetype (Original) Pattern of the Universe, by Henry Clifford Kinley, ©1961, is held by American Jewish University Libraries.

[ix] What purports to be a copy or copies of Elohim: the Archetype (Original) Pattern of the Universe can be found HERE and HERE.

[x] Traina and others argue that God has many “titles” but only one name. See his “Preface.” This contradicts Exodus 6:3 (noted above), as well as verses like Exodus 34:14 – which says a description of God or his character is his name.

The Roman Road

The Roman Road to Salvation, also known as, the Romans Road to Salvation. A little over two years ago, I wrote concerning the history of The Roman Road to Salvation. Today I want to focus on its “faith and practice.”

First, what is the “Roman Road?” The Roman Road to salvation is a method of evangelizing that focuses on verses from the book of Romans about sin, death, and salvation. This “Printable” version of a Roman Road by Kathy Howard uses five locations in Romans.[i] She writes, “But how do we share that in a way that people will recognize their need and respond to Jesus? One very simple way is what Christians call the ‘Roman Road.’ It’s a short list of verses from the book of Romans that show our need for salvation and how Jesus fills that need. I have seen variations of this list that includes 4 to 8 verses. My list below includes 5, very easy to memorize verses.” Got Questions has an article titled “What is the Romans Road to salvation?” It also about uses about five stops along the road, while incorporating a few more Romans’ texts than Howard does.

Kathy Howard’s Roman Road:

• Romans 3:23 – Every person has sinned, has done things contrary to God’s holy perfection.
• Romans 6:23 – Our sin has a cost. That cost is spiritual death or eternal separation from God.
• Romans 5:8 – Because God loves us, He paid our sin debt Himself. Sinless, perfect Jesus died in our place.
• Romans 10:13 – Anyone and everyone who accepts Jesus’ gift, or “calls on His name,” will receive God’s salvation.
• Romans 10:9-10 – Anyone who believes and confesses that Jesus died for us and rose from the dead will be saved!

No Bible believer that I know of objects to the verses in Romans or rejects their usefulness in teaching truths about sin, death, and salvation. Every scripture in the “Roman Road” is inspired, sound, and biblical. Not every preacher or soul-winner who uses “the Road” is!

“Evangelism With The Romans Road” by Paul Fritz at Sermon Central uses six locations in the book of Romans and concludes with an exhortation to prayer. Fritz writes, “If you have never really accepted Jesus as your personal Savior, would you do it right now? Do not delay or put it off. If you would like to receive Christ by faith, pray this simple prayer in your heart:”

“Dear Lord, I acknowledge that I am a sinner. I believe Jesus died for my sins on the cross, and rose again the third day. I repent of my sins. By faith I receive the Lord Jesus as my Savior. You promised to save me, and I believe You, because You are God and cannot lie. I believe right now that the Lord Jesus is my personal Savior, and that all my sins are forgiven through His precious blood. I thank You, dear Lord, for saving me. In Jesus’ name, Amen.”

Paul Fritz concludes by pronouncing salvation on and giving assurance to any person who prays this prayer, “If you prayed that prayer, God heard you and saved you. I personally want to welcome you to the family of God.”

When someone objects to the “Roman Road” style of evangelism, there are always those “Roadies” who come along to raise the spectre of Calvinism. Calvinism is an easy foil charged with giving the Roman Road a bad rap. First, we need to realize that objections to the Roman Road are not just from the realm of Calvinism. The very first objections I heard were from Missionary Baptists who rejected the 5-points of Calvinism.[ii] Second, Roman Roadies need to realize – their own practices give the Roman Road a bad rap. Don’t look for someone else to blame!

One primary objection is the way these verses are used. This use reduces salvation to a method – if repeated, the proven steps will yield the right results every time. In principle the “repeat after me” prayer method subtly (or not so subtly) changes the biblical exhortations of repent and believe the gospel to “pray this prayer.”[iii] Some proponents of “the Road” are careful to say something like “if you sincerely prayed this pray.” However, note the quote from Paul Fritz above does not bother with this distinction. When the Philippian jailer asked Paul and Silas, “What must I do to be saved,” they responded with “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ” rather than “pray this prayer.”[iv]

The “Roman Road” method can be very superficial, manipulative, and results-driven. A number of believers have related online such things as “soul winning contests” in which they participated. Those who “got someone saved” received points for the feat, and the one who got the most points won the contest! Often these people are told that someone should be saved every time they go soul-winning, and if not they must be doing something wrong. Taking “no” for an answer is a sign of weakness and unconcern.[v]  The process usually ends with, “Bow your head and repeat this prayer.” There is good reason to question the sincerity of a profession of faith under “duress.”[vi]

Again, no Bible believer objects to any of the verses in Romans. These superficial, manipulative, results-driven practices give the verses a bad name. The Roman Road, as often practiced, reduces evangelism to a repetitive scheme more akin to the door-to-door salesmanship than sharing the gospel. Take your free fire insurance! The New Testament commands the presentation of the gospel and leaving the response to the conviction of the gospel and the Holy Spirit. May we be careful to neither add nor subtract.

---

[i] I write “locations” rather than “verses” because sometimes one “step” on the Road will include more than one verse.

[ii] As an example, see Friendship Missionary Baptist Church, Our Beliefs and Friendship Missionary Baptist Church, Salvation.

[iii] Some believers have dubbed this a “1-2-3-repeat-after-me” style of evangelism. Exhortations such as “make a decision for Christ,” “”accept Christ,” “ask Jesus into your heart,” and so on also substitute for “repent and believe.” I’m not sure what compels people to prefer these over biblical exhortations.

[iv] Perhaps I have missed it, but I have not noticed any New Testament reference that advises an unbeliever to do that.

[v] Curiously, some of the loudest advocates for extreme free will are the same ones guiltiest of badgering and bullying unbelievers into making a profession of faith. They say God can’t violate a person’s free will, yet they don’t mind doing it!

[vi] I have been present with “soul-winners” who bulldozed through the verses, forced the “right” answers out of the individual, and concluded the session by pronouncing the lost now saved and secure. Not being the presenter gives one the luxury of watching the body language, facial expressions, glances (when more than one is being witnessed to) and such like of the person or persons on the receiving end. Sometimes there was hilarity and mockery; maybe frustration and despair as the “soul-winnee” just wanted it all to be over with so he or she could get on with life; even the totally unresponsive. This would be coupled with lack of discernment on the part of the soul-winner. So busy putting another notch in his belt, the soul-winner can be oblivious to the real reception he and the gospel are receiving.