Who is wrong in abortion debate?

Today’s post is an expansion of a “Letter to the Editor” to the Tallahassee Democrat newspaper, Tallahassee, Florida. The letter is a response to “Both sides are wrong in abortion debate,” an opinion piece by retired psychologist Gary Whittenberger, published on December 6th. (If you cannot view it on their site, it is also available at Yahoo News.)

Dr. Whittenberger gets some things right and some things wrong. He rightly denounces the viability and privacy problems with the Roe v. Wade decision. Viability from that day and time (26 weeks) is now out the window. Lyla Stensrud was born in 2014 at 21 weeks.[i] Richard Hutchinson was born in 2020 at 21 weeks. Curtis Means of Alabama was recently certified as the “world’s most premature baby to survive,” his time of birth making his about 24 hours less than Richard’s time of birth. Whittenberger wisely knows that with advances in medical technology “viability will continue to go downward.” He further states, “nobody should have the right to hide an unethical or illegal act in private, and sometimes killing a fetus is like that.”

However, when he represents what is wrong on the pro-life side, he gets it wrong, writing:

The pro-lifers are wrong because they give an answer to the wrong question, i.e. “When does life begin?” That is totally irrelevant, and we already know that the zygote is alive. The relevant question is “When should the fetus be considered a person and assigned basic human rights?”

I suppose he does not intend to misrepresent the pro-life position. Nevertheless, in that statement he does so. Pro-lifers are not arguing that some unknown life form begins at the moment of conception – but that two humans create another human life, a person.  To pro-lifers “when does life begin” means “when does human life begin, including with it personhood and basic human rights.” Whittenberger is free to disagree with the pro-life position, but he should not misrepresent it, either knowingly or unknowingly. We are contending that at conception the life that begins at that time (which he admits is life) is a person, entitled to basic human rights, and that our laws should support and protect those rights.

Finally, Whittenberger disagrees with pro-lifers because he believes that a “human fetus cannot be a person until its brain matures to the point that it acquires the capacity for consciousness,” and that “this occurs at the end of the 24th week post-conception.” This agrees with a common scientific view that “the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation.” (This disagrees with the living lives of Lyla Stensrud, Richard Hutchinson, Curtis Means, and others born before 24 weeks!)

According to the APA Dictionary of Psychology, consciousness is “an organism’s awareness of something either internal or external to itself.” This view proves to be a dangerous concept for determining personhood, not only for the children less than 24 weeks, but also for adults in comas.[ii] Are they no longer persons and entitled to basic human rights? Sadly, this is where we have arrived and what many people think. Snuff them out unceremoniously. They have not consciousness. They are not persons.

Biblically, humans – all humans – have value because God made us in his image (Genesis 1:27, Job 33:4, Psalm 119:73).[iii] We are fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139:14), in ways beyond the comprehension of man’s thoughts (Isaiah 55:8-9). Let us, if we err, “err” on the side of life.

Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.

---

[i] Or less, according to some unofficial reports.
[ii] It is also dangerous because this is unsettled science, subjective and subject to change. “Consciousness in general and the birth of consciousness in particular remain as key puzzles confronting the scientific worldview.” – “The Emergence of Human Consciousness: From Fetal to Neonatal Life” (Lagercrantz, H., Changeux, JP. Pediatr Res 65, 255–260, 2009). How much better to walk into the unknown, uncertain, and unsettled with the old medical adage, primum non nocere (first, do no harm). Where you are unsure, “err” on the side of life, not death.
[iii] Often expressed in the theological terminology imago Dei (Latin for “image of God”). 

The Scrivener Textus Receptus

Is the Textus Receptus Perfect in Every Jot and Tittle? Ambrose vs. Scrivener

I do not put this forward because I agree with Mark Ward. In addition, I think he tried to be a bit too clever with his hero Henry Ambrose. However, I think this is worth reading, something of which any KJV-Only or TR-Only supporters should be aware. It might help them prepare their arguments better, and perhaps strip away some extreme positions that cannot be supported. 

The following article is a slightly modified version of a lecture I delivered at BJU Seminary in Greenville, SC, on Nov 1, 2021.

The particular edition of the Greek New Testament used in all sectors of KJV-Onlyism is called “Scrivener’s”...I bought a copy of Scrivener’s Greek New Testament some months ago; my copy was published by the UK’s Trinitarian Bible Society, one of the most important and influential and responsible KJV-Only groups in the world.

To say that Scrivener’s Greek New Testament is used in all sectors of KJV-Onlyism is perhaps not quite right. The Ruckmanite extremists don’t have much patience for Greek...

Now that you have seen this, you have to read it, or else you may think you know something you don’t.

The Goalpost of New Testament Textual Criticism

A notice and two reviews. Changing the Goalpost of New Testament Textual Criticism, Abidan Paul Shah, Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2020

• Book Notice: Changing the Goalpost of New Testament Textual Criticism -- “...the goalpost has incrementally shifted away from the ‘original text’ to retrieving ‘any text’ or ‘many texts’ of the NT.”
• Review of Abidan Paul Shah. Changing the Goalpost of New Testament Textual Criticism. -- “Despite the above minor criticisms, the value in Changing the Goalpost is it’s assembling of modern trends in New Testament textual criticism in a handy reference.”
• WM 215: Review: Abidan Paul Shah, Changing the Goalpost of NT Textual Criticism -- “...on the ‘radical shift’ in the goal of modern textual criticism under the influence of postmodernism...”

Even before the release of Shah’s book, Jeff Riddle had already written and spoken about “a momentous postmodern shift in the contemporary academic NT text criticism.” Now Shah addressed the same. The author agrees with the “old” goal of Westcott-Hort and others, and disagrees with the “new” direction of Ehrman, Parker, and others. The “old” goal was ostensibly to recover the original New Testament. The “new” direction is that the old goal is not possible. I disagree with both positions, holding the view that God providentially preserved his inspired word. Despite the fact that I cannot recommend the direction of the book (since the premise does not realize the goalpost had already been moved), based on Jeff Riddle’s review, it sounds that possibly Shah’s currently one-of-a-kind critique of the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method might be worth the price of the book.

A Fundamental Problem for Fundamentalism

Abstract

In this essay, I suggest a problem of biblical proportions, and introduce the people of the problem. I define and investigate the problem of preservation of the Scriptures or the lack thereof, as it relates to the undergirding of the theology of theological conservatives. In conclusion, I advise that once theological conservatives capitulate to the textual authorities, they have in effect “returned to Rome.” Finally, I urge them to either “go on home to Rome” or stand and fight for the inspiration, infallibility/inerrancy, and preservation of the Bible. (I hope they will choose the latter.)

A Fundamental Problem

Fundamentalism in the religious sense usually has a “connotation that indicates unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs.” Often “fundamentalism” is a pejorative used to describe certain religious beliefs that the accuser does not like. Here I use fundamentalism (and fundamentalist) broadly to mean holding (and those who hold) the fundamentals of the Christian faith, including the inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures we call the Holy Bible.[i] “Fundamental,” as used in this title, is an adjective meaning “of central importance; serving as an essential part of, a foundation or basis.” The discussion centers on a problem of central importance, touching an essential part of fundamentalism.[ii]

The Bible is foundational to the beliefs of Baptists, Fundamentalists, and Confessional Protestants. The fundamental problem is this:

If the Bible cannot be trusted to speak inerrantly about itself, how can it be trusted to speak inerrantly on any or all of the beliefs we hold as true faith and practice? If the Bible in its inerrancy has not been providentially preserved to this generation, how can we trust it to speak inerrantly to this generation? And again, if it does not, how shall we accept and believe any of the fundamental points of our faith?

Does the Bible speak of itself?

“Yes.” Some theologians and Bible students might answer this in the negative. I pass over this possibility, for I am not addressing them. Surely Fundamentalists, Bible-believing Baptists, conservative Evangelicals, Reformed & Confessional Protestants answer “Yes.” Accepting this answer, we pass on to the next question.

If the Bible is inerrant and infallible (and we so believe), and if the Bible speaks of itself, then when the Bible speaks of itself it speaks inerrantly (without error) of itself.

What does the Bible speak of itself?

Here are some examples of how or what the Bible speaks of itself.

• The Old and New Testaments are Scripture. For example, Luke 24:44-45; 2 Timothy 3:15-16; 2 Peter 1:20; 2 Peter 3:16.
• It is God’s word. For example, Mark 7:6-13; 13:31; John 10:35.
• It is eternal. For example, Psalm 119:89; Isaiah 40:8; Matthew 24:35.
• It is written. For example, Joshua 8:31-35; Jeremiah 25:13; Acts 15:15; Acts 13:15; Revelation 1:3.
• It is perfect. For example, Psalm 18:30; Psalm 19:7-9.
• It is pure. For example, Psalm 12:6; 119:140; Proverbs 30:6.
• It is truth. For example, Psalm 119:160; Ecclesiastes 12:10; John 17:17.
• It is not bound and is unbreakable. For example, John 10:35; 2 Timothy 2:9.
• It gives light and understanding. For example, Psalm 119:105, 130; Isaiah 8:20; 2 Peter 1:19.
• It is inspired, given by the Spirit of God. For example, 2 Timothy 3:15-17; 2 Peter 1:19-21.
• It is complete. For example, Deuteronomy 4:2; Proverbs 30:6; 2 Timothy 3:15-17.
• It is sufficient for faith and practice. For example, Matthew 4:4; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:3.
• It is preserved for all generations. For example, Psalm 33:11; 100:5; 117:2; 119:160; Isaiah 30:8; 40:8; 1 Peter 1:24-25.

From these examples, we draw these conclusions. The Bible proceeds from God, and therefore is as good, reliable, truthful, and pure as he is. God gives it to man for the good of his people, authoritative and complete, for instruction in righteousness. To this end, it is eternal, proceeding from the mind of God perfectly through his inspired instrumentality, and preserved, capable of instructing his people past, present, and future. In contrast to this conclusion, there are those who deny its guaranteed inerrancy through inspiration. Others deny its guaranteed utility to the generations through preservation.

In Preservation of the Bible: Providential or Miraculous,[iii] Jon Rehurek concludes that “no explicit indication applies [preservation] directly to written Scripture or to how and when a promise of general preservation would be fulfilled.” He further argues that any case for providential preservation must be made through the historical and manuscript evidence (i.e., no text of Scripture teaches preservation of the written words). In other words, Rehurek and others of his ilk (Dan Wallace, W. Edward Glenny, etc.) do not believe that the Bible promises that God will preserve the words of the Bible. A different class of theologians (W. W. Combs, for example) posit a slightly different exegetical view of the preservation of God’s word, but take it out of the realm of the written word.

“However, a study of this phrase suggests that, more often than not, God’s written revelation is not in view...in the Old Testament the expression ‘the word of God’ (or Lord) is used almost universally of oral communication.”[iv]

Do we miss the irony that it is through God’s written word that we are even aware of God’s oral communication?[v] If the written revelation is not reliably preserved, how shall we reliably know the character of God’s oral communication, and the promises associated with it?

Some of the “preservation texts” regarding God’s word admittedly do not state in so many words, “What is written in print media will be preserved for all time.” Often God emphasizes something more like this:

“What I say is the truth. It does not matter what you think or what you say. Whatever I say will stand. Depend on it!”

How Christian believers, though, extrapolate from such statements that we cannot and should not depend on what God has written is mind boggling to me. Psalm 119:89 establishes the durability, immutability, and trustworthiness of God’s word. Why would we expect less of God’s word when it is written down? Not every reference to “God’s words,” “the word of God,” or “the words of God” is a reference to the written Scriptures. However, when written, God’s words are not less God’s words. Furthermore, how would we presently even know of God’s spoken words from the past, were they not written down?

Consider also:

• Psalm 78:5-7 God established his testimony and appointed his law. One reason this exists is for teaching each generation to come, “that might know them...that they might set their hope in God, and not forget the works of God, but keep his commandments.” How can fathers make known to their children words that they do not have?
• Psalm 119:89 God’s word has been settled, preserved in heaven, forever. How can the faithfulness of his precepts, testimonies, and commandments “unto all generations” (vs. 90, 96) be known if that word is only settled in heaven and is not distributed on the earth? God’s word is a revelation for the benefit of man. It is man (on earth) that needs this word, and not God himself in heaven.[vi]
• Matthew 4:4 “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” How can man live by a word of God that he does not have? Either we must have continual oral revelation, or we must have the written word.

What was the purpose of inspiration? Was it, at least in part, to produce scripture (which is a written record)? Was it for the benefit of the writers, or for the readers? Had God not preserved Paul’s letter to Timothy, for example, until it reached Timothy, to what end is its inspiration? Without preservation, the purpose of inspiration is undermined and rendered pointless. The providential preservation of the Bible is a necessary conclusion from its teachings. God did not write his words only for the moment, for the immediate recipients of its message, but also for future generations.[vii]

When glorying in the treasure of God’s word, rather than focused on denying the providential preservation of the written word, some writers are distracted, and “forget themselves.” They then attribute values to the written word that they, when debating, reserve to the generic word. Perhaps there is “Freudian slip” of the unconscious mind that reveals what they know in their hearts – that God’s word, even when written, is durable, immutable, and trustworthy. Notice, for example, Matt Smethurst’s nice article on 8 Things Your Bible Says About Itself. He writes about the Bible as a book and consistently and assuredly attributes the generic “voided passages” as being statements about and support for the written word.[viii]

What are the implications of what the Bible speaks of itself?

The Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox view (and perhaps others) is that there are two sources of authority – the church & its traditions, and scripture. They teach the Bible is “a standard of truth,” not “the standard of truth.”[ix] Baptists (at least orthodox believing ones), Fundamentalists, the Reformers, and others hold Sola Scriptura – there is one source of authority, the inspired scripture.

“Less-than-fundamental” Christians often hypothesize that the Bible is accurate when it speaks to spiritual, religious, or moral concepts. They argue that other content – such as science, history, or geography – cannot be considered reliable. Scripture itself, however, does not limit itself to which kinds of subjects it speaks truthfully and authoritatively.

When we look to the authority of God’s word to discuss whether his word has been preserved, do we not necessarily do it on the presupposition that it has been preserved?[x] Of course we do. All doctrines grow out of two basic and foundational truths – that God is and that he has revealed himself in the sixty-six books that we call the Bible. If there is not some kind of preservation of that revelation that we currently read and study, all other points of doctrine become pointless.

How do we know what to believe about the Bible? We believe what the Bible says about itself. The Bible is the “Supreme Court” to which every opinion and belief must be brought for resolution according to its truth.

We “fundamentalist types” – in contrast to moderates and liberals – often assert that when the Bible speaks on science, history, or geography, it speaks inerrantly. If the Bible speaks of God creating the world ex nihilo (from nothing), we believe the Bible. Evolutionary arguments to the contrary do not sway us from the truth. If the Bible speaks of miracles outside of nature, we believe the Bible. Secularist animadversions do not sway us. If the Bible speaks of the Israelites crossing the Red Sea, we believe the Bible. The geographic relocations of naysayers do not sway us. If the Bible speaks of David as the king of Israel, we believe the Bible. The archaeologist who can find no evidence of it does not sway us. If the Bible promises the perpetuity of the church, we believe the Bible. Historians who can find no evidence of New Testament Christianity in the intervening years from then until now do not sway us. Were the Bible to say Jonah swallowed a whale, we would believe the Bible.

However, prominent textual critics (some believers and some unbelievers) assure us that the Bible has not been preserved pure in all ages. Many “fighting fundamentalists” docilely fall in line, rendered malleable as little children! If Scripture is not preserved, there is a fundamental problem. It removes the Bible as our resource of inerrant truth. It casts doubt on the reliability of the Bible. “Fundamentalist,” will you recognize and address this fundamental problem?

If the Bible cannot be trusted to speak inerrantly about itself, how can it be trusted to speak inerrantly on creation, miracles, the exodus from Egypt, the kings of Israel, the church – and most importantly the gospel, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures? Even if the Bible spoke (past tense) inerrantly about itself, how can it be trusted if that inerrant word has not been preserved pure through the ages? Textual critics and theologians work overtime to convince us there is no problem – nothing to see here. Those who possess a little spiritual discernment or even an ounce of common sense know better.

In effect, the fundamental problem for the fundamentalist is that modern textual criticism, as we know it, has slowly and surely chipped away at the trustworthiness of the Bible.[xi] When all is said and done, we will no longer have a sole rule of practice – or at least many Christians will not think they have one. When all is said and done, we will no longer have Sola Scriptura. When all is said and done, dissenters from Rome and its “Magisterium” and the Orthodox and their “Holy Tradition” have no more reason to protest or dissent. Git along, little dogies, y’all go on home now.[xii]

“As for me and my house,” we will believe the Bible is verbally inspired, wholly inerrant, and providentially preserved.

---

[i] In this article, anyone who believes that the Bible is an inspired and inerrant document is a fundamentalist. In its simplest form, Christian fundamentalism emphasizes five fundamental points of faith (as clarified by the 1895 Niagara Bible Conference, in the face of the rise of modernism and liberalism): (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 Fundamentalists are adrift on the sea of bad ecclesiology, and a fussy fighting faction seem full of a bad spirit. Nevertheless, number one of the fundamentals, the inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures, is especially relevant to the point of this essay.
[ii] This problem, in fact, is an important consideration not just for those who identify as “Fundamentalist,” but for all Bible-believing Baptists, and for conservative Christians of any stripe who claim to hold Sola Scriptura (scripture alone) – that the Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. Our local church holds the Bible as the sole and only rule of our faith and practice.
[iii] This seems to be no longer available for viewing on The Master’s Seminary website. It currently (12/04/2021) retrieves the message “404 Not Found.” [Note: 12/16/2021, found it at a different url.]
[iv] See Combs, The Preservation of Scripture, p. 13.
[v] 1 Thessalonians 2:13. The written word records and reinforces the heard word.
[vi] God has promised to preserve his word from generation to generation. The generations for whom God promised to preserve his word are generated here on earth, across time, and (may we point out) the majority without access to “the originals.”
[vii] For example, read Psalm 102:18; Romans 15:4; 1 Corinthians 9:10; 10:11.
[viii] Smethurst is a church planter and the managing editor of The Gospel Coalition. He writes, joyously, “The Bible is the most valuable treasure in the universe. It’s our food (Jer. 15:16), our life (Deut. 32:46–47), our comfort (Ps. 119:50), our strength (Ps. 119:28), our guidance (Ps. 119:105), our desire (Ps. 119:20), our hope (Ps. 130:5), our love (Ps. 119:97), our joy (John 15:11), and our treasure (Ps. 119:72).” The Gospel Coalition holds that “the verbally inspired Word of God…is utterly authoritative and without error in the original writings” – which leaves a question about the inerrancy of the apographa (i.e., copies of the first or original writing).
[ix] The Catholic and Orthodox view results in the autonomy of “the Church” apart from the Scriptures. Unfortunately, the approach of many modern evangelicals results in the autonomy of the individual apart from the Scriptures.
[x] Colossians 1:17. God sustains all things. Does this not include his own word?
[xi] The prevailing current mood of textual criticism (among some who are unbelievers such as Ehrman and some who are believers such as Wallace) is that the text of the New Testament cannot be recovered. The old goal, still held by some, (though misguided) was to recover the original autographs. Perhaps there will be a split between the two fields of criticisms. Or not. What a difference a few years make. In 2009 text critic Daniel Wallace wrote, “If the autographs are inspired, we should not rest until we have done all we can to determine the wording of the original.” (“Challenges in New Testament Textual Criticism for the Twenty-First Century” in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Volume 52, No. 1, March 2009, p. 99). Ten years later he wrote, “We do not have now—in our critical Greek texts or any translations—exactly what the authors of the New Testament wrote. Even if we did, we would not know it.” (“Foreword,” in Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism, Elijah Hixson, Peter J. Gurry, editors, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2019, p. xii). About Wallace, Craig Blomberg wrote, “Dan Wallace has clearly become evangelical Christianity’s premier active textual critic today.”
[xii] A dogie is a motherless, stray, or neglected calf. 

10 Things You Should Know

Links to some articles in Crossway’s “10 Things You Should Know” series.

• 10 Things You Should Know about Charles Spurgeon -- “Spurgeon believed that Christian ministers should expect a special degree of suffering to be given to them as a way of forming them for Christlike, compassionate ministry.”
• 10 Things You Should Know about Christian Hospitality -- “Every Christian is called to practice hospitality, but that does not mean that everyone practices it in the same way.”
• 10 Things You Should Know about Church Discipline -- “There are many wrong motivations for church discipline, which have led to abuses in the process. The one right motivation for discipline is love.”
• 10 Things You Should Know about Scientism -- “Strong scientism is the view that the only knowledge we can have about reality are those that have been properly tested in the hard sciences (especially physics and chemistry).”
• 10 Things You Should Know about Sex -- “When it comes to sexual sin, the greatest sexual danger to any human being anywhere lives inside him, not outside.”
• 10 Things You Should Know about the Bible’s Teaching on Men and Women -- “Who we are as men and women defines the core of our existence, not merely its periphery.”

The Grinders

“Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them...”

Here the writer reminds us that the days of decrepitude will soon hasten on, the years of the decline of life draw nigh, when the senses, organs and powers of the system will be so much enervated, obscured or destroyed as to lessen or spoil all their enjoyments, however many blessings and privileges the Lord may have heaped upon us; sad truth, realized by many who have been signally favored, “While the sun or the moon or the stars be not darkened, nor the clouds return after the rain.” Or when in the decline of life, the organs of sight shall be obscured, that the sun’s genial rays shall appear darkened, his light dimmed; when the light of the moon and stars shall be too feeble to illumine the nocturnal pathway; and when after the rain, instead of the return of the cheerful beams of the sun, it shall be as though the dark clouds were still hovering in the heavens by reason of the failing of the eyesight...

When in youthful vigor and activity we can sport over the precipice, or play upon the housetop; whereas, in the years of our decrepitude we tremble at the idea of occupying an exalted position, and quake with fear at finding an obstruction in our pathway, lest we should be hurled to the ground...

When we review the transient career of our fast fleeting lives, the utter impossibility of all earth’s emoluments to satisfy, happify or even to perpetuate them beyond a span, we may truly say with the “Preacher”, “Vanity of vanities, all is vanity”; and with the poet, 

 
How vain are all things here below,
How false, and yet how fair;
Each pleasure hath its poison, too,
And every sweet a snare.

Excerpts from thoughts on Ecclesiastes 12:1-7 by J. F. Johnson

Living, He loved me

Living, He loved me,

Dying, He saved me,

Buried, He carried

My sins far away;

Rising, He justified

Freely, forever;

One day He’s coming

O glorious day!

 
This little hymn was written by John Wilbur Chapman in 1910, while at a summer conference of the Stony Brook Assembly in Stony Brook, New York. It received wide notice in recent years when set to music by Mark Hall and recorded by the contemporary band Casting Crowns, under the title Glorious Day in 2009.
 
The writer, known as J. Wilbur Chapman, is more readily recognized as an American evangelist. Chapman was born June 17, 1859 in Richmond, Indiana, the son of Alexander H. Chapman and Lorinda McWhinney. He joined the Richmond Presbyterian Church circa 1876, making a public profession of faith at age seventeen. Chapman attended Lake Forest College at Lake Forest, Illinois and Lane Theological Seminary in Cincinnati, Ohio. He was ordained to the ministry on April 13, 1881, while still a student at Lane.
 
J. Wilbur Chapman was married three times and had five children. He pastored six churches in the Presbyterian/Reformed tradition before embarking on a career as a traveling evangelist, usually working with gospel singer Charles McCallon Alexander. John Heman Converse, a wealthy Presbyterian philanthropist, provided funding for his early 20th century campaigns. Chapman also served in administrative capacities of the Presbyterian Church General Assembly. He died December 25, 1918 in New York City, after undergoing surgery for gallstones. He is buried at the Woodlawn Cemetery in Bronx, Bronx County, New York.
 
Chapman, in addition to his preaching ministry, was a prolific writer – the author of numerous theological works. He is not as well known for his hymns, though he wrote a number of them. Probably the most recognizable is “Our Great Savior” / “Jesus! What a Friend for Sinners!” Rowland Hugh Prichard composed the tune Hyfrydol, with which it is usually sung. This hymn was first published around 1910. The first stanza is:
 
Jesus! what a Friend for sinners!
Jesus! Lover of my soul;
Friends may fail me, foes assail me,
He, my Savior, makes me whole.

In other words, allay to zee

• allay, verb (used with object). To put to rest; calm; quiet; to lessen or relieve; mitigate; alleviate.
• analytical, adjective. Relating to or using analysis or logical reasoning.
• anatical, adjective. Consisting of equal quantities of each ingredient.
• anatomical, adjective. Relating to bodily structure.
• aphorism, noun. A terse saying embodying a general truth, or astute observation.
• autocratic, adjective. Pertaining to or of the nature of autocracy or of an autocrat; absolute; like an autocrat; tyrannical; despotic; domineering.
• belie, verb (used with object). To show to be false; contradict: “to put the lie to”.
• contumacious, adjective. (archaic, Law) Stubbornly or willfully disobedient, especially to authority (e.g. of a defendant’s behavior).
• degustation (or dégustation), noun. The act or function of tasting; especially a careful tasting of various foods, focusing on the gustatory system, the senses, high culinary art, and good company.
• graymail, noun. A mild form of blackmail without demands for money; exercise of power over a person through possession of compromising information.
• jeremiad, noun. A long, sad list of complaints about things that have gone wrong; a cautionary or angry harangue.
• makebate, noun. (archaic) One that excites contention and quarrels; breeder of strife; busybody.
• milk tooth, noun. Any of a set of early, temporary (deciduous) teeth in children or young mammals that fall out as the permanent teeth replace them.
• natatorium, noun. A swimming pool, especially one that is indoors.
• off-putting, adjective. Provoking uneasiness, dislike, annoyance, or repugnance; disturbing or disagreeable.
• pelf, noun. Money or wealth, especially when regarded with contempt or acquired by reprehensible means.
• peripatetic, adjective. Traveling from place to place, in particular working or based in various places for relatively short periods.
• pog, noun. A cardboard or plastic disk printed with a design or picture, collected or swapped by children or used in games.
• proscribe, verb. To denounce or condemn (a thing) as dangerous or harmful; prohibit; to put outside the protection of the law; outlaw.
• pseudepigraphy, noun. False ascription of authorship.
• trope, noun. A word, phrase, or image used in a new and different way in order to create an artistic effect; a figurative or metaphorical use of a word or expression.
• zee, noun. (North American) The letter Z or z (Cf. British, zed).

It’s not a matter of how much, and other quotes

The posting of quotes by human authors does not constitute agreement with either the quotes or their sources. (I try to confirm the sources that I give, but may miss on occasion; please verify if possible.)

“It’s not a matter of how much money we have, but how much the money has us.” -- Heard

“A man is rich in proportion to the things he can afford to let alone.” -- Henry David Thoreau

“We are convinced that a desire to be more acceptable to the world’s religious bodies has created more problems for Baptists over the years than any other thing they have done.” -- Robert N. Lackey

“If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.” -- popularized by Poor Richard’s Almanack

“Hyper-Calvinism is all house and no door: Arminianism is all door and no house.” -- John Duncan

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” -- Lord Acton

“You can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences of reality.” -- Ayn Rand

“Even rats have sense enough to forsake a sinking ship.” -- C. R. Powell

“The Old Testament is the cradle in which the Christ child is laid.” -- Martin Luther

“The Gospel should supersede our political and national allegiances.” -- Adam Wyatt

 “Saying you’re a new kind of Christian with a new kind of Christianity is basically saying you’re an old kind of heretic.” -- Burk Parsons

The exception clause

I have had this in the queue for quite some time, seemingly unable to finish it. However, I am going to post it unfinished!

Matthew 5:31-32
It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication , causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Matthew 19:8-9
He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

“The exception clause” is a phrase used to name or describe Jesus’s statements in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 about marriage, divorce (putting away), and adultery – “saving for the cause of fornication” / “except it be for fornication.”

Got Questions Ministries explains it this way:

“The meaning of Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 is clear. If a person gets a divorce and then remarries, it is considered adultery unless the exception clause is in effect.”

Despite their absolute assurance, it not that “clear” to all interpreters. The passage engenders much discussion and debate. For example, does “the exception clause” provide an exception for allowing remarriage after a divorce, or does it provide an exception for not calling the putting away adultery?[i] David Janzen’s assessment is more accurate than that of Got Questions.

“It is likely that not a truer word has been written in the field of biblical studies than Ben Witherington’s observation that nearly everything about the two Matthean divorce exception clauses is disputed.”[ii]

There are related passages in Mark 10:10-12 and Luke 16:18 to consider, but they do not specifically address the exception clause.[iii]

Random notes and comments on the exception clause

Verses and words

Jesus is not giving a new teaching about divorce; rather he is restating God’s original design and intent. See Matthew 19:4-6.

Words for further research. Matthew 5:32 (fornication, πορνειας; adultery, μοιχευθηναι, μοιχαται); Matthew 19:9 (fornication, πορνεια; adultery, μοιχευθηναι, μοιχαται); Mark 10:11-12 (adultery, μοιχαται); Luke 16:18 (adultery, μοιχευει). Adultery (moichao), to have unlawful intercourse with another’s spouse. Fornication (porneia), illicit sexual intercourse; adultery, bestiality, fornication, homosexuality, etc.

Matthew 5:32; 19:9. A man would not cause his wife to be an adulteress through divorce, if she were already an adulteress through fornication.

Both Matthew and Mark refer to Herodias as “Philip’s wife,” even though she had divorced Philip and married Herod (Matthew 14:3-4; Mark 6:17-18).

Jesus tells the Samaritan woman at the well “thou hast had five husbands” and “he whom thou now hast is not thy husband” (John 4:16-18). Various inferences have been drawn from this, despite the text not indicating whether she had five husbands lawfully (one after another had died, etc.), whether she had been divorced from every one of them, or some combination of both possibilities.

Baptists in England

Second London Baptist Confession

Baptists of London adapted the Westminster Confession to use in their own Second London Confession of 1689. The changes they made can provide some insights into their thinking. When these brethren built their statement on marriage, they removed the paragraph in the Westminster permitting divorce and remarriage. Westminster’s Article 24, paragraph 5 states:

Adultery or fornication committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, gives just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract. In case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce, and after the divorce to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.

The Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 24 is titled, “Of Marriage and Divorce.” It has four paragraphs on marriage and two on divorce. The Second London Baptist Confession Chapter 25 is titled “Of Marriage.” It omits paragraphs four & five on divorce.

John Gill, on Matthew 5:32

…she must be guilty of adultery; since she is his proper wife, the bond of marriage not being dissolved by such a divorce: and

whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, committeth adultery; because the divorced woman he marries, and takes to his bed; is legally the wife of another man…

Early years of church history

William Heth and Gordon Wenham extensively researched the marriage theology of early Christian writers. They summarize their research of the views of divorce and remarriage this way:

“In the first five centuries (among Christians) all Greek writers and all Latin writers except one agree that remarriage following divorce for any reason is adulterous. The marriage bond was seen to unite both parties until the death of one of them.”[iv]

Before and after salvation

Some who take a strict view on divorce and remarriage (and perhaps some who don’t) believe that the New Testament teaching on the subject of divorce and remarriage is null regarding anything that happened during a marriage before one became a Christian. In his book on Divorce and Remarriage, Andrew Cornes addresses this:

Most important of all, it assumes that it is the sin (of divorce) which prevents remarriage. If this sin can be removed, by forgiveness, then no barrier to remarriage remains. This view is so obviously flawed that it is amazing how tenacious it is. If sin is really the barrier, what does the time of conversion to Christ have to do with it? Surely sin committed after conversion can be fully forgiven and removed?...Jesus does not base his prohibition of remarriage on the sin of divorce. He bases it on the fact that remarriage would be legalized adultery. In other words, he bases it on the fact that the marriage bond continues to exist despite the divorce. It is not the (sin of) divorce which makes remarriage impossible for the Christian; it is the (original) marriage. Only death dissolves the marriage bond, and therefore only death sets a person free to remarry”[v]

A marriage pandemic

One claim is that Jesus’s statement allows for remarriage when the reason for the divorce is adultery. Even if this is a correct interpretation, surely we can agree that what was a small moth hole of “exception” has become a gaping gash in the marriage fabric of modern American Christianity! First one exception, then another, then many more. “No-fault divorce” is a plague of pandemic proportions.

---

[i] Perhaps the main views fall into three broad groups. (1) Neither divorce nor remarriage is allowed. πορνεια refers to the annulment of incestuous marriages of pagan converts, or refers to the sexual violation in the Jewish betrothal period. (2) Divorce is allowed in cases of πορνεια, but remarriage is forbidden. (3) Divorce and remarriage are allowed, but only in cases of πορνεια.
[ii] “The Meaning of Porneia in Matthew 5.32 and 19.9: an Approach From the Study of Ancient Near Eastern Culture,” David Janzen, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Volume 23, Issue 80, March 1, 2001, pp. 66-80 (Citing Ben Witherington in “Matthew 5:32 and 19:9—Exception or Exceptional Situation?” New Testament Studies, No. 31, 1985, p. 571). There is disagreement on what constitutes the exception; disagreement on what is the reason for the exception; disagreement on the meaning of the word porneia; and on and on. (Consider John 7:17 may have some impact on this problem.)
[iii] Mark 10:10-12, putting away or divorcing a spouse and marrying another is adultery. Luke 16:18, putting away (or divorcing) a wife, or marrying one who has been put away is committing adultery.
[iv] Jesus and Divorce, William Heth, Gordon Wenham, Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984, p. 22.
[v] Divorce and Remarriage: Biblical Principles and Pastoral Practice, Andrew Cornes, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993 pp. 246-247).

The “Qualifications” of a Bishop

Having been reliably informed that the requirements for the office of bishop set forth in I Timothy 3 “are the requirements for a perfect preacher,” I embarked on an in-depth Bible study to find out to which qualifications the churches could refer for the less-than-perfect preachers who are currently available. I thought I might have found it in Titus 1, but then realized it sets forth the same requirements as I Timothy 3, obviously for the perfect preachers. So, I dug deeper. After a diligent search, I finally found the requirements in Judas’s seldom-read epistle to the Laodiceans. For your benefit, I share it here.

Laodiceans 3:1-8

1. Having failed in my efforts to collect the funds to come to you (the bag being empty): these things I write unto you, that you mayest know how you oughtest to behave yourselves in the church of Laodicea.

2. This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a well-paying position with the bestowal of great honour.

3.  A bishop then must be shameless, the man of one wife, more than one, or none; possessing a good education and appropriate credentials; willing to move quickly when hostility rises; apt to leech;

4. Not given to dry and lengthy speech, but eloquent, concise, and funny; deserving of a valuable salary package; well-dressed, not threatened by deacons;

5. One that driveth a fine chariot, is schooled in kissing babies, and apt to fool old women;

6. Even so must their wives be mothers of several children, while looking as if they never had any; apt to flatter, play the piano, organize the women’s auxiliary; full of zeal and zest;

7. Moreover let the bishop be photogenic, having an impressive resume, not a novice (for there are small insignificant churches for others), recommended by seminary leaders. Moreover he must have a good report of wealthy businessmen; all these qualifications, lest he be an embarrassment to the rich and prospering church in the thriving metropolis of Laodicea.

8. Finally, my brethern and sistern, though I write in the tongue of men and angels who use gendered pronouns, let nothing be construed as meaning any persons cannot serve in the office of bishop in the church. Progress be with you. Fare ye well.

No more shall there be a problem finding someone to meet the necessary requirements. We need not look for Paul’s perfect preacher. Judas’s recommendations will work just fine!

* Note: Count bard Ehrmandorf stumbled across the fragment containing the third chapter of the epistle to the Laodiceans, handwritten in Greek on a tanned skunk hide, while browsing a garage sale at the St. Baden-Gooden monastery on Mount Tübingen.

The Stench of 1973

News outlets yesterday reported that Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked, “Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts?” [This in reference to “what if” the Court overturned abortion rights as they currently stand interpreted.]

I find that statement intriguing in light of how the abortion right was created. I wonder how she views the “reading” of the Constitution and the “political act” of the Supreme Court in 1973 when the majority found the right to abortion which they were unable to read in the Constitution.

The Husband of One Wife

“the husband of one wife” 1 Timothy 3:2, Titus 1:6

I recently read an online essay about divorce, remarriage, and the qualifications for the ministry, focusing on the phrase “the husband of one wife.” I choose not to link to it, since the author displays a certain amount of hubris in his viewpoint that it unnecessary and off-putting. Nevertheless, this turns my thoughts to this post – not a lengthy tome, but something just to point out another option seldom discussed.

This writer and numerous others would point out three main ways to view the phrase “husband of one wife.”[i]

1. “The husband of one wife” is a condemnation and prohibition of polygamy
2. “The husband of one wife” is a condemnation and prohibition of divorce and remarriage[ii]
3. “The husband of one wife” means the kind of husband a man is to his wife

The first two are clear enough. I think there is little or no misunderstanding of them. The third is a newer model and may require some explanation. This third view says that phrase (μιας γυναικος ανδρα/ανηρ) literally means “one woman man” or “one wife husband.”[iii] This is usually explained as referring to the kind of husband a man is to his wife – one devoted to his wife.[iv]

As normally presented, most of the writers indicate the three ways are mutually exclusive – either not a polygamist, or not divorced & remarried, or not undevoted to his wife. It seems few consider that Paul struck on a phrase (under inspiration, of course) that can encompass all the positives and exclude all the negatives.

The historical research I have done indicates there was very little polygamy and much divorce practiced in the Roman Empire.[v] However, if a case of polygamy came in question, Paul’s phrase would eliminate that person as a qualified candidate for bishop. When the rampant divorce problem came in question, Paul’s phrase would eliminate that person as a qualified candidate for bishop. When a situation of a bad (undevoted) husband who has managed to avoid divorce came in question, Paul’s phrase would eliminate that person as a qualified candidate for bishop.

Therefore, this brief contribution is to assert that Paul uses the phrase “the husband of one wife” to umbrella several issues, rather than present an either/or distinction that must be chosen to the exclusion of the others.

---

[i] A fourth way “the husband of one wife” is viewed, is that it is a requirement that a bishop/elder/minister must be married.
[ii] This might be divided into three camps: The husband of one wife is a man (1) only who has never been divorced and remarried; (2) only who has not been divorced and remarried since salvation; (3) only who, if he is divorced and remarried, is covered under “the exception clause” of Matthew 5:32 & 19:9.
[iii] A helpful comparison, often missed, is 1 Timothy 5:9, where the similar phrase is used of the widow (but with, obviously, the gender roles reversed: ενος ανδρος γυνη “one man woman” or “one husband wife”).
[iv] This view (usually) allows for divorce and remarriage in the ministry, though I am at somewhat of a loss to understand how one who divorces his wife to marry another is a “one-woman man.”
[v] For example, see The Environment of Early Christianity, by Samuel Angus (New York, NY: Scribner & Sons, 1915): “Divorce was frightfully common…Men could put away their wives for the slightest cause, and women could as easily divorce their husbands…Marriage lost its sanctity: it was lightly entered upon because easily annulled.” (pp. 15, 46)