The following is part of a letter which I wrote to the pastor of a "Protestant Reformed Church." This pastor uses the Authorized Version, as does this particular church and the "Protestant Reformed" denomination, of which his church is a part. This church is about seven hours away from where I live or I would gladly visit it, but unfortunately, this church is not a Baptist church.
It has often puzzled me greatly how those of the "REFORMED FAITH" can believe and profess so strongly the sovereignty of God in predestination, election, and His providential care in all matters concerning His kingdom, and yet, when it comes to the preservation of the Scriptures, those same REFORMED thinkers drop the ball. Many who used to agree with the Westminster Confession concerning the providential preservation of the Scriptures throughout the generations now hold that the original autographs were inspired, with which I would agree, but they stop there, which I do not. I follow and have followed the same belief of those who believed God's promises and composed that good and accurate Confession, who believed that God providentially preserved His word, even as He promised. And I held that position long before I ever heard of the Westminster Confession of Faith. And I am highly disappointed that those who should most strongly support that doctrine of preservation, based upon their belief and profession of the Sovereignty of God, are the most likely to deny it. Pardon me Sir, but I came out of Baptist Fundamentalism, which is very ignorant when it comes to theology, but at least they don't deny God the power and ability to preserve that sacred Word, which is the seed of all faith and which opens and declares as it sacred theme, God in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself; first, concealed in types and shadows, and then, revealed in fulfillment in Jesus Christ being crucified and raised again the third day. If these things are so wonderful and essential, it seems contrary to my way of thinking to suggest that God would leave it to chance or the whims of men whether His truth would be preserved or not. What can be known of the things of God, concerning those things in heaven and earth which are plainly revealed within the Scriptures without those same Scriptures being preserved? What is the point of inspiration if there is no such thing as preservation? Take away the Bible and you remove all spiritual light; there is nothing but darkness and superstition. It just doesn't make sense to me. God spent centuries upon centuries fulfilling His purposes, preserving individuals and a special nation, destroying enemies, and preserving a historical record of it all and now He lets it all slide into a question of whether we have a faithful and accurate translation of that record or not. God is bigger than that, but these REFORMED thinkers, in my opinion, are not as REFORMED as they suppose. REFORMED means something; it's not just a word. When the church thinks as the world thinks, can we really call it REFORMED? NO! If it is not REFORMED in its viewpoint concerning the Scriptures it is no more REFORMED than the world. It may be more educated in theology, but not more reformed in principle. These reformed gentlemen need to rediscover what the first reformers thought and believed concerning God's preservation of the sacred Text. Can you find anywhere in the writings of Martin Luther where he ever said that "the Scriptures were inspired in their original autographs," and then left it at that? No, Luther's beliefs went beyond that limit, as did that of the other reformers. He translated a Bible which he believed communicated the very Word of God to its German readers. Anyway, I didn't mean to spend so much time on this topic, but this declension is very confusing to me and a very important and emotional issue to me personally. It seems like those who I began speaking of when I first took up this subject deny the very thing they profess, in saying that we do not have a faithful version of God's word today. One last thing and then I am done with this topic. This reminds me of a conversation some are having concerning "the Omnipresence of God" on a thread on the Sermon Audio website. Some hold that God is everywhere as the word "omnipresent" implies. It has been suggested by others that there are certain places where God will never go; one being "hell," another, "the heart of unbelievers." Again, not knowing how you would reply, it is my opinion that if someone denies that God is in any single place, they deny the entire doctrine of "the Omnipresence of God." He is not "Omnipresent" if He is not "Omnipresent!" Now, I certainly don't pretend to understand His omnipresence, but I can't deny it; GOD IS OMNIPRESENT, whether I can understand it or not! Anyway, the reason I used this illustration is to show why I think those fellows that deny God's preservation of the Scriptures do not really believe in the full Sovereignty of God, nor are they as Reformed as they profess.
TOO HARSH? Joab, the leader of David's army had fallen out of favor with the king after killing his son Absalom, whom David loved in spite of his son's best efforts to kill him. At this point, David replaced Joab with Amasa as captain over his...[ abbreviated | read entire ]
"If I shut up heaven that there be no rain, or if I command the locusts to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among my people; If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from...[ abbreviated | read entire ]