You are here: Home / Archives for 2006

Archives for 2006

by on 11.17.06

on my first fundamentalist hero opposing modernism part 2

This is the second installment in my series exemplifying a militant spirit within a compromising denomination. Here you will see my dad taking on the editor of the denominational paper on the subject of inerrancy, a vital topic for orthodox Christianity.

April 22, 1980

The Editor
Gospel Contact
4703 – 56 Street
Camrose, Alberta

Dear Sir:

Re. your editorial – March/April issue as to the matter of belief in the inerrancy of the Bible.

You suggest the matter of belief or disbelief in the inerrancy of the Bible as a standard of Christian orthodoxy is unnecessarily divisive and should be scrapped. You also suggest that belief in the inerrancy of the Bible is not scientifically accurate and you stress the value of personal experience with person of Christ as the primary evaluation of personal Christian faith.

In effect you are saying there should no standard as to Christian doctrine, Christian belief or Christian conduct except the vagaries of personal experience and the self qualified claims of those who may claim to be “true Christians”, whatever that may be taken to be.

What would you or anyone know of Christ except for the revelation of Christ that is made known to man in the Bible? What is to be the qualification of a “true Christian” if the standards for belief and conduct set out in the Bible are not used? Whose “experience” is to be the authority in these matters, as personal experience is a very variegated thing? Many have been known to have had deluded experiences.

What is your motivation in taking the position that belief in the inerrancy of the Bible should not be a standard of orthodoxy? Are you an apologist for some person or persons who are unorthodox, and if so, what is their relationship to yourself? What are their supposed Christian qualifications and beliefs?

As to the “scientific” accuracy of a belief in the Bible, possibly you could explain as to what “scientific” accuracy is, and in so doing you might comment on the numerous “scientifically accurate” opinions that have later been invalidated by new discoveries in various fields of learning.

Sincerely,

[signed]

T. W. D. Johnson

The doctrine of inerrancy is usually at the heart of controversies with modernism and evangelicalism. This is the crux of ‘the faith’. If we lose ground here, we lose ground everywhere. Those who waver have wavered somewhere either in their belief in the inerrant Word or in their submission to it.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Filed Under: Family, Fundamentalism, Issues, Memories, Personal, Uncategorized
by on 11.17.06

on my first fundamentalist hero opposing modernism

Here is the first of the letters I promised to post. This one is from my dad to the president of the Bible Institute my mother graduated from in the early 1950s. At the time my dad wrote this letter, the Church of God in Western Canada was seriously troubled by certain liberal teachings in its schools. I do not know if any of this has been corrected in the ensuing years, I have been out of that loop for so long that I barely know the names of a few of the players anymore.

When I was younger, my dad used to represent our church as a layman during the annual meetings. He was involved with some of the other conservative men in trying to keep liberalism and charismatism out of the group. The conference was stacked against them and some pretty underhanded things were done in the meetings, as I recall.

This letter comes much later, actually during my first semester of my MDiv years at BJU. I believe my dad sent this set of letters to me a year or so later when I was taking church history with Dr. Panosian. In that class I had to write a paper on the history of the Church of God (a paper I remember staying up all night to type, literally). We were assigned our topic based on the group we came out of. I still have a set of outlines we all prepared for one another from each of our papers. Some interesting names in that group, I wonder where they all are now?

Back to the letter… You will see that the issues my dad was contending for was out and out liberalism. I am going to leave the man’s name off the letter, although those who know the situation will likely be able to figure out who it is.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

April 14, 1980

Rev. XXX XXXXXX
c/o Alberta Bible Institute
Camrose, Alberta

Dear Sir:

In April issue of “Worth Reading”, you express a profound admiration for the “great” Dr. Elton Trueblood.

That he is highly educated in the humanistic sense is beyond question. He has written several books, and as you say he has no doubt managed to master the social graces.

An analysis of his books, however, reveal that his claims to “greatness” may be open to question from a Biblical perspective. His book, Philosophy of Religion, Harper Press, gives quite a comprehensive expression of his theological views, which are anything but Biblical, orthodox, or fundamental. He arrives at his conclusions by the process of human reasoning and human reference, quoting as reference many learned but generally unorthodox thinkers and theologians, including Tillich, Archbishop Temple, Martin Buber and many other learned but unbiblical thinkers.

His conclusions are a curious, compromised mixture of truth and error, that due to his educational status and due to his highly convoluted and complex rational meanderings may appear to the unenlightened to be very profound.

Some of the conclusions he arrives at in his mental exercises are as follows. Page references from “Philosophy of Religion.”

1. The Bible, both Old and New Testaments, consists in considerable part, of mythological and legendary elements. Man’s logic and “scientific” scholarship alone can sort this out of the Bible and properly qualify it. Page 4.

2. The idea of the inerrancy of the Bible is incompatible with the reality of human life and expression, from which human sources the Bible has come. Page 43.

3. Life has evolved from simple unicellular organisms. Man has evolved and descended from the lower animals. He is not a special creation of God. Pages 97-102.

4. Religious thought has evolved from polytheism (pagan religions) through monotheism (Islam, Hebrew religion), to a composite conception, the Trinitarian idea. Christianity is only one of many stages in the evolution or human development of religion. It may be a superior, or “later” stage, but it has no right to claim any exclusivity as “The Way” to God. Therefore missionary activity apart from a primarily vocational or social effort is non-essential, unjustifiable and meaningless. Pages 224-230.

5. Personal existence will continue after death, but there is no hell or condition of eternal separation from God. Page 295.

He is a universalist. All will ultimately arrive. By conclusion therefore, we must assume that he does not believe in the sacrificial atonement of Christ. Christ’s death would have value only as an example of supreme dedication to principle, even at the cost of life.

What might be called the positive elements of his philosophy are;

A. There is a personal God.

B. God is involved in a purposeful way in the ongoing of the Universe.

C. Man as a person is capable of communicating with the Divine Person, but it is implied by his other arguments that the sacrificial and mediatory offices of Christ are not essential to this.

Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law and the prophets, and that one jot or tittle would in no wise pass away until all was fulfilled, and that he that broke the least commandment and taught others to break it would be considered the least in the kingdom of heaven.

It therefore appears from the published meanderings of the Trueblood mind, that by the standards of Jesus, Trueblood can by no means be considered as a “great” man. The true gospel is hid from his mind. The apostle Paul says that if the gospel is hid, it is hid to them that are lost. Unless Trueblood has changed his beliefs and convictions greatly since the writing of his religious philosophy, he is a lost man and will never see heaven, and he will never know Christ except as the judge of all men.

His considerable association with and acceptance by the Church of God organization is an evidence of the declension and departure by the organisation and many in it from Biblical standards of theology, teaching and association.

Sincerely

[signed]

T. W. D. Johnson

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Interesting, in light of some discussions elsewhere, to see my dad use the word ‘meanderings‘!! The ‘bold’ is mine.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Filed Under: Family, Fundamentalism, Issues, Memories, Personal, Uncategorized
by on 11.16.06

on my first fundamentalist heros

I grew up in a rough oil town on the edge of the Alberta prairie. My family attended a church that is part of the Church of God in Western Canada, a branch of the Church of God (Anderson, Indiana). The church was the most conservative church in our town at the time, I have no idea how it ranks today. My mother graduated from two colleges of this group (Alberta Bible Institute, Camrose, Alberta, and Warner Pacific College, Portland, Oregon.) That connection further bound our family to this body of believers.

Daniel S. Warner, a holiness preacher in the American mid-west, founded the Church of God in 1872. From this group have come such notable figures as Doug Oldham, Bill and Gloria Gaither, and other prominent Christian musicians [just a note: this is a statement of fact, not an endorsement]. The group is not charismatic, although there are connections between the Church of God and the original Azusa Street revival. The preacher who led that meeting was at some point defrocked by the Church of God, partly because of his teachings on the Holy Spirit, if I recall correctly.

Over time, like so many religious groups, the Church of God drifted from its foundations. By the time I was a teenager (1970-1975) compromise in many forms appeared within its ranks. Some of its teachers were out and out liberals in theology. One of the distinctives of the CoG is its resistance to any kind of creeds, hence they have no safe guard whatsoever on theological drift. [That is not to say that a creed by itself will prevent drift.]

During these years, my first fundamentalist hero did what he could to stem the drift in the denominational organs of our group. My second fundamentalist hero did the same. These men failed in their efforts, but their vigor and conviction instilled a fundamentalist spirit in me.

One of these men is my dad. My dad grew up on a homestead on the Alberta prairies, went to a one room school house through grade 9 and finished grade 10 by correspondence. He later took a few grade 12 courses by correspondence while working to support his young family. Through the years he has been a reader and has educated himself at least to the equivalent of a bachelors degree, by my assessment. He made his way in this world first by working on oil drilling rigs in our oil rich province, then by starting an insurance and a real estate business in our home town. (I can remember the days when he would work graveyard on the rigs, then go work in his office all day long. Sometimes customers would have to wake him up at his desk to do business.)

My dad grew up with a God-fearing Irish mother and an unsaved father. As a young man, various circumstances and the influence of two godly pastors led my dad to Christ and discipled him in the Christian walk. It was in my home church that my dad met my mother and the rest is history.

My second fundamentalist hero was my mother’s brother. My uncle grew up on a slightly more prosperous farm north of Edmonton, with a godly mother and an unsaved father. (Both of my grandfather’s professed faith in Christ late in life.) My uncle was also born again as an adult. He pursued the ministry, attending Alberta Bible Institute, my mother’s alma mater, and then serving in pastorates in each of the four western provinces of Canada for the Church of God. He went to glory after his last pastorate, suffering from brain cancer.

These men were involved sometimes separately and sometimes together in agitating for true doctrine and fidelity to the fundamentals of the faith within the Church of God. Recently, while researching something else, I ran across copies of letters from 1980. Three were written by my dad, and one by my uncle.

It did my heart good to see the words of these men who made an impression on me for their courage to stand in the face of withering criticism and opposition. They manifested the grace of God and willingness to fight for the faith which must characterize true believers.

I plan to post these letters here to give you a sense of the kind of men they are. For me they are two of my first fundamentalist heros.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Filed Under: Family, Fundamentalism, Issues, Memories, Personal, Uncategorized
by on 11.16.06

on the Spirit walk (sermon summary)

Tonight we were on Gal 5-6. I called the message “The Spirit Walk“. In Galatians, there are three great points Paul makes: I am an apostle, so you better listen (applies to all of us); Justification is by Faith alone, the first doctrine of the church; and now sanctification is by faith also.

This concept is perhaps one of the hardest for us to get about Christian living. Humans think that the only way to produce righteousness is to restrain evil. In this evil world, we do need to restrain evil, no doubt about it. But we won’t produce holiness, righteousness, or sanctified saints that way. Paul says ‘For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness.’ [gal 5.5 esv] This is justification and ultimate sanctification all wrapped up into one. What is the hope of righteousness that we are waiting for? The righteousness that comes when our blessed hope comes, when we will sin no more. We wait for that righteousness by faith, believing it will come. Then Paul says: ‘For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.’ [gal 5.6 esv] In the meantime, between justification and the righteousness to come, we live by faith (not the OT Law) and we are sanctified by faith which works by love: Love for God, Love for man.

This Spirit walk is successful when we walk in the Spirit, not in the flesh (5.16). If we walk in the flesh, the result is not righteousness but the works of the flesh. If we walk in the Spirit, the result is the fruit of the Spirit, love joy peace, etc. because we are not fulfilling the lusts of the flesh. We do this by loving God and loving others, the ‘more excellent way’, and the Great Commandment that is over the Law (which was fulfilled in Christ anyway). We don’t need the works of the Law for sanctification, we need faith which works by love.

I didn’t have time tonight to actually cover ch. 6 which gives us two applicatons of walking the Spirit walk, but the whole concept was quite a blessing to us as we considered it.

The key is this: We must work our faith by love – we can’t just somehow mystically ‘believe’ and BAM we are sanctified. We have to work our faith by love for God and love for others.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Filed Under: Sermon Summaries
by on 11.13.06

on the first missionary journey and its aftermath (sermon summaries 11.12.06)

Today we come to Paul’s first missionary journey, the first major step in the ‘uttermost parts’ expansion of the church. My theory is that Ac 12 sees the apostles generally forced out of Jerusalem for their own safety, the basic foundation of the church is laid in Judea, Samaria, and Galilee, and now the Lord is using the apostles to push the church farther into the civilised world.

Our first message concentrated on the stoning at Lystra, with a summary of the whole first missionary journey (Ac 13-14). The title was “They Returned to Lystra” and the basic theme was evangelism. Here is my proposition: Gospel work needs Christian men and women who are willing to risk themselves for the sake of the witness. I began by showing the persistence of Paul and Barnabas by giving the overall survey of their ministry, then their persistence in the whole region, especially Lystra, after the stoning. The thing that is amazing about the healing or resurrection of Paul is that he returned to the city. He wasn’t about to let the opposition keep him from his task or from his flock. The next day he went to Derbe and evangelised many people there. When the work in Derbe was finished, They Returned to Lystra, and Iconium, and Antioc, the places where the most fierce opposition had been fomented. Their purpose was to encourage and stabilise the saints and to appoint elders – they persisted. Were they successful? Well, consider Ac 16.1 – Timothy is the fruit of this ministry, he was from Lystra. Consider Ac 20.4, and Gaius of Derbe. The work was significant. I closed the message with these words: We are plagued with a pathological desire to be well liked and well thought of. Have you ever considered what an idol that desire is? One of the reasons we are ineffective for Christ is because we will not risk ourselves for his gospel. None of us in our church have ever been slugged for the gospels sake, but we have been evil spoken of. For our precious ‘id’, we are tempted to keep silent!

The second message saw us turn to Galatians. I believe Galatians was written from Antioch of Syria immediately after the first missionary journey, making it the first of the Pauline epistles and second book of the NT to be written (unless Matthew got his gospel out before it). After Paul’s departure, false teachers, Judaizers, came in exalting circumcision and teaching that it was required for salvation. They were also apparently attacking Paul’s authority and apostleship. The first two chapters mostly defend this second charge, so our second message was “The Authority of Paul”. This is significant because over one half of the NT is written by Paul. It is important to establish right away that Paul possesses equal authority with the other apostles. Paul makes assertions concerning his apostleship, he was appointed directly by the Lord not by men, he received his gospel of the Lord, not from men. Paul points out that he had two visits to Jerusalem since his conversion, both times he was accepted by the apostles and affirmed by them. He was not required to change anything, and Titus, a Gentile accompanying him, was not required to be circumcised. These claims are important because the Galatians could write to the apostles Paul named for independent confirmation. Furthermore, Paul established his equal authority in his rebuke and correction of Peter (something that I think happened before the 1st missionary journey). Paul corrected the pope!! (Just kidding, there is no pope!) The point is, however, that Peter accepted his correction, backing Paul up a few months later in the Jerusalem counsel (Ac 15) and calling Paul ‘our beloved brother’ in his 2nd epistle. Why is the authority of Paul important? It is important for the integrity of the NT as I mentioned, but it is important for us as well. When Paul speaks in the epistles, we are obligated to listen. My proposition explains why: “Paul’s teaching carries the authority of the literal voice of God because of Paul’s role in God’s kingdom.” When Paul speaks, it is the voice of God. You are obliged to listen and obey.

Our last message covered Gal 3-4 and “Justified by Faith“. I call this the ‘first doctrine of the church’ because it is the first one articulated and it is the founding genius of the New Testament church. It is the ‘so what’ of Peter’s confession, Thou art the Christ. I showed how Paul defended justification against the charge of antinomianism; defended it by the witness of Christian experience (the baptism of the Spirit) and the witness of the Abrahamic promise, where the gospel was preached in the OT by the promise of blessing to the nations; defended it by explaining the curse of the Law and Christ being made a curse for us; and finally defended it by explaining the function of the law as the schoolmaster bringing us to Christ. In this message I made a big point that you can’t be saved by the Law or any law. You can’t be saved by prayer. (I used an illustration of a friend of my wife, living in sin, who wrote her a letter saying, “Oh, I’m all right. Remember that prayer I prayed with you that time?” – you can’t be saved by prayer, you must be saved by faith alone). You can’t be saved by going forward at an invitation, by baptism, by church attendance, by any work you think should get you credit with God. You are only saved by faith. “The true church has always held this doctrine.”

All in all, it was a great day today. We had one visitor, someone whom we have had a good deal of contact with in the past. This person has been living a very wicked lifestyle and is now back, claiming to want to break with the past. In attendance for all three services, we hope that the commitment is real this time. There was openness on the face and seemed to be some honesty in the look. I hope it is real and not just seeing what I want to see.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Filed Under: Uncategorized
by on 11.9.06

on an unsatisfactory sermon

I am sure the other preachers out there know what I am talking about. The sermon that looks golden in the study and tastes like sawdust in the mouth. Wednesday night was one of those.

The topic was excellent, the material superb (it is the Word of God!), the content was orthodox and the delivery was dry. Ashes, ashes, ashes… Perhaps this comes of depending too much on the intellect and not enough on the Spirit.

At any rate, our through the New Testament series took us to the last three chapters of the book of James for a summary type message. I chose the text Jas 3.13-18, the passage on ‘the wisdom from above‘ to summarize the whole. The main concept of the message was that James (and the Lord) wants us to really live our testimony of wisdom and understanding – ‘Who is wise and understanding among you?’ Show your wisdom! The message is that the disciple of long standing ought to be wise. He ought to be understanding (a word that implies expertise as the result of long experience.) So why the trouble with the tongue? (3.1-12) Why the trouble with quarrels and strife? (4.1-12) Why the boastfulness? (4.13-17) Why the greed? (5.1-6) Replace it with the wisdom from above, patient endurance, fervent prayer, concern for others (5.7-20). Live your wisdom, just as James urges us to live your faith in ch. 1-2.

I don’t know why excellent material sometimes seems like such dry technical sawdust in the mouth. In the dead of the rainy winter here, I frequently feel this way, though I don’t often preach this way. May God help us depend only on his Spirit for power in the pulpit! Get self out of the way and let our dear Lord be seen.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Filed Under: Uncategorized
by on 11.9.06

on an opportunity to rejoice with them that rejoice

And that would be me, my wife, and starvin’ kids.

Well, they’re not ‘starvin’, but three of them are in University. The adjective just sounded good.

Almost two years ago I purchased a duplex for the purpose of subdividing it into two titles and reselling it. Along the way the place would need extensive renovation. I little knew how extensive it would be. My projected six month job stretched into two years. One little surprise for me was waiting in the crawlspace – six inches of standing water, i.e., drainage problems. So we hired a contractor to dig up the sidewalks and decks and install new perimeter drains. The city also ended up requiring me to remove the old firewall in the crawlspace and install new, cover the floor of the crawl space in 6 mm poly, and install a sump pump on each side. I think we have the drainage problem as licked as it is going to get.

I had to install exhaust fans in the bathrooms (4 of them), upgrade the insulation in the attic to R-35 value, install gable vents and ‘whirlybird’ vents in the roof. In the renovated side we replaced all bathroom fixtures, the kitchen cabinets, all the flooring and painted. We put ‘click’ flooring in the family room and dining room. We build two decks. And on and on… I am sure there are other smaller things, and of course fixing our mistakes too! (I recall ruining one of my interior doors by shortening it too much!)

All in all, many hours were spent on this project, working a day or two a week for about a year and a half.

Last Wednesday, the city gave me approval for the subdivision. I put the sign in the lawn. Came down for prayer meeting. One of my men prayed that the pastor would get a quick sale. We walked out of our meeting room and my phone rang. The next night I had a written offer from a nice young couple – Christians, it turns out. Today before supper they called to let me know the financing has been approved and everything is unconditional now!

I spent eighteen years all told as a realtor. I have never had a sale happen that easily! Praise the Lord for his grace and goodness.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Filed Under: Uncategorized
by on 11.8.06

on the place of wit

I mentioned earlier that I recently finished reading the book The King James Bible Translators by Olga S. Opfell. The book is an excellent source for brief sketches of most of the translators.

One of them, Sir Henry Savile, was a member of the Second Oxford Company, responsible for the translation of Matthew-Acts and Revelation. He held two positions when the translation work was done, warden of Merton College and provost of Eton. He was a strong disciplinarian and from Opfell’s description sounds like an agressive, ambitious leader. In Opfell’s account of him, this little gem falls from his mouth as an evidence of his philosophy:

Like the students at Merton, the Etonians were subject to Savile’s strict discipline. Once when somebody recommended a young scholar as a good wit, Savile retorted, “Out upon him … give me the plodding student. If I would look for wits, I would go to the prison [Newgate]; there be the wits.” p. 79

There is a good deal of wisdom in that statement. We live in the age of the cheap laugh. Low comedy fills the television hours, coarse and profane humour is proffered by the great wit of the job site, laughter and scorn is on the lips of the indolent youths hanging out at our local coffee house. The sober-minded and serious are hard to find.

Now I would not advocate that the Christian leader be humourless. Good humour can relax tense situations, if deftly used. Good humour makes the parson seem somewhat human. But humour and wit is in plentiful supply these days. Better that we be known for love of God and thoughtful spiritual leadership than for our wit.

I recall talking to some of our then teens about their favorite camp speaker over the years. They liked the ones who were funny best. The preachers who seriously exposed the word made little impression, but the clowns were liked. And the lives of these teens reflected what their hearts delighted in.

Let us be known rather for our witness than for our wit.

Proverbs 10:23 It is as sport to a fool to do mischief: but a man of understanding hath wisdom.

Proverbs 26:18 As a mad man who casteth firebrands, arrows, and death, 19 So is the man that deceiveth his neighbour, and saith, Am not I in sport?

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Filed Under: Uncategorized
by on 11.6.06

on the move of the church out of Jerusalem (sermon summaries 11.5.06)

Sunday was a day where we saw several unsaved visitors. I knew some of them were coming ahead of time and one of our messages involved a clear presentation of the gospel and what conversion means. I had written the message before the news of their plans to attend, so it seemed clear to me that the Lord was directing our paths once again. So far we have no more than ‘friendly’ comments from those who visited. In a way, I would rather have some tension, since that would indicate conviction of sin, but at least it is a step and an open door to further contacts.

The first message covered Ac 8-11 and four conversion scenarios. I entitled it “Unlikely Converts“. The proposition was: The living examples of life-change (and church-change) recorded for us in Acts are samples of the kind of change possible for anyone who is not a Christian. (Kind of an unwieldy sentence, I think! I need to work on that. The introduction to this message was too wordy also.) The message involved highlighting the dramatic changes that occured in the lives of various peopel, starting with the Samaritans (from demonism to Christ) with possibly a conterfeit convert in Simon the sorcerer. Next we covered the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch, a high government official who gladly humbled himself to the rite of baptism as a testimony of his faith in Christ. Next was Saul, from persecutor to preacher. And last was Cornelius, opening the door of his heart to Christ from a background of paganism, and participating in the opening of the gospel to the rest of hte world. The theme of this message was change, the possibility of change, the variety of change, the need of change in the most desperate to the most high in society.

The second message centered on Ac 12, but reviewed aspects of the preceding chapters as well. It was called “To the Uttermost Parts” as I showed how the Lord was moving the church out of Jerusalem. First, we reviewed the foundational ministry of the apostles for the church. In Ac 8, Peter and John are sent to validate and confirm the work of Philip in Samaria. Peter uses the keys to the kingdom and through his prayers the Holy Spirit is sent to the Samaritans. Then when Saul is converted, Peter meets with him (see also Gal 1) and confirms the work of God in Saul’s heart. Later, Peter follows in the footsteps of Philip (trace the geography of Philip’s movements in Ac 8, compare with Peter’s in Ac 9-10), apparently again in a supervisory and confirming role. In this work, Peter again is employed in using the keys to the kingdom in opening the door to the Gentiles. I pointed out here that the apostles are seen as the foundations of the city of God, the bride of the Lamb (Rev 21) and that the Lord gave them this role in Mt 16.19 in announcing the keys to the kingdom, the binding and loosing, etc. All of this foundational ministry occurred while the apostles were centered in Jerusalem from Ac 1-12. After Ac 12, the apostles are mentioned as a group on only one more occasion, the Jerusalem council, Ac 15-16. They are never mentioned as a group again. It appears that they may have been called back to Jerusalem for the council. In Ac 12, events occur that appear to be driving at least some of the apostles out of Jerusalem. James the brother of John is killed. Peter is imprisoned and slated for execution. On his release, he realizes he has to leave town, sending a message to ‘James and the brethren’. Who are ‘the brethren’? It could be the other apostles, but perhaps it is not. Perhaps, like Peter, they are now on their way out of Jerusalem for their own safety and future ministry. At any rate, it does appear that they are eventually no longer needed in Jerusalem. In Paul’s last visit to Jerusalem, he meets with James and the elders, no mention of apostles (Ac 21). This leaves James, the Lord’s brother, as the head of the church of Jerusalem, and it is in this context of persecution and trouble that he writes, probably in the next year, that most pastoral of epistles, the epistle of James. He is ministering to the needs of saints under pressure as they are being scattered all over the world.

The last message of the day, then, turned to the book of James. We covered just James 1-2 in a message entitled “Faith Under Trial“. Proposition: The Christian needs real, living, practiced faith in order to stand for God in times of trial. First, we covered The testing of your faith (1.1-18), then The living of your faith (1.19-2.13), and last The reality of your faith (2.14-26). The general thrust of the message was on genuine conversion. You can’t just talk, you must do, you can’t just say you believe Christ, you must live like you believe Christ. This message seemed the strongest of the three, yet there are hearts that still seem hard to it. May God’s Holy Spirit use the words to bring conviction.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

P.S. Here is the link to the notes from last Wednesday night’s message.

Filed Under: Uncategorized
by on 11.3.06

on a quote about KJV style

I picked up a little book on writing in a thrift store last spring. I think I payed all of one dollar for a hardback… The book is On Writing Well: The Classic Guide to Writing Nonfiction by William Zinsser, a former professor at Yale, well known editor, etc. If you can find this book, I highly recommend it. It is actually a very enjoyable read with some laugh out loud sections on various points of writing. I don’t know if it has improved my writing, although I do find myself paying more attention to how I phrase things.

In a section where Zinsser pushes writing with active verbs, he has this interesting little quote:

If you want to see how active verbs give vitality to the written word, don’t just go back to Hemingway or Thurber or Thoreau, I commend the King James Bible and William Shakespeare. [p. 112]

Zinsser is not a believer, I am sure. But this observation is interesting. I would like to know how well the modern versions have followed this pattern by the KJV translators. Perhaps this element of the KJV explains some of its enduring quality. While I am not against the need to modernize, I do love the KJV phraseology on so many points. Sometimes the newer versions seem just kind of wimpy and anemic. Perhaps we could start a new slogan, “Real men read the KJV.”

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Filed Under: Uncategorized
« Previous Page
Next Page »