Soul DeSaenz

Movin' On Up

2007-12-07T23:33:00.000-08:00

Soul DeSAenz has moved! Please look for me at

http://souldesaenz.wordpress.com/

thank you all for reading this blog, I have moved all the posts and comments over to wordpress, I hope you like the new digs!

jesus

On The Free Will of Man, II

2007-12-04T17:32:00.000-08:00

I have chosen to respond to the comments left by ElShaddai Edwards by starting a new post rather than reply in the combox. Hopefully we can both be edified by this.

The understanding I've come to is that God knowingly created man with the natural inclination to sin and desire to choose to be selfish over selfless [Genesis 8:21].

21 And when the Lord smelled the pleasing aroma, the Lord said in his heart, “I will never again curse [1] the ground because of man, for the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done. The context of the passage is not dealing with man's free will. Noah has just finished building an altar to the Lord and offered up a sacrifice v.20. Of all the people on the planet only Noah and his family found grace in the eyes of God, Gen. 6:8, the rest perished in the flood. After the flood, Noah was being obedient to offer a sacrifice and the aroma of the sacrifice is what was pleasing to the Lord. God then states that man's heart is evil from his youth that would include Noah's heart as well. The doctrine of Total Depravity is not that all men are as evil as they can possibly be but that every aspect of them has suffered due to the fall, no one can come to the Father unless the father first draws him, John 6:44. The topic of Genesis 8 is not about mans free will or his choosing to be selfless and even if you wanted to use it in such a manner you would have a hard time demonstrating that from just that verse since it never mentions that Noah, of his own free will did these things.

From the start, God also created the framework of redemption whereby sinful man could be reconciled to God: through the blood of Christ, the perfect form or pattern of redemption [Revelation 13:8], which was first revealed through the Law.

Redemption has always been through grace and not by the law. As I mentioned earlier, Noah found favor with God (Gen 6:8), Abraham's faith was accounted to him as righteousness (Gen 15:6), and Moses as well (Exo 33:12,13). God's redemption through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross was not a framework but rather it was a perfect work. Jesus did not make salvation possible, he made it a finished work on the cross. Jesus' salvation of the elect was accomplished on the cross and not when man of his free will chooses to be saved. Hebrews 7:25 tells us that Jesus saves to the uttermost and is even now interceding for us with the father. Not just that, it was God who chose His people before the foundation of the world, Eph 1:4 v.5 tells us that he predestined us to adoption. Man is incapable of predestining himself to salvation. Read John 6, salvation is the work of God, not of mans free will choice.

God's will exists on a sovereign level and a moral level, but not on an individual level [cf. Garry Friesen]. We can choose to make choices based on the wisdom of God's moral will, i.e. the Bible, or continue in a selfish manner without his guidance.

God's will is personal. He call us his sheep, he knows us by name, he chose us and predestined us to salvation. He works all things according tot he council of His will (Eph 1:11), surely his will is individual and personal. Of course we are free to make choices but that does not mean that we can freely choose God since we are spiritually dead and enslaved to our sin. ElShaddai, can you unpack this premise in your second sentence?

God has given us the moral wisdom to accept his unmerited gift of salvation, but we still have to choose to accept that gift. Our salvation is not secure until we confess our innate sinfulness and ask to be expiated by the blood of Christ, accepting him as Lord.

If then the final say on salvation is man's choice it follows that salvation is not based grace but rather works. It takes the completed work of Christ and makes it void and meaningless until man exercises his freewill to be the final piece of this puzzle called salvation, it is not a complete work until man acts upon it. Christ then died for no one in particular only making it salvation possible. But then is not God that called us, foreknew us, predestined us, conforms us to the image of Christ, justified us and will glorify us? Romans 8:28-30

With this acceptance in mind, we begin to be transformed so that our thoughts and actions are not guided by reaction and impulse and human pretension, however well intentioned, but by the discipline of obeying God [Romans 12:2].

Romans 12:2 is not addressed to the world in general but to the elect in Rome. Paul is speaking to the believers, telling them not to be conformed to the world but transformed by the renewing of the their mind. The non-believer is not subject to this appeal because he is dead in his sin.

Finally, the free will of a Christian is not the freedom to make any choice that we care to, but the freedom to make the only choice of forcing every thought to be a captive prisoner of Christ and subject to His sovereign will.

Once again, the validity of mans free will is assumed but never demonstrated. The natural man is at enmity with the Lord, the sinner hates God and God hates the sinner. Psalm 5:5, Romans 8:7-8

ElSheddai, thanks for commenting on my blog!

On The Free Will of Man

2007-11-29T19:31:00.000-08:00

Several days ago I was having dinner with a couple of friends. During conversation the topic of mans free will came up. They are not Reformed in their theology thus they hold fast to mans free will. It is interesting to try and speak with someone regarding this topic because in my opinion, those that proclaim the validity of it are demonstrating their sinful, humanistic nature in that they deny the sovereign will of God and hold their will as an equal to that of the Lord and creator. Ultimately, if the final decision regarding salvation is mans and not God's then man has usurped the will of God, the election and predestination of God, the atoning, propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.

If the free will of man is so apparent as a doctrine, can it be as fully explained through scripture as the Trinity? With many of the people I have discussed this with, free will is always assumed and never even demonstrated through scripture, at most they only offer verses that deal with an individual making choices but never demonstrate free will. Sadly, most equivocate when using the term or they do not understand that a denial of free will is not a denial of an ability to make choices. The apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans tells us that God's mercy and compassion on man is not based on the will or exertion of man but rather on God, Rom. 9:16. This follows right after the demonstration of God's purpose of election in verse 11. Here, Paul establishes that God's election of Jacob over Esau was not based on the works of either since the election was before either had done anything good or bad. This verse too follows after Ch.3 v 11-12, where Paul tells us that there are none righteous, none seek after God and that none do good... not even one.

Who then is sovereign? Is man? Is God? Are they both sovereign or do they both work together to secure salvation? If then God alone is sovereign then His election to salvation is not based on anything outside of God including mans choices. If salvation is based on the free will choices of man then God is no longer sovereign since His election to salvation is now dependent upon man's free will choice. If then salvation is wholly dependent upon man choosing then the work of Christ on the cross has been made void and empty until that very day that man decided to choose. The propitiatory sacrifice is no longer a perfect work that saves to the uttermost rather it only makes salvation a possibility which is only effective when and if man so chooses.

Famous or Infamous?

2007-11-20T21:32:00.000-08:00

Earlier this year I began looking for a new Bible. I had been more than a little disappointed with my most recent purchase which at that time was a little more than a year old, a Life Application Study Bible. It is a large book at 6.5" x 9.5" x 2", bound in bonded leather and the spine is glued. The price of the Bible was around $70.00 which to me at that time seemed like a lot to spend on a Bible but thought it was an investment. Sadly the Bible didn't last quite as long as I had expected. Thus began my search for my next Bible.

I started looking for a new study Bible as well as a new translation. I decided on The Reformation Study Bible(ESV) but along with it I also was interested in and bought the 1599 Geneva Bible after reading a review by J. Mark Bertrand. He had an entire section in his blog that was all about Bibles, nice Bibles. I read and re-read all he had written about Bibles and I finally had an understanding of what a fine binding was. Ever since buying my first Bible I wanted a truly nice Bible but didn't have an idea of what that was as most Christian bookstores do not usually stock premium Bibles.

Thankfully there are companies that still make these very expensive books and people like Mark Bertrand who take the time write about and photograph them. He now has a new site that is strictly dedicated to this pursuit. Here, Bibliophiles can talk about the aspects of Bibles and Bible design that are of interest. Recently, one of the regular commentators to the blog sent a picture of his stack of Bibles to Mark. After posting in the comments section all of my recent acquisitions, Mark asked me to send him a picture of my Bibles so he could write about as well. Read it here.

I guess this sort of shopping spree is unusual. Hmm, thats just odd!

From top to bottom; 1) Cambridge Pitt Minion NASB goatskin, 2) Cambridge Cameo KJV blue Morocco, 3) Lockman Wide Margin NASB blue calfskin, 4) Crossway Deluxe Heirloom ESV black calfskin, 5) Crossway Single Column Reference ESV black calfskin, 6) R L Allan Reference ESV black Highland goatskin, 7) Crossway Thinline Cordovan ESV calfskin, 8) Lockman Wide Margin NASB black calfskin

J. Mark Bertrand is my homeboy!

Bible Paper. Too Thin or Not Opaque Enough?

2007-11-12T13:52:00.000-08:00

In the previous post on Crossway's Single Column Reference Bible I did something that led me to write this. I used to work as a machinist in the aerospace industry, although that didn't last long I still have some of my old tools including my micrometers. Since I was writing about the SCR and the biggest issue in the minds of possible customers to this fine Bible is the thickness of the paper. I brought out my two micrometers, one is a cheap, no name brand $20 throw away that I haven't yet thrown away. The other is a Swiss made Etalon Series 260 model 71.115899.

It took me a little longer than expected to re-learn how to read these micrometers. I measured the paper on the SCR and it came out to .0017" thick. I measured the paper carefully so as not to damage the paper nor to compress the paper and get a bad reading. There is a chance I didn't read the micrometer properly but that may not be as important as long I was able to demonstrate a difference between various Bible paper. I decided to measure all my Bibles and found something very interesting. The paper used on the SCR is not the thinnest and it seems to be the standard. I measured paper from several different publishers and paper thickness is not the culprit as much as opacity is. I have discussed the right type of pens to use for writing in your Bible but there are those that do not write in their Bibles yet bleed through is still an issue for them.

I am not an expert on paper. I know that is made of wood pulp along with other items such as cotton or linen, binders and chemicals to whiten or color the paper. Bible paper is made thin for obvious reasons, the Bible is quite a lengthy book. Were it to be made with regular book paper the Bible would be about 3" thick. Imagine trying to street witness with a Bible that is over 3" and weighs over 5 lbs.

.0013"- Cambridge Pitt Minion Reference Bible NASB.

.0013"- Classic Thinline Reference Bible ESV.

.0013"- Tyndale Life Application Study Bible NKJV.

.0014"- Cambridge Cameo King James Version (out of print)

.0017"- Tolle Lege 1599 Geneva Bible.

.0017"- Lockman Foundation In Touch Ministries Wide Margin Edition NASB.

.0017"= R L Allan Cross Reference ESV.

.0017"- Ligonier Ministries The Reformation Study Bible ESV.

.0017"- Crossway Single Column Reference Bible ESV.

.0020" Crossway Deluxe Heirloom Bible ESV.

The Deluxe Heirloom is sadly out of print. After the remaining stock on hand is sold there will not be any more made. This Bible was printed on 27 lbs. paper with wide margins and a 10.2 size font, a great edition for note takers. Of the Bibles with the thinnest paper, there wasn't one that was noticeably more opaque than the other, well the Life Application Study Bible appeared less opaque than the Pitt Minion or the Classic Thinline. This may be due to the size difference between the two smaller Bibles and the massive LASB. Of the Bibles that measured in at .0017", the Wide Margin NASB from The Lockman Foundation was nearly as opaque as the thicker Deluxe Heirloom ESV. The RSB the Geneva Bible and the ESV from Allan's all appeared about equal in opacity and just slightly less opaque than the Lockman NASB and the Single Column Reference Bible slightly less opaque than the previous three. I believe that the SCR was printed on 21 lbs. paper and the Thinline on 19 lbs. The weight of the paper is measured by weighing 500 sheets of 25" x 38" sheets. I have no objective way of measuring the opacity of the paper and simply went by my eyes. In case it matters I have 20/20 vision.

I hope that Bible publishers will realize the importance of providing a quality product and that there are a few whom are willing to pay extra for owning great books. I do not know the price difference in using thicker or more opaque paper per Bible. The opacity of the paper is increased by the use of titanium oxide. I am sure that the use of thicker or more opaque paper will make for a more expensive Bible... but how much more expensive? Crossway and Cambridge both make Bibles that are near or over $200 but can be found for anywhere between $90 and $150. R L Allan make some truly fine Bibles but the ESV in Highland goatskin is, depending on the exchange rate, $175.00. They have editions that are over $200. Clearly there is a market for truly premium Bibles. I used an inexpensive Bible for many years even though I wanted a "better" Bible, I didn't know exactly what a "better Bible" was. Most bookstores, Christian or not, do not usually carry these premium editions. Most people do not demand for better because they do not know better is available. That may be why cheaper and cheaper paper is used and why very few publishers offer sewn bindings and premium leather covers, not that hard plastic that is being passed for genuine leather. The surprise of all the Bibles I measured was the Cameo KJV from Cambridge. This is an old Bible from the late '70's. It's paper is 0014" and is just as opaque as Deluxe Heirloom ESV whose paper is .0020" thick.

If you build it, we will come.

ESV Single Column Reference Bible... Or The Myth of The Too Thin Paper

2007-11-07T12:08:00.000-08:00

Truth be told, I am a little late jumping on the ESV bandwagon. So I have decided to drive my own bandwagon. This is not the first review of the Single Column Reference Bible in the ESV translation published by my friends over at Crossway/Good News Publishers. I will be reviewing the SCR in black premium calfskin leather and will attempt to give more than a perfunctory review. Yes, I am a fan of the ESV translation but it is not the only translation I use nor is it the only one I recommend. I think everyone should use more than one translation, including the KJV, NASB and NIV. I also recommend the use of a Bible quiver, more than one Bible for specific use.

By God's good grace we live in a time and place when where we can own a Bible let alone a plethora. Believe it or not, there are places on this planet where Bibles are outlawed and have to be smuggled in. Trying to keep things in perspective, there are saints that are happy to have just one Bible. One! They probably do not care if it's a paperback or hardback, genuine leather or Trutone or whatever proprietary name is given to the fake leather. They are happy to own a Bible, lest we forget what a luxury we have. I say this only because there seems to be too much nit-picking about Bibles.

This leads me to why I have decided to write this blog. The internet, like most other things have very good aspects to them that can easily be exploited. In the dark ages b.p.c (before personal computers) news travelled much... much slower than it does today. News used to take hours, yes... hours to get to us, now with everybody owning computers and with new technological advancements like the Apple i-Phone you can get news as it is happening no matter where you are. Another thing that travels at the speed of life, aside from the news, are myths and urban legends.

Far too many Bible reviews are simply bogus. According to Rick Mansfield there are 84 translations or paraphrases of the Bible in English. Aside from all the translations available there are different bindings, covers, colors and sizes to choose from. If that wasn't enough, you can also get a Bible that's made specific to your needs such as a Soldiers Bible, Marines Bible, Adventure Bibles, Blossom Complete New Testament, Duct Tape Bible, Revolution: The Bible For Teen Guys Bible, Mom's Devotional Bible, True Identity Bible and even a Woman Thou Art Loosed Bible... I am not joking. It is safe to say that there are Bibles that fill just about every niche out there, although I am still looking for a Too Fat and Too Old to Skateboard Bible in the SCC Version (So Cal Cholo.)

Since there are countless combinations of translations, bindings, covers, colors and sizes to choose from it is ridiculous to give a Bible a bad review for something that it was not intended for. I've seen people give a thinline Bible a bad review for having thin paper, or a compact Bible for having type too small for reading. If you are are willing to use only one Bible then you will have to compromise. If you want a Bible with large print set in a paragraph format with study notes, cross references, concordance and maps... you may have to give up portability. Judge a Bible for what it's intended purpose is. Study Bibles tend to be large and bulky, compact Bibles are small and portable. It's unreasonable to give a Bible a poor review for something it wasn't designed for so buy the Bible that suits your need.

Which leads me to Crossway's Single Column Reference. According to many reviews, it appears to suffer from paper that is too thin. Too thin for the purpose of note taking. Having been made with wide margins, note taking seems to be what it was made for. More on the paper, later.

The SCR was released earlier this year and features the ESV translation with the minor updates from 2006 which, really are very minor. The calfskin used by Crossway is among the best leather available by any publisher. The black calfskin is a matte black, it doesn't have the sheen that the goatskin leather on Cambridge or R L Allan Bibles. The cover is cut slightly larger than the book block itself and it is also leather lined making the covers very limp and durable. This copy has very soft leather with grain that is striated and a smell that is wonderful. The spine has 6 raised bands giving it that "old world craftsmanship" look. The stamping on the spine is precise, clean and straight. The leather cover itself is framed by a line that has been rolled or stamped 1/2" inside of the edge. When open, the book stays that way no matter where its opened to, in the hand, it feels like an old broken in baseball glove, an extension of your hand. This has much to do with the a binding that is smyth sewn, making this a Bible that will probably out last me.

The book block itself is 6.5" x 9.25" x 1.5", the leather cover is slightly larger but not a true semi-yapp. The Bible has color maps in the back with presentation page, marriage, birth and death page in the front. As with all ESV Bibles I have seen, this one has the preface which speaks of the history and philosophy behind the ESV translation as well as a section that gives an explanation to the features, such as how to use the cross references as there are over 80,000 of them. The Bible also features a concordance with over 14,500 entries. All this goes to make a very usable Bible for the purpose of in-depth studies.

Another feature that will help in making this a usable Bible is the readability. The font size is 10 point which some may say that it should be larger but because of the setting is more than enough to make this a very easy read. The layout of the page is not cluttered, the verses are not crammed and the cross references are on the inside margin making this a very neat layout. The chapter introductions are brief and are printed in a shaded portion at the top, as each chapter starts a new page. The chapter title, also at the top of the page and it's in a font different than the verses.

The feature that sets this Bible apart from many on the market is the single column setting. Most Bibles available are in a double column setting with cross references in the middle, this one however has the cross references on the inside margin and there is only one column of verses. Each verse starts a new line and there are paragraph marks to let the reader know when a paragraph starts. The space between the verses is roomy, especially in the poetic portions of the Old Testament. The side margins are a little more than an inch wide which is plenty of room for me to make my notes, but others may need slightly wider margins. The verses are bracketed by a thin line at the top, bottom and along the side inside of the cross references which is a very aesthetically pleasing detail. The type is distinctive and very readable even at arms length.

Now, to the paper. Everywhere from blogs to the comments section at Amazon, people mention the paper being too thin and it suffering from too much bleed through. This is a matter that has been blown out of proportion by a vocal few and been carried along by those that have yet to handle this book in person. This to me is a very subjective matter, although there is bleed through, it is not as distracting as some have suggested. If bleed through is an issue, this may not be the Bible for you but if it is something that is not so important. In my opinion it is not much more than other Bibles and for as good a Bible as this is, it something that should be overlooked. If you are going to take notes in this Bible do not use highlighters, use pigment liners to underline. Not only will they not bleed through they will keep your Bible looking neat. For writing your notes use the 005 and for underlining do not use anything bigger than a 03, 01 or 02 are preferable. The 01 will appear as dark as the print itself from the other side.

Paper too thin? I don't know, maybe. As I said thats a subjective matter. What I can tell you is that I dug out my old micrometers and measured the thickness, well, attempted to measure. It's been such a long time since I had used them I am not sure if I read them correctly but the paper is .0017" thick. There is some bleed through but it's not distracting and if you use the right pens, underlining and note taking will not be a problem. You can even use colors that will be less not noticeable than black, be sure to try them out prior to use in less visible spot like the concordance to be sure you are happy with the results. The only issue I have with this Bible is the ribbon markers, much too thin for a book this big, aside from that, kudos to Crossway for putting together a very elegant and useful tool for the study of Gods Word.

Check out the WTS Bookstore for the best price on the Single Column Reference ESV.

Hamlet... finally on DVD

2007-11-05T21:51:00.000-08:00

In the summer of 1996, I sat in the old Laemmle's Royal Theatre on Santa Monica Boulevard not realizing what it was I was about to experience. The theatre itself is old, not shabby or unkempt but old and it wasn't even a multiplex, when was the last time you sat in a single screen theatre? All of this was only part of what I consider to be one of the greatest movie going experiences ever. The other part of it was the movie itself. Hamlet.

What is considered by many to be the greatest play ever written by the greatest writer of the English language. William Shakespear's Hamlet starring and directed by Kenneth Branagh is quite possibly the greatest version of this great work but also one of the greatest films of all time. Branagh put together a varied cast of very talented and able actors, set the film in a late 19th century setting, used a lavish setting but more importantly shot the movie using 70 mm film stock. Few are the directors that can take 70 mm film and create works of art. David Lean(Lawrence of Arabia) is one, Branaugh happened to be another. At four times the size of 35 mm film, the larger format provides amazing color and wide angle that lesser directors get lost with, for example, Ron Howard with Far and Away.

After its theatrical release, Branagh's Hamlet was mired with distribution problems that delayed its release on DVD for 10 years. The wait is now over with the recent release by Warner Home Video. Branagh's version is by far the best. It is unabridged and runs nearly four hours. The acting by Branagh is better than that of the great, Olivier, who's Hamlet was narcissistic and a bit whiney. In 1991, Mel Gibson starred in the title and seemed almost overwhelmed by the role. The depth and complexity inherent to the play is handled effortlessly. The film is stylish without being pretentious and it takes its time without being slow.

This uncut version is so superior to those that came before because it allows for the full development of all the players. The action isn't rushed and the depth of the play becomes easier to grasp. The soliloquy from Act III Scene I is amazing as Hamlet speaks to his reflection in a large mirror. Branagh's cinematic skills are in effect without overpowering the film, the camera work is fluid. If you haven't yet seen it, do yourself a favor and do so!

I Think I Need to Change My Name

2007-11-01T21:10:00.000-07:00

I couple of day ago, I was listening to an old broadcast of The Dividing Line, hosted by Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries and I heard him make a comment about the people in the chat channel. It wasn't the first time he had mentioned the chat channel and I even looked for it in the past but couldn't find until Tuesday when I searched through the AO Min site again and finally found it. So I submitted my name and a password and made my way into the chat.

Well, the people already on didn't seem to take to kindly to my "nickname". The thing is, I didn't use a nickname, I used my actual name and one of the moderators, I am assuming, thought it was suspicious for someone to be coming on to a Christian based chat room with the name Jesus. He tried contacting me but I am not the sharpest tool in the shed when it comes to computers so when I didn't respond right away, he bounced me. I did get back on and explained who I was and it was fine after that. I went back on to the chat channel later and again used my real name not a nickname, this time Dr. White was on and asked me to explain my nickname which showed up as jesussaenz. I explained again that it was my actual name and everybody was cool about it. Some of the people on there actually knew from Gene Cook's webcast The Narrow Mind.

Earlier today, I sent an email to the bookstore at Westminster Theological Seminary. They were a little surprised when Jesus wanted to link to their bookstore. You can take a look at the comments about it on Alex Leung's blog where Mark from WTS writes about the email and about Alex getting comments from Jesus.

Of course it's a cultural thing, as only Hispanics name their children Jesús. I thought of using a nickname associated with the name Jesús which is Chuy but then all the jokes about Chewbacca would've ensued... oh well. I just need to get better known as a blogger so people know about Jesús and Jesus. Speaking of "better known", Crossway Publishers whom publish the English Standard Version translation of the Bible linked to my blog about the pigment pens.

Jesus... is not the Messiah?

2007-10-27T18:57:00.000-07:00

For quite some time, John Hagee has been one of the larger supporters of Israel. He is one of the most outspoken supporters in the evangelical community in America having founded an organization called Christians United for Israel. Earlier this month Hagee's new book was released called In Defense of Israel. In this book, Hagee attempts to show how the Christian community needs to do more than just pray for Israel. John Hagee's adoration of the nation of Israel has led him to write a book that can be seen as being antichrist. In his blind love of a nation that is apostate, he has made claims that Jesus was not the Messiah and that the Jews cannot be held accountable for denying Him.

Is this what happens when one takes Dispensational Theology to it's logical conclusion? He sees a clear distinction between the Church and Israel which has lead to him making these claims.

Reformation Study Bible $15.17

2007-10-27T18:47:00.000-07:00

For one day only, Ligonier Ministries will be selling their Reformation Study Bible in the ESV translation for only $15.17 to commemorate the Reformation. The sale will be on Wednesday. October 31. You can call the toll free number or order online.

What to use for writing in your Bible

2007-10-21T18:37:00.000-07:00

Writing in your Bible is something that many people do but few do it judiciously. Many people only mark their Bible according to what they hear from the weekly sermon and after a while they underline or highlight everything making the actual process of marking your Bible pointless. There are many people that do not make any additional marks in their Bible and some even consider it heresy. I believe that if done properly marking in your Bible can be a very useful way to better understand the Word of God.

Wide margin Bibles were made for just such a purpose. They have a wider margin than most Bibles and are usually printed on thicker paper to avoid any bleed through when using pens or highlighters. Even though you don't have a wide margin Bible you can still underline and make small notes in whatever Bible you own.

So now that you want to write in your Bible, what to use? First I will tell you what not to use. Do not use hi-liters. Aside from looking ugly they are usually too fluid and bleed through to the other side of the page that may make it a bit distracting. After a while the pages look like one big fluorescent stain. The ink in most cases is not of archival quality thus over time the ink will degrade the paper. Dry mark highlighters are nothing more than colored pencils. I do not recommend the use of pencils as they can fade or smudge but more than that, they also damage the paper. Bible paper is thin and if you use a pencil or a even a ball point or roller ball pen you will dent the sheet you are writing on as well as a few pages below. If you have used pens or pencils in the past you will be able to feel the words on the back side of the page you wrote on.

No pencils, no pens, no highlighters... 'den what? Archival quality pens. These pens are a type of technical pen used by engineers or draftspersons. They are cheaper and more durable than most technical pens and can be found at most art stores as well as large office supply stores. They have a long metal tip with a soft writing nib which is ideal for using with a ruler. The soft nib also helps prevent damaging the paper or denting the pages you are writing on. You have to press really hard to make the sort of indentations you can easily make using a pen or a pencil.

The biggest reason for using an archival quality pen is the ink, or rather the pigment. These pens use pigment ink rather than dye ink. Pigment ink is chemically stable, its pH is neutral, it is non-acidic and non-alkaline so it will not cause the paper to degrade over time. The pigment molecule is also larger than the dye molecule. It will outlast dye ink under extreme sun exposure... not that any of you will leave your Bible open for days at a time the next time you visit the Sahara but at least your notes will not fade. The larger pigment molecule is not just less susceptible to degradation it also helps in preventing bleeding or spreading which is a plus when you consider the thickness of most Bible paper. The pigment stays on the surface of the paper more than dye inks. The stability of the solvent used for the ink will prevent it from bleeding even if you wet the paper, it dries instantly so it is nearly impossible to smudge.

There are three brands of archival quality pens. Staedtler Pigment Liner, Prismacolor Fine Line Marker and Sakura's Pigma Micron. All are high quality pens available with different sized writing nibs with the Prismacolor and Sakura available in different colors as well. With most publishers using lower and lower quality Bible paper using these pens will help in keeping your notes and markings looking neat. With the thicker paper used in wide margin Bibles I use the 05 size for underlining and the 005 for writing my notes. On thinner paper I wouldn't suggest using the 05 or anything thicker as it may be too visible from the other side. Stick to using the thinner nibs like an 03. You can also use one color to underline and another to write your notes or you can come up with you own system. I use these with my ESV Deluxe Heirloom Reference Bible which was printed on 27lbs. paper. The 05 is slightly visible from the other side where as my notes using the 005 are barely noticeable.

These pens will be useful for those looking for an alternative to highlighters, pens or pencils. They will help in keeping your markings looking neat and are a great way to help you in your studies of the Word.

ESV Bibles. Great Bible, Good Buy

2007-10-17T13:36:00.001-07:00

If you are not familiar with the relatively new Bible translation being published by Crossway, the English Standard Version (ESV), I highly recommend that you consider using it. The ESV is an "essentially literal" translation that holds to the literary qualities of the King James Version from 1611 while being nearly as accurate as the NASB, which is often knocked for sounding "wooden". Although a very literal translation the NASB at times suffers form sentence structure that doesn't flow well. The ESV, while being a literal translation like the NASB, is easier to read and retains the poetic qualities found in the KJV. The ESV is also more literal than the NIV while being just as easy to read.

If you are considering the ESV, take a look at the bookstore at Monergism.com. Their online bookstore has recently been updated and they have added to their lineup of ESV Bibles. Of note are the calfskin Bibles. Although expensive, calfskin Bibles from Crossway are some of the nicer Bibles you can buy. Not only are these premium leather Bibles nice to look at they are very well made and will outlast less expensive ones. The key with these calfskin Bibles is not only the super nice covers but the fact that they are have smyht sewn bindings which will allow these books to lay flat on a table or fit your hand like a glove while you sit in during Sunday morning service.

Monergism is currently offering the Classic Reference in black calfskin and cordovan calfskin as well as the Classic Thinline also in black calfskin and cordovan calfskin. These prices are the best you're gonna find, even better than Amazon. Currently they are offering free shipping 'til Reformation Day... that's October 31st for the non-Reformed.

I own the Classic Thinline in cordovan calfskin and I highly recommend it. Look for a full review at a later date.

You Dropped a Bomb On Me

2007-10-15T22:21:00.000-07:00

How often do you hear of a Christian using the word Heretic? Hopefully, not often and if it is used, hopefully it is being used properly and not being thrown around unnecessarily. Dropping an H-Bomb can at times be more hurtful to the bomber than the one being bombed. I began to think about the use of the word and how I've heard (or read) its use in the past. Too often though, it is used improperly and out of context, this may me due to the fact that in the past heretics were burned at the stake but not any more. Maybe we need to re-introduce this practice but also apply that if the person accused of heresy is not found to be one then the accuser should be treated as a false witness and given the same punishment. I think this will stem the tide of the word being thrown around so much.

On Sunday, October 14, 60 Minutes ran a piece on Joel Osteen, the personable pastor of Lakewood Church in Houston who is on national television espousing his brand of the Wealth and Prosperity gospel. He is not a big showman with gaudy suits and lots on jewelry. He is very charming, good looking and has a great smile but not once have I heard him say anything about sin, hell, repentance or heaven for that matter. His brand of "gospel" is for temporal benefits, sadly since he never mentions hell or mans sinfulness, he doesn't preach that man needs to be saved from his transgressions. If I could ask Joel Osteen one question it would be, why then do we need Jesus? The reason I bring this up is because in the piece, Dr. Michael Horton of Westminster Theological Seminary, California was also interviewed. He was asked what he thought of Joel Osteen, he replied by saying that he was a heretic. I am not expert on Joel Osteen, but I think that Dr. Horton is right in calling him a heretic.

There is much divisiveness in the Church these days where there should be unity. Many times there are issues that shouldn't keep us apart, keeping us apart. Something even as trivial as what Bible translation one reads is enough to have one labeled a heretic. There are people who claim that the only true word of God is the King James Bible, the rest are merely perversions and those that read anything but the KJV are heretics. Before his passing, Dr. Jerry Falwell called those who hold to particular redemption, heretics. Chuck Smith, founding pastor of Calvary Chapel called Calvinists, blasphemous and even said that the teaching of the Doctrines of Grace are satanic. Dr. James White of Alpha & Omega Ministries, on his webcast The Dividing Line, rebutted the comments made by Pastor Chuck on his radio show. Dr. White begins the portion with Pastor Chuck about 15 minutes into the show. Even when I attempted to have a dialogue with Mr. Scott Berner over his YouTube videos regarding Calvinism, he merely resorted to name calling.

What is happening here? Why are we being so quick to denounce other Christians? I think my non-Calvinists brothers are still my brothers. I can, hopefully, by the grace of God take my non-Calvinists brothers to scripture and show them that they are wrong for believing what they do. What I can't do is take them to scripture and show them that their belief is sinful and will take them to hell and if I were to tell them so without showing them, then I am in the wrong and in need of forgiveness for such an accusation.

I borrowed this following portion from The Assembling of The Church Blog.

In 2 Peter 2:1, Peter warns that false prophets and false teachers will bring "destructive heresies" with them. These false prophets and false teachers will not be known for disagreeing with other believers, but instead they will be known for "denying the Lord" (2 Pet 2:1), "sensuality" (2 Pet 2:2), "covetousness" (2 Pet 2:3). Thus, these false prophets and false teachers are not ones who simply disagree with other Christians, but those who deny that Christ is Lord, and live a life that demonstrates that they are not children of God.

Perhaps, from this connection of "heresy" with false prophets and false teachers in 2 Peter 2:1, we should also recognize why these people are called "false prophets" and "false teachers". Perhaps one of the most important passages to help us understand what it means to be a "false teacher" is 1 Timothy 1:3-11. Here, those who teach "other doctrines" are those who teach contrary to the gospel (1 Tim 1:11). In many other passages, the authors of Scripture encourage their readers to teach and live in accordance to the gospel of Jesus Christ - that is, the good news that God has provided a way for all people to accepted as his children.

So, according to Scripture, who are the true "heretics"? Heretics are those who deny the gospel of Jesus Christ. Heretics are also those who live in a manner contrary to the gospel - that is, according to the flesh, not according to the Spirit. Similarly, heretics are those who cause and encourage divisions and dissensions among the followers of Jesus Christ.

When Person A calls Person B a "heretic" for a teaching that Person A disagrees with, but which is not contrary to the gospel, and when Person A refuses to fellowship with Person B because of that teaching, then, according to Scripture, Person A is actually the "heretic". Person A is the one causing division among the followers of Christ and is thus promoting true heresy.

So, let's be careful, thoughtful, and prayerful before we drop the "H" Bomb. It could be that we are the true "heretics", not necessarily because our opinion is "wrong", but because our words and actions are divisive - and this is the type of heresy that Scripture warns us about

We need to think twice before dropping an H-Bomb on another Christian.

The Monk I Wanted To Be

2007-10-11T14:44:00.000-07:00

Thelonious Sphere Monk was born on October 10, 1917 in North Carolina. Moved to New York at the age of four, dropped out of high school after his sophomore year and not long after was part of a revolution in Jazz that changed all of music from that time forward. When I was younger I had a passing interest in learning to play the piano, especially so when I heard Thelonious Monk play. Those feelings of wanting to play the piano quickly subsided as soon as I listened to Monk play the piano.

For the uninitiated, Jazz isn't just music to hear it is music to listen to. You can have Jazz music playing in the background at one of your "get togethers" or it can be playing at your favorite restaurant and if you hear it maybe you will associate your host or the restaurant as being cool, but Jazz has so much more. It has many layers. It is far more complex than any other form of music, it is a conversation. At times it's a narrative, an exultation, a shout a rant, seven minutes of someone saying "I Love You" without ever saying that phrase. Monk was not a pianist that filled every space he could with music like McCoy Tyner whom played with John Coltrane, nor did he have the same lyricism as Herbie Hancock. Monk was on a different plane. He could almost bend time and space.

As soon as I listened to Monk play, I knew I could never play the piano.

You see, hearing is a passive activity but listening takes work. When I finally realized that Monk wasn't just playing the piano, I knew I could never do what he does. When I listened to McCoy Tyner play, I knew I could never play the way he does because of how fast and how much music he plays, and Herbie played "too pretty". What Monk was playing sounded easy. His phrases were simpler than either of the other two musicians... or so I thought. Then when I listened, truly listened, it hit me. The realization of what he was doing hit me like a shock to the system, I gasped with such strength the room was nearly emptied of oxygen. Monk implies missing notes. He doesn't fill up the space with sound, he doesn't write out the entire story, he leads you to a place where you finish the sound. Ahhh, the genius!

Jazz is clearly proof of the Triune God of the Bible. The improvisation of Jazz is not random, it stays within the frame of either the melody or the harmony and all the musicians may be playing totally different themes but they are all playing within the order of the structure, it's not random. The passion, the genius, the knowledge it takes to play Jazz all points to God.

Atlas Shrugged. 50 Years Later

2007-10-10T15:49:00.000-07:00

The first time I had ever heard of Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand's magnum opus, I was in the fifth grade. I had overheard some teachers talking about it and I asked about it. More than anything I was struck by the title. The title grabbed my young intellect and never let go. By the time I had graduated from high school in 1990 I had a very short list of books I felt I needed to read. These were books I held in high regard because of what I saw as their difficulty and also their status among the literati.

Not long after high school, John Milton's Paradise Lost was the first of these books I read. I was 24, doing work that involved a lot of driving. I would sometimes hang out in bookstores for my linch break. While on one of my visits to a bookstore I saw a hardback copy of Atlas Shrugged, though I didn't have enough money with me to buy the hardback I did however get the paperback. It was over a thousand pages long but read it in a week. From the opening line I couldn't stop from reading this book. I read it every chance I got, even while driving to Las Vegas for a wedding with a girl I was totally head over heels for... I still have the book. The girl, thats a story for another blog.

I was a new Christian at the time I read it, I wasn't a proper student of the Bible at the time but the book didn't change my life the way it had others. I still hold it in high regard, find it to be a very interesting book to read but by the grace of God I didn't accept the philosophy of Ayn Rand. I never read another one of her books either fiction or non-fiction since. I found it unromantic and cold. I know the book wasn't meant to be a romance novel but it was passionless. Even the long, long... long speech by the hero that must have gone for fifty pages was rather unromantic. It seriously was about fifty pages of the evils of socialism, communism, fascism, capitalism too... I think and extolled the greatness of self.

After all that, if you want to read a better book on philosophy then read David Hume or better yet Greg Bahnsen, if you want to read a book about a Utopian society then read Brave New World. I liked reading this book but it's not a book for everyone, though I do think people should read it.

John Piper wrote a couple of different blogs about it. If you wont read Atlas Shrugged, maybe read his blog. Here and here.

Who is John Galt?

Are You Religious?

2007-10-02T19:42:00.000-07:00

Have any of you ever been asked if you are religious? As a Christian, how have you answered that? I was recently asked that very question. Whenever I am asked that question its always with surprise since I look more likely to fix your car or steal your car than to be a Sunday School teacher. The question was raised while I was smoking a cigar, drinking a beer and talking shop... actually I was talking about church.

I'm not going to talk about wether or not it is acceptable for a Christian to drink a beer or smoke a cigar, thats for another blog. What I do want to talk about is the question that was posed to me. In light of the context, I am not surprised that the question was asked in such a manner. It was obvious to me that to this person that had never met me before didn't think that I was being very religious. He did ask to clarify as to the acceptability of smoking and drinking as described in the Bible. My friend and I explained and he seemed content with the situation but it left me thinking. Am I religious?

What exactly does that mean and does it mean something totally different to the believer, non-believer or the church going non-believer? The word itself seems to carry a negative connotation, so there is always a clarification along with the answer. I used to say that Christianity was a relationship not a religion but I never admitted to being religious, which when looking back on it may have been seen as being hyper-religious. When I answered the question this last time, I answered in the affirmative, "Yes, I am religious". I wake up on Sundays and go to church... religiously, I read and study my Bible... religiously, I pray religiously. Why not take back the words and their meanings from the rabble? We should behave as we were commanded, to be the salt and the light. Why then should it matter if they perceive our religion as negative? Our actions should speak as loud as our words.

I am taking religion back. I am not going to let others dictate to me how I should feel about it.

Just so you know where I stand, I am a Christian, having been predestined unto salvation before the foundation of the world, saved by the atoning work of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross, guided by the Holy Spirit to be conformed to the image of Christ not by anything I did or have done or will do but by the grace of God, all the glory to Him. If I am not liked, may it be because I am a Christian and your sins are revealed to you by the Holy Spirit working through me. If it is because of me, then may God forgive me of my transgression.

Misrepresenting Calvinism Part III

2007-09-21T18:18:00.000-07:00

This is the final video of the series. This is the shortest of the three at a little more than 5 minutes and like the other two, Mr. Berner doesn't offer anything more than an emotional appeal against Calvinism. Mr. Berner does nothing to properly exegete any of the few Bible versus he uses, the only argument he presents is that of free will without properly fleshing it out.

In this final part of the series, he has lost what little steam he had in the first video. He again uses 2 Peter 3:9 out of context and has had to repeat the same arguments from the first video. This only goes to show that Mr. Berner does not understand Reformed Theology or the Doctrines of Grace. Not once does he take scripture to prove ANY of his assertions nor does he ever give an expositional support for his beliefs. Sadly, Mr. Berner has refused to reply to anything I have written here. I really want to know what he has to say about what I wrote regarding Romans 9 and 2 Peter 3, because the first time I asked him about it, he didn't have an answer then either.

Misrepresenting Calvinism Part II

2007-09-17T21:11:00.000-07:00

Here is part two of Mr. Berner's attempted refutation of the Doctrines of Grace or Calvinism. Things do not improve as far as being able to properly present a Biblical refutation rather than having to rely on emotional appeals and misrepresentations of Calvinism. Rather than point out every single one of Mr. Berner's mistakes I will try and make two or three major points to show how Mr. Berner has fallen short of his goal.

This video follows directly after video one so there is no introduction and the video starts where the first one left off. His continuation goes on with an argument made by many atheist to try and refute Christianity. The problem of evil. Before I continue I want to be sure to point out that Mr. Berner does not escape this problem of evil, but he never addresses how he explains the evil in the world. His problem of evil is greater than that of the Calvinist.

Like many atheists, he has to put aside reality and go to a hypothetical to try and disprove the truth. God is a loving God, He is all knowing, all powerful and He is a personal God. Mr. Berner's god is none of the above. Did Mr. Berner's god know that something bad was going to happen? If he didn't, then he is not the God of the Bible. Mr. Berner needs to explain why these bad things happen as well. His god either, didn't know it was going to happen, never planned for it to happen and was surprised when it did, knew it was going to happen but was either powerless to do anything or chose not to do anything.

"As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good..." Mr. Berner never addresses passages like Genesis 50 or Romans 9. Mr. Berner has yet to exegete ANY verse to make his claim. There is no purpose for the evil that occurs according Mr. Berner. The Bible tells us that all things happen for the glory of God, he works all things according to the council of His will, Eph. 1:11. Mr. Berner, since he has a misunderstanding of the depravity of man and he seeks to place human will above that of the Triune God of the Bible. All men are sinners and are thus under the righteous judgment of God. Romans 9:22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory... It is Gods power that is demonstrated in the destruction of the sinner and ultimately His Glory. God will judge the sinner and save the righteous.

At around 2 min. plus, he again talks about Gods love, and sinners. He again asserts that God doesn't hate sinners. Mr. Berner, the Bible teaches that God hates sinners. Proverbs 6:16-19, Psalms 5:5, Malachi 1:1-3. Does not the Bible teach of the destruction of the sinners? Mr. Berner maybe doesn't know that God doesn't hear the prayers of the sinner, Isa. 1:15, John 9:31. It is becoming more and more apparent that Mr. berner is the one guilty of what he is accusing Calvinists of being, he is blind, sick, foolish. It is him that is in the ditch!

Beginning at about 3:50 into the video, Mr. Berner once again attempts to deal with election and predestination according to Romans 9. In the first video he tried to make the claim that Romans 9 was of national election, now he is attempting to show that God's election and foreknowledge is based upon God looking into the future to see who would love him. This is what Dr. Ergun Caner calls "elected, because I selected" theology and is not supported by scripture. I exegeted Romans 9 in my first rebuttal to Mr. Berner. Romans 9:11 clearly shows where Mr. Berner is wrong. So, it's not because of anything the twins had done, either good or bad but to demonstrate God's purpose. Then Paul, again asserts, just in case you didn't get it in the first part of the verse that election is not based on ANYTHING the individual does, Paul states later in the same verse "not because of works, but because of him who calls". Paul clearly writes in this verse that election is not based on anything the person does.

How fitting that he closes with Daniel 12:10. Mr. Berner doesn't seem able to understand the verses I have cited, based on Mr. Berner's own criteria, is he one of the wicked?

Offline 111 contacted

2007-09-13T18:30:00.000-07:00

Last night I contacted the maker of the anti-Calvinism videos. I invited Mr. Scott Berner to respond to my rebuttal of his refutation of Calvinism. Sadly, he declined. He sent me five messages through YouTube, none of which actually dealt with anything I had written in any scriptural way.

Scott,

I have listened to your 3 part refutation of Calvinism. You have misrepresented Calvinism and the Bible to support your man made system. I invite you to read my blog at http://souldesaenz.blogspot.com/ where I have gone through your first video and shown it's errors. I would hope you would post any and all explanations to my rebuttal on my blog.

I look forward to your replies.

Until then, may God bless the study of His word.

Jesus Saenz

Hello Jesus Saenz,

I have been over this a great many times with Calvinists in the past two decades. When men put men up as idols, they become mad on their idols. This applies to Catholics as well. It does no good to argue with those who cannot see, because God is able to give them sight, but because of their froward hearts they are not given such a gift from God.

Jesus said it like this, "Let them alone, if the blind lead the blind they shall both fall into the ditch."

That is why I call Calvinism a DEEP DITCH. You may have noticed the title?

You will serve your idols until God opens your eyes. It does no good to play games with you. You cannot hear the truth, nor see wisdom. You are just like your teachers.

May God grant you repentance unto life,
Amen.
SDB
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Jesus Saenz,

My name is Scott Berner. That is the "name I go by." Ok? I have given scritpure to back up my "pre-supposition", time and again. Yes, "if the Bible teaches this type of free will, then man is a moreal free agent. His will is free to choose to do good or to do evil." You certainly have that much right, though you don't believe it. The Bible does teach it, from beginning to end.

I thought I would go and look at what sort of merry-go-round you had constructed. It is so typical it I can hardly say the words.

The blindness Calvin has laid upon his followers is so utterly consistent, so hopelessy indidious, and always the same.

You have my sympathy, Jesus Saenz. Truly and sincerely.

If you hate these on Calvin, you may hate as well those on the truth of conditional salvation in the series on Hebrews 6,10,12, Eph 5, Gal 5, 2 Pet 1-2, 1 Cor 5. There is a tremendous amount of the Bible there for you to trod under Calvin's blind boot. You could rant for months on just that material alone. Good hunting.

In the Blessed Grace of God,

(quite conditionally and gratefully)
SDB
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr. Berner,

I will go back and input your name, Sir, rather than your YouTube user name. When I first wrote my blog I was ignorant as to what your name is.

I want to thank you very much for taking the time to read my blog as well as to reply to me, I am sure your time is valuable and you would rather not spend it dealing with someone whom you disagree wholeheartedly with.

Yes Sir, you did provide scripture to back up your presuppositions, as did I. The thing is, Sir, I took the scripture you provided and within the context of the verse, paragraph, chapter, book and the entire Bible, demonstrated how your use of those scriptures was incorrect. You merely used one proof text to support your view of free will, I took passages that show that man's nature is sinful and thus makes choices based on that sin nature.

Since you did not address my exegesis of your use of Romans 9 as well as your use of 2 Peter 3:9 and moved on to Hebrews, Ephesians, Galatians, 2 Peter and 1 Chorinthians then you agree with my interpretation? In your video you appeal to logic, reason and truth. If we are to discuss these matters of truth then it is logical and reasonable to expect that we demonstrate, using scripture, how we arrive at the conclusions we have. Sir, I addressed your issues with Calvinism presented in the first video as well as the scripture you used. It is reasonable to expect for you to do the same with what I have presented before moving on to other passages.

I thank you for your sympathy and do not doubt the truth fo your sincerity.

Continued blessings,

Jesus Saenz
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr. Saenz,

I do not doubt your sincerity either, by the way.

I mentioned in the beginning of our discourse that I did not intend to debate these issues and gave you the reason for such a decision.

I do not want to offend you unnecessarily, but must tell you that I do not intend to read all of your oppositions to the work the Lord has called me to do on His behalf.
I read the first portion of your rebuttal and responded to you on that part only, as it is the crux of the issue. Free will to choose. The Bible tells us that man is a "free agent" as you provide the term.

Foreknowledge is the key to understanding election. God's foreknowledge. He foreknows all He will bring into this world and makes elect those He foreknows will love Him with a pure heart. Those who will choose Him if given the opportunity to do so. He makes provisions of grace and blessing for, intercedes on behalf of, and gives ears to hear to those He so foreknows and elects. He enables them to choose Him and does not hinder them from doing so. Such election takes place only after His divine determination and foreknowledge of their choice to love Him and commit their hearts to Him wholly. From before the foundation of the earth He knows every one of His elect that will come into this world.

Only after such a Divine Determination of Grace, based upon Foreknowledge, may He begin to intercede on behalf of His chosen and elect children. He does so with complete and perfect righteousness and supreme holy justice. His grace is upon His elect based upon this determination.
(continued)

-------------------------

He cannot choose some to be elect and others to not be, based upon anything other than a just determination. He is always just and can be nothing else but righteous.

Making some elect without basing such a determination upon a righteous judgment is impossible. God is never arbitrary and always judges according to His expressed will, the Word of God declares it. He magnifies His Word even above His own Name.

This is my position today, and ever will be my position. It is the position of the Holy Scriptures and accordingly reveals the holiness and righteousness of God and is the only position that truly shows Him to be completely consistent with His own Law and Word. It justifies God, it confirms Him as faithful to His every declaration of truth and righteousness. It is the only position that truly brings glory to God. It is completely consistent with the scriptures.
(continued)
-----------------------------------------------------
After over twenty years of study and prayer and after holding different positions, based upon the understanding I had in those times, to the best of my ability, I have come to this conclusion and for me it is most unshakable.

Regarding Ad Hominem:

It is perfectly consistent with scripture to judge a man by his fruit. The Lord called them "scribes, Pharisees, hypocrites." You have declared the ungodliness of the pedophile priesthood of Rome, correct? Is that not their fruit? Also regarding the inquisitions? No? Calvin's burning people at the stake is no different. The Lord Jesus said, "no bad fruit comes from a good tree." It is action that is breaking God's law and denying the example and testimony of Jesus Christ. This is not ad hominem, it is judging the fruit of a tree. That tree is not faithful to Christ, he justified himself in all he did with his private interpretation of scritpure. This proves him to be an unreliable sourse of Biblical exegesis. His doctrines prove the unscriptural nature of his doctrine. A lost man, masquerading as a servant of Christ cannot possible rightly divide the Word of truth. All his work must be rejected. Christ said, "why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things I say." If a man does not follow Christ and has not the Spirit of Christ, "he is none of His." We must choose Jesus if we will follow Jesus. We must choose the Word if we will follow God. Amen.

May God Continue To Lead You To More Perfect Understanding,

SDB

PS> I have not loaded this communication with scritpure for the simple reason that you have seen them all before, but to no avail. Only when the Lord opens your understanding will they all become clear to you. Judging from my experience, this is a gradual process that can take years. I cannot do that for you. He must. There is no profit in strife.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sadly, as is usually the case with people trying to refute the Doctrines of Grace, their arguments degrade to an emotional appeal. They wish to concentrate only on God's love but say very little about his righteousness, sovereignty, holiness or omnipotence. Once you begin to understand God's righteousness and holiness, how much he hates sin and cannot abide with it, not even a little. Only then can you begin to understand what grace is, it cannot be demanded nor worked for otherwise it is no longer grace, then maybe passages like Romans 9:13 As it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated, will be seen for what it is. When one reads this verse from Romans, the surprising thing shouldn't be that God hates but rather, that he loves us, the filthy sinner. Oh, how humbling it is to know that I can't take credit for my salvation, all the glory goes to God.

Misrepresenting Calvinism

2007-09-11T14:50:00.000-07:00

Here is a video series I found on YouTube. This is part one of three from a user whom goes by the name of offline 111. He doesn't like Calvinism and was nice enough to post this three part refutation of this theological system. He does not seem to be familiar with what Calvinists actually believe nor with his Bible. I will go through his videos, one at a time and show where he is mistaken.

In his introduction, offline 111 who's name is Scott Berner, begins his refutation of Calvinism by first making light of it. He says that he will talk very little about it, that he doesn't need to say much. He poisons the well and makes a genetic fallacy in his argumentation. Since he does not believe that Calvinism can be true, therefore nothing they say is correct. That is an example of using flawed reasoning to come to your conclusion. This is the thesis he carries forward to refute Calvinism. He never attempts to deal with any scripture used by Calvinists to defend their views nor does he attempt to portray the views of any Calvinists fairly. His attack is reduced to straw man arguments.

At @ 45 seconds he then uses the argument of free will to refute the Calvinists view of monergistic soteriology. He uses Joshua 24:15 as proof text.

15^(A) And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD,^(B) choose this day whom you will serve, whether^(C) the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or^(D) the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell.^(E) But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."

Mr. Berner never establishes what he means by free will. He merely asserts, and presupposes it's validity. If the Bible truly teaches this type of free will, then man is a moral free agent. His will is free to choose to do good or to do evil. Man has as much right to not accept Gods grace as much as he can not accept sin. If mans will is free, then he is not bound by sin, thus he is morally neutral. He is neither good nor bad and not bound by either. This is contrary to what the Bible teaches us about the the condition of man since the fall of Adam.

It seems as though Mr. Berner has confused a denial of free will by Calvinists with a denial of an ability to choose. This is wrong. He never cites any writers, theologians, preachers, pastors or lay people to establish this straw man argumentation. Mans will and thus his choices are bound by his sin. Although man can choose to do good in the eyes of men, he can't will to do what is good in the eyes of the Lord. Natural man is a slave to his sin. John 8:34, 2 Tim. 2:25-26 , Romans 6. Freedom of the will is in clear contradiction to what the Bible teaches about sin and it's power over the natural man. Man is not capable to do what is good, Romans 8:7. Therefore, there is no freedom of the will since it is a slave to sin.

@ 1:24 there is an ad hominem attack against John Calvin. This becomes an emotional appeal to try and refute Calvinism, ignoring logic and reason, more importantly he never cites scripture. @ 1:30, he claims that Calvin was lost and there is no way he was saved. It is doubtful Mr. Berner has ever read anything written by Calvin, for if he had he never would have used the "by their fruits you shall know them" card.

At @ 1:50, Mr. Berner begins talking about election. It does not seem as though he understands what election is. God does not make one elect, rather God of His own will elects from all of humanity whom the elect will be. Election occurred before the foundation of the world, Eph. 1:4. @ 2:05, Yes, God chooses! It has nothing to do with mans "free will".

Starting at @ 2:35, he uses another straw man argument. "The elect will be saved, in spite of themselves". He makes assertions that it is contradictory to scripture yet doesn't provide any scripture to prove it. He places a higher importance to man's reason and intellect to that of God as if man knew better than God. This sort of belief system is humanistic. It is the arrogance and pride of the fallen humanity that finds monergistic salvation so unpalatable. It is mans sinful pride that wants to take credit for choosing or demanding Grace from God.

@ 3:40 he makes more assertions about how Calvinism perverts and makes a mockery of God and scripture. Not once does he show how.

@3:55 he uses 2 Peter 3:9 to show that God wants all men to be saved. If you look at this verse within it's context, it clearly becomes a proof test for the Calvinist. In the middle of the verse, "is patient toward you", the "you" is the pronoun and the subject of the sentence. If you go back one verse and follow the pronoun, "8But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." The word "beloved" is the pronoun and the subject. If you go to verse 1, Peter is telling the subjects of this letter that this is the second time he has written to them. Now, to find out who this letter is addressed to, we go to 1 Peter 1:1. Peter is addressing this letter to the elect, not to all of mankind. If you follow the pronouns, Peter is writing to the elect, he calls them beloved and it is the elect whom God is not wishing that any should perish but that all(elect) come to repentance.

@4:10, again more assertions he goes on for about a minute of mere assertions. At about 4:50, in light of his misuse of 2 Peter 3:9, should we hold him to his own standards by which he judges Calvinism? Is he then "without light", is he "cut off from the light of God" and that is why he takes scripture out of context?

@5.25, more ad hominem attacks. He denies the Protestant Reformation, calling them fools.

@7:07, if we do not need any man's opinion, then why are presenting your opinion on Calvinism and the Bible?

@7:20 he is asking if it is scriptural that God hates sinners. Psalm 5:5 sure seems to show that God hates sinners. This then leads into Romans 9, specifically verse 13. Mr. Berner states that election is according to foreknowledge, that God looked into the future and saw who would love God and who wouldn't. This is NOT what scripture teaches. He has taken that passage in Romans clearly out of context. Within the context, I will start with Romans 8 verses 26-30. There are some whom claim that Romans 9 is dealing with nations and not people, that is just wrong when you look at what is happening in the previous chapter. Verse 26 shows a personal and not a national appeal, in v.27 Paul writes of a personal intercession of the Holy Spirit according to the will of God, v.28 it is those who are called according to Gods purpose. Again, this is a personal calling not a national calling, since God only worked nationally through Israel but never worked through any nation again. V. 29 begins the golden chain of redemption. It begins with God "doing" all. It is God who is foreknowing, predestining, conforming, justifying and it is God whom is glorifying.

Mr. Berner needs to read past v. 13 to v. 16. Paul clearly wrote that election does not depend on "human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy." If according to Mr. Berner, God elects, according to foreknowledge(as Mr. Berner uses the word) he is verging on the heresy of open theism. If then, it is God that is foreknowing, electing, justifying, sanctifying... not to make salvation possible according to mans choice but to save to the uttermost according to God's purpose DOES NOT make God evil but sovereign.

Dr. D. James Kennedy

2007-09-06T12:22:00.000-07:00

Sadly, Dr. Kennedy has succumbed to the heart attack he suffered a few month back. He passed away in his sleep Wednesday morning, Sept 5

Dr. D. James Kennedy memorial

On The Road

2007-09-05T11:44:00.000-07:00

It was fifty years ago today that The Great American Novel was introduced to the subconscious mind of the counter culture and ultimately to all of America. On The Road, Jack Kerouac's second novel has been ridiculed by writers such as Truman Capote and held as the herald of a new dawn by others including Bob Dylan.

The novel is about two friends, Sal Paradise and Dean Moriarty (Jack Kerouac, Neal Cassady), and their adventures across the US shortly after World War II. It is written in prose it's fast paced and frenetic. This is the birth of the Beat Generation with it's new language of Jazz and Be-Bop meant for Cool Cats and Hipsters. There is a freshness and spontaneity that can be infectious, the rhythms were that of Charlie Parker, Dizzie Gillespie ans Thelonius Monk. It was the beat, the béat. It is the language of the sidewalk poet, improvised and imperfect.

The Road That Leads Away From Rome

2007-09-04T15:56:00.000-07:00

I was born into a Roman Catholic home. I was baptized and made my First Holy Communion as well, but I never really saw myself as being Catholic. The day of my FHC was the last time I took part of that sacrament, I ate meat on Fridays during lent, I lit firecrackers in the bathrooms, stole fund raiser chocolates from my catechism classes... then, I refused to go back for my Confirmation. I told my mother I would not be returning and from that day, I no longer saw myself as being Catholic.

I felt my defection from Rome was sealed. When I came to repentance I saw myself as an atheist saved by Grace and not a convert. Since I never sent a writ of defection to the Pope, my defection was never official and chances are that Rome still counts me as one of their followers. I had never thought of it making my divorce from Rome officail until I read this article by Lance King. Seems like an easy venture which I may consider going through.

Old ad from The Gap

2007-09-03T22:24:00.000-07:00

Isn't he the guy from

the gap ads?

I used to lean against

brick walls

wearing khakis,

a white t-shirt,

smoking Chesterfields

hoping that someone would

take my picture...

or at least ask

me is i was a poet

like Jack Kerouac

Dr. D. James Kennedy Retires

2007-08-29T20:40:00.000-07:00

On Sunday the 26th of August, Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Ft. Lauderdale, Fl. announced the retirement of founding and senior pastor, Dr. D. James Kennedy.

article

Baptism... The Aftermath

2007-08-29T20:23:00.000-07:00

It's been over a week since the debate between Gene Cook, Jr. and Paul Manata and the trash talking has yet to subside. On Gene's own blog and also on the Fide-o blog, Gene, Paul, Scott, Jason and a hosts of other bloggers didn't seem to get enough with the debate so now they continue the smack like it was a World Wrestling Federation event.

I think they need to behave like nice Christians.

Baptism Debate

2007-08-23T11:40:00.000-07:00

So, who are the proper subjects of water baptism? As most non-Catholics will attest, it is the professing Christian that is the proper subject for water baptism. But... there are some especially Presbyterians who are Paedobaptists which is Latin for "Baby Sprinkler". They do not baptize for the same reason as the Catholics do, for the Paedobaptist, it is a covenantal sign.

On Sunday August 19, there was a debate between Gene Cook, Jr. and Paul Manata regarding who the proper subjects for baptism were. Paul Manata defended the Paedobaptist side, Gene Cook, Jr. for the Credobaptist. Paul is a great debater but was hampered by a flawed view of the old covenants in light of the new covenant.

listen here

part one

part two

part three

Home to Rome, huh?

2007-08-21T14:25:00.000-07:00

Here is an article by James White of Alpha&Omega Ministries, it is a top ten list of why you shouldn't convert to Catholicism.

An Excellent Question from the Mail Bag
James R. White
Last week I received the following e-mail, and I felt it would be best to share my response here on the blog.

Dear Mr. White, For someone considering converting to Catholicism, what questions would you put to them in order to dicern whether or not they have examined their situation sufficiently? Say, a Top 10 list. Thanks.

When I posted this question in our chat channel a number of folks commented that it was in fact a great question, and we started to throw out some possible answers. Here is my "Top Ten List" in response to this fine inquiry.
10) Have you listened to both sides? That is, have you done more than read Rome Sweet Home and listen to a few emotion-tugging conversion stories? Have you actually taken the time to find sound, serious responses to Rome's claims, those offered by writers ever since the Reformation, such as Goode, Whitaker, Salmon, and modern writers? I specifically exclude from this list anything by Jack Chick and Dave Hunt.
9) Have you read an objective history of the early church? I refer to one that would explain the great diversity of viewpoints to be found in the writings of the first centuries, and that accurately explains the controversies, struggles, successes and failures of those early believers?
8) Have you looked carefully at the claims of Rome in a historical light, specifically, have you examined her claims regarding the "unanimous consent" of the Fathers, and all the evidence that exists that stands contrary not only to the universal claims of the Papacy but especially to the concept of Papal Infallibility? How do you explain, consistently, the history of the early church in light of modern claims made by Rome? How do you explain such things as the Pornocracy and the Babylonian Captivity of the Church without assuming the truthfulness of the very system you are embracing?
7) Have you applied the same standards to the testing of Rome's ultimate claims of authority that Roman Catholic apologists use to attack sola scriptura? How do you explain the fact that Rome's answers to her own objections are circular? For example, if she claims you need the Church to establish an infallible canon, how does that actually answer the question, since you now have to ask how Rome comes to have this infallible knowledge. Or if it is argued that sola scriptura produces anarchy, why doesn't Rome's magisterium produce unanimity and harmony? And if someone claims there are 33,000 denominations due to sola scriptura, since that outrageous number has been debunked repeatedly (see Eric Svendsen's Upon This Slippery Rock for full documentation), have you asked them why they are so dishonest and sloppy with their research?
6) Have you read the Papal Syllabus of Errors and Indulgentiarum Doctrina? Can anyone read the description of grace found in the latter document and pretend for even a moment that is the doctrine of grace Paul taught to the Romans?
5) Have you seriously considered the ramifications of Rome's doctrine of sin, forgiveness, eternal and temporal punishments, purgatory, the treasury of merit, transubstantiation, sacramental priesthood, and indulgences? Have you seriously worked through compelling and relevant biblical texts like Ephesians 2, Romans 3-5, Galatians 1-2, Hebrews 7-10 and all of John 6, in light of Roman teaching?
4) Have you pondered what it means to embrace a system that teaches you approach the sacrifice of Christ thousands of times in your life and yet you can die impure, and, in fact, even die an enemy of God, though you came to the cross over and over again? And have you pondered what it means that though the historical teachings of Rome on these issues are easily identifiable, the vast majority of Roman Catholics today, including priests, bishops, and scholars, don't believe these things anymore?
3) Have you considered what it means to proclaim a human being the Holy Father (that's a divine name, used by Jesus only of His Father) and the Vicar of Christ (that's the Holy Spirit)? Do you really find anything in Scripture whatsoever that would lead you to believe it was Christ's will that a bishop in a city hundreds of miles away in Rome would not only be the head of His church but would be treated as a king upon earth, bowed down to and treated the way the Roman Pontiff is treated?
2) Have you considered how completely unbiblical and a-historical is the entire complex of doctrines and dogmas related to Mary? Do you seriously believe the Apostles taught that Mary was immaculately conceived, and that she was a perpetual virgin (so that she traveled about Palestine with a group of young men who were not her sons, but were Jesus' cousins, or half-brothers (children of a previous marriage of Joseph), or the like? Do you really believe that dogmas defined nearly 2,000 years after the birth of Christ represent the actual teachings of the Apostles? Are you aware that such doctrines as perpetual virginity and bodily assumption have their origin in gnosticism, not Christianity, and have no foundation in apostolic doctrine or practice? How do you explain how it is you must believe these things de fide, by faith, when generations of Christians lived and died without ever even having heard of such things?
And the number 1 question I would ask of such a person is: if you claim to have once embraced the gospel of grace, whereby you confessed that your sole standing before a thrice-holy God was the seamless garment of the imputed righteousness of Christ, so that you claimed no merit of your own, no mixture of other merit with the perfect righteousness of Christ, but that you stood full and complete in Him and in Him alone, at true peace with God because there is no place in the universe safer from the wrath of God than in Christ, upon what possible grounds could you come to embrace a system that at its very heart denies you the peace that is found in a perfect Savior who accomplishes the Father's will and a Spirit who cannot fail but to bring that work to fruition in the life of God's elect? Do you really believe that the endless cycle of sacramental forgiveness to which you will now commit yourself can provide you the peace that the perfect righteousness of Christ can not?

Crossway's New Personal ESV

2007-08-20T07:39:00.000-07:00

Crossway has recently announced that they will be releasing a new ESV Bible in early '08. The Personal Size Reference Bible will fall in the ESV lineup between the Classic Reference ESV and the Compact ESV. It's dimensions are 5" x 7.25" with a font size of 7.4. It is almost identical to the old Cambridge Cameo edition which is currently out of print. Crossway's site doesn't mention how thick it will be but I am going out on a limb and say it will be close to 1.25" thick.

The reason for excitement about this new edition is not so much the convenient size but it's format. It will be a single column paragraph edition with the references along the margins. Sample pdf. A single column edition is laid out like a traditional book which will be a plus in the ease of read department as well as helping with the flow. If all publishers used a single column paragraph format, I think it would help with people taking verses out of context... one would hope!

Crossway uses their type setting for making more than one edition. This current type setting will be available in four styles to start with, a black genuine leather and three Tru-Tone colors, black, mint and chestnut. If this edition sells well, I hope Crossway will make more editions with this setting. First, in premium calfskin leather and in the future a wide margin edition of at least an inch with slightly larger font also in calfskin, preferably in goatskin, smyth sewn, lined in leather so the covers are floppy. I dream of such a Bible

Mosaic? Or Mo'Psycho?

2007-08-15T12:22:00.000-07:00

Mosaic, an L.A. based church... uh, I mean community is the center of the emergent movement in the southland. As with most emergent churches they try and stay away from calling themselves a church, they want to be seen as a community, inclusive to all.

Several months ago I was speaking with a friend from church. We were both looking for a new place to worship and not long after he began to attend services at Mosaic. I had never heard of it before, but was leery of it from the name alone. I checked out their site but couldn't really find anything concrete, either good or bad. They are not a confessional church, that is they do not hold to any of the early church confessions like the Westminster Confession of Faith or the London Baptist Confession of 1689.

I listened to a few of the sermons(?) by Erwin McManus, whom doesn't claim to be the pastor but cultural architect of Mosaic. He is an engaging speaker but has nothing biblical to say. He has nice catch phrases but he is devoid of any real, scriptural teaching. He can expertly take verses out of context and eisegete them masterfully. He will read from the Bible, but then proceeds to tell you a story that does nothing to illuminate the passages he read. If you feel up to it, listen for yourself. Or read this, it gets more disturbing the more you know about it.

Martin Luther turning over in his grave!

2007-08-12T21:16:00.000-07:00

There is a slow decay in the Church today and it is rotting in many places from the inside out. Many of the works of the Reformers have been called heretical and otherwise have been usurped by the emotion and spiritualism of man seeking to replace GOD as the ultimate authority regarding truth, knowledge, beauty, art, logic, science and reason. Sinner are now called "seekers", there is no talk of sin only health and wealth, repentance has been replaced with acceptance.

Recently the Evangelical Lutheran in America passed a resolution allowing openly gay clergy to continue in committed same sex relationships. I am not adept in the German language but I am willing to go out on a limb and say that when Martin Luther translated the Bible into German, he included all verses that state that sex outside of marriage is a sin and that gay sex too is a sin. Surprising? Yes... and no. It surprises me when people claiming to be belivers totally ignore the written word of GOD. Why don't they stop pretending and just live like hell!

Check out the article

What was old is new again!

2007-08-08T20:20:00.000-07:00

The Geneva Bible is an English translation first published in 1560. It's name is a reference to where the work of translating, compiling and commenting took place. The Bible was primarily a Protestant translation and the work took place in Geneva because at the time, Queen Mary I, whom was a Catholic, was persecuting the Reformers. There was an exile of these Puritans and Reformers to mainland Europe but most made their way to Geneva. The work of translating the Bible into English was a continuation of the work that had been done by William Tyndale but he was later burned at the stake for his "treason" and "heresy" against the Roman Catholic church. After his death in 1536, his work was taken up by Myles Coverdale, William Whittingham, Anthony Gilby, William Cole and several others. All with the help of John Calvin and Theodore Beza. The Geneva Bible was used by John Milton, William Shakespear, John Knox, John Donne, John Bunyan, author of Pilgrim's Progress and Oliver Cromwell. This is the Bible the Pilgrim's brought with them on the Mayflower and for much of the 16th and 17th, was the most popular English translation of the Bible. It was even more popular than the King James version for many years after it's initial publication in 1611.

King James was not a fan of the Geneva Bible, as it was the first study Bible with marginal notes which were anti Catholic as well as not supporting the sovereignty of the monarchy. For this reason he sought to replace it. In fact it was the first Bible to use numbered chapter and verse, the first to have the notes in the margins written by the Reformers. It also used a modern Roman Typeface as opposed to the harder to read Black Type or Gothic typeface, which the later King James Version used. Another popular feature was it's size. It was relatively compact when compared to other Bibles availabe at the time. It measured approximately 8 3/4" x 5 1/2", which is smaller than my ESV Deluxe Heirloom Edition by Crossway. Eventually, the King James Version or the Authorized Version took over in popularity and this great translation was almost forgotten, only availabe in recent years as an expensive facsimile edition beautifully bound in leather by L.L. Brown.

Enter Tolle Lege. A small publisher that undertook the restoration of this wonderful translation. It is now available with modern type and with modern spelling of the 16th century English. Whereas the KJV has undergone several updates, leaving behind the original translation of 1611 the Geneva Bible is now availabe in all it's original greatness. Tolle Lege makes four versions available and they are currently on their third or fourth printing. They have a hardback, leather bound and two special editions, one is a large Family Edition the other is a Calfskin Edition. The paper is thin but quite opaque with very little bleed through. The leather version is 6" x 9 1/4" x 1 1/4". It is smyth sewn so it is a good candidate for rebinding in goatskin, more importanly, because it is sewn it lays flat. It has one ribbon marker and the pages are gilt. My only complaint is that some of the pages have lighter printing than others and there are few typos that will be rather hard to pick out but I am sure that have been taken care of with the more recent printings. This is something to overlook when you consider the historical value of this translation.

The best thing about this Bible is the translation. It is very similer to the King James, or rather the KJV is very similar to this one but it is all together different. Not necessarilly better, just different. In my opinion, it reads more modern than the KJV even though it is 51 years younger. There are certain colloquialisms that are not found in the KJV like the use of "breeches" in Gen 3:7 rather than "aprons" used in the KJV or the use of "buggerers" rather than "sodomites". It does have a glossary of archaic words making the reading easier. By Gods good grace, this great translation of His word is available again.

Another quiver.

2007-08-01T14:57:00.000-07:00

Hopefully I have been able to persuade you to consider more than just using one Bible translation because now I'm going to present to you the idea of owning more than one Bible of the same translation.

Isn't one Bible enough?

Yes, one Bible is actually all you really need, but having more than one may be of use. Obviously if you only use your Bible for Sunday service then your problems cannot be solved by owning more.

There are four sizes or types that may be of use, starting with a study Bible, a wide margin Bible, a hand size Bible and a compact Bible.

Starting with a study Bible as these tend to be big and heavy. I would not recommend these for carrying around to church or Bible studies but only for home study where it's size and weight won't be an issue. Look for one that has a sewn binding. Since study Bibles are larger, a sewn binding will help keep a Bible of this size together, longer. I would not recommend the Life Application Study Bible as it is one the largest study Bible available but the binding is glued and not sewn. The Reformation Study Bible put out by Ligonier Ministries is a study Bible in the ESV that has a sewn binding, as does the 1599 Geneva Bible. Although not presented as a study Bible, it does contain notes from the English Reformers of the 1500's like John Knox and Miles Coverdale as well as the Reformers in Geneva like John Calvin. Study Bibles should be used for home study use along side of your Bible of regular use. Remember, the study notes are not inspired and are to help you get through some theological issues. Consider getting one in hardback as most modern bonded leather or genuine leather covers are about as stiff as cardboard and feel just as bad.

The other Bible you should consider is a wide margin Bible. The wide margins are for you own personal notes, to make your own study bible. These Bibles usually have paper that is slightly thicker than regular Bible paper but that does not mean that the ink will not bleed through, so choose your pen wisely. Being able to make your own study notes will be helpful in that they will be study notes on matters that are important to you, not a bunch of advisors. You can make notes for your teaching or for sermons, for apologetics or for evangelism. Whatever they are, they will be your notes. Of the wide margin Bibles available there are a few I can recommend. Cambridge makes some of the finest Bibles you can buy. They make wide margin Bibles in the KJV, NIV and the NASB by August of 2007. Cambridge Bibles have sewn bindings and are availabe in a variety of covers including goatskin. Although goatskin is expensive, it is the best leather available for binding. The Lockman Foundation make an NASB wide margin Bible called the In Touch Ministries WIde Margin, they have sewn bindings and are bound in calfskin. They are soft and very durable. Crossway currently offers a wide margin Bible in the ESV but not in a premium leather. They also make a Deluxe Reference Bible which has wide margins and a larger font (10 point vs. 8 point) than the wide margin ESV... though the margins aren't quite as wide. This Bible was offered in calfskin but is now out of print. That is too bad becasue it is a great book. I found one after they went out of print, and I am very pleased with it. The hardback and leather are still available, just not the premium calfskin model.

The next Bible to consider is a hand size Bible. This of course is quite subjective as some may say that a study Bible in my hands would look like a compact Bible in the hands of an "average" sized person. This is a Bible that you can use for taking to Sunday service or to Bible studies. You don't need a big heavy Bible with a dictionary, concordance, maps, cross references, etc. You are not going to sit in the middle of a sermon and begin to do all of your cross references and word studies. Save that for when you get home and continue your studies. This Bible should be thin and light but also look for a font size that is large enough so as to be easy to read. Those with poor eye sight will have their choices limited.

If you are looking for a KJV in personal size or hand size there a few publishers that can help you out. Starting with Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nelson's Signature Series which are smyth sewn and bound in calfskin. They have an ultra slim edition that is expertly made. The covers are thick leather that is buttery soft, these are also leather lined. This size is also availabe in the NKJV. Cambridge makes a plethora of Bibles in the KJV but there are two that fit the criteria. The Cameo edition which is currently out of print but is excpected to be re-printed later this year and also the Concorde edition. The Concorde is the larger of the two and both are available in different covers, the best being the goatskin in which the Concorde is leather lined as well. Last is RL Allan of Glasgow, Scotland. They are the Cadillac of Bibles. Allan's Bibles are not cheap but they are worth the hefty price. They offer the KJV in the same sizes as Cambridge and Oxford but the book block is hand sewn and then covered in some of the most luxurious leathers available with the Highland goatskin being the best. They offer Bibles with covers that are full yapp or a true semi-yapp, that is the cover is made larger than the block. Most publishers that offer a semi-yapp are not a true semi-yapp cover, the cover barely comes over the pages, RL Allan semi-yapp are not skimpy.

The NASB is limited as far as quality bindings in a personal size. The offerings from Cambridge are limited to the Pitt Minion which is too small and the Wide Margin which is too large. The Lockman Foundation has two Bibles in this category that are great buys. First is the Ultrathin Reference Bible which has a smyth sewn binding that you can buy in inexpensive bonded leather, leathertex, or genuine leather with the most expensive retailing for $34.95, which you can find for less at Amazon.com. The other is the Large Print Ultrathin Reference Bible which is on the large side of the spectrum when it comes to hand/personal size Bibles. It is available in calfskin and is fully leather lined, the font is large at 10 point and is not totally thin but is a great Bible that has a great feel in the hand. This is out of stock until September.

My personal favorite translation, the ESV has a few selections which I can recommend. From Crossway, there is the Classic Reference Bible and the Classic Thinline Reference Bible. Both have the same dimensions of 5.5"x8.5" but the Thinline is... you guessed it, a little thinner by about a 1/4". They are available in a wide range of covers and color choices but only the premium calfskin are smyth sewn. Any of these would be a valued addition to your quiver especially the calfskin, they are thick and very soft as well as being leather lined. The Thinline Tru Tone Edition (portfolio design) is a must have. It is very inexpensive but has a great feel and looks nice as well. RL Allan also offers an ESV edition which is a classic reference like those offered by Crossway but are so, so much more. The Highland goatskin covers are rich, thick, luxurious with an intoxicating smell of leather. The covers, while thick are floppy and cover your hand like a glove when you hold it open in your hand. They are amazing, this is what a Bible should be!

Finally is the compact Bible. These are not for everyone as the type tends to be a little small, but they are nice to have around. They are not a Bible you would use for serious study. They are good for reading, carrying in your bag, travel as well as for Bible studies and sermons, eye sight not being an issue. Compact Bibles should be small, almost hand sized, thin and light weight. This is their selling point, portability. There are a few that have complete cross references, maps and a concordance. The Pitt Minoin from Cambrdge are some of the better compact Bibles availabe especially in the goatskin. They are smyth sewn and sit nicely in your hand when open. Crossway again has a Bible to fit your every need in a Compact Tru Tone and Compact Thinline, as well as journeling Bibles that are made for those of us that are fans of the Moleskine notebooks. Compact Bibles are great because you can take them anywhere with you.

You don't need to have all these Bibles, you only need one. As long as you read it. The premium leather Bibles, although expensive are an investment. They will last longer than the other, less expensive ones. Spending a little over a hundred dollars for a Bible that will last us a lifetime should not be a big issue considering we can spend the same or more for shoes that will only last two years. You also need to take care of the Bibles. Do not keep them in your car as it can get too hot and warp your Bible or curl the covers. Do not get them wet. If you take notes in them make sure the pen or marker doesn't bleed through and most importantly, DO NOT USE YOUR BIBLE AS A FILING CABINET. Keeping pens, fliers and notes in your Bible will eventually ruin the spine.

Which Bible translation is the best?

2007-07-26T20:55:00.000-07:00

Up until the mid twentieth century, that was an easy question to answer. The ol' King James. Since there are a great many books, blog entries and web pages that are dedicated to the history of that translation, I won't really go into that here. Contrary to popular opinion, the King Kames Version or the KJV or the Authorized Version as it is known to the snobs and elitists of this great translation, is not the first Bible translated into English. It wasn't so long ago that your choices in choosing a Bible were limited to hardcover or soft, bonded leather or Morocco leather. Your choice in translation was limited to the King James or... the King James. Now, you can walk into any Christian bookstore and they have a wall full Bibles and Bible translation. It's almost enough to drive you, but batty.

For many, reading the KJV is a task. They are not accustomed to reading English in such an archaic way. The KJV was written in modern English not old English. Old English is a Germanic language that had not been spoken in England since after 1066. Another thing about the style in which it was written is that it was not the colloquial English of the time, the translators used more of an exalted style when translating the source texts. Its influence on the English language since 1611 is immeasurable. If you want to see the difference in the style of English at the time, just compare the KJV to the Geneva Bible which was first translated in 1560, fifty one years before the KJV. It has a slightly different style and to me, it reads more modern than the KJV.

With all the translations to choose from, which is the best? Well, the one you read is the best. If you don't read, or more specifically don't study your Bible, it doesn't matter which translation you use (or don't use). There is no "best translation". There are a few excellent translations, but since we do not have the original autographs and since some of us were smokin' in the boys room instead of in fifth period Koine Greek or Hebrew class, we will have to settle for the translations currently available to us.

To any of you that are not surfers or skaters I'm going to present you to the idea of a quiver.

"A quiver" you say?

Yes!

At this point in my surfing career, I can do with just one surfboard, but I haven't surfed in quite a while so a board would be nothing more than a huge paper weight. But a surfer that that is out there almost everyday in every type of surf will eventually have more than one stick. I would not take a skateboard which I have set up for skating in a small bowl with tight transition to go bomb a hill, just like I would not take a long board set up for cruising into a long down hill ditch with smooth concrete, just like I wouldnt take that board into a big bowl or pool with easy transition and huge coping (like I could hit the coping now-a-days). Your Bible is an offensive as well defensive weapon... why limit yourself to only one translation?

You should have at least four translations. First, you should have a King James. Contrary to those KJV Only kooks, it is not perfect and it is not inspired. Its not even the most literal, but it does have an amazing literary quality that few can even come close to. Oddly enough, my first Bible was a King James. It had been in my house long before my conversion and that was what I used. I never had a problem with reading it, or with it's cadence. The "thees" and the "thous" were not an issue. Before you start calling me an intellectual snob, it was the first Bible I had read. It didn't sound or read any more difficult than a lot of other stuff I had read. I just didn't know any better. If you introduce the King James to a teenager or pre-teen, they will find it much easier in their adult years than if they pick it up at a later time. Whether early or late, go out and get a KJV.

The other translation you need is the New American Standard Bible. Originally published in 1971 and later updated in 1995, it is the most literal translation available. The NASB traces it's origins to the American Standard Version of 1901. Many people complain about it sounding "wooden", whatever that means. It doesn't use any of the archaic English found in the KJV, it is easy to read but there are a few places that may seem difficlut to follow becasue of how literal the translation is. It is a good reading Bible as well as a good reference Bible for use in study and not just sitting down to read.

The newest of the literal translations is the English Standard Version. The ESV is rather new as it was first published in 2001 but it traces it's origins back to the KJV. The ESV is an "essentially literal" translation. It is intended to maintain the flow or idiomatic style of the KJV while being easier to read for todays reader. It's lineage comes from the Revised Standard Version, last updated in 1971 but was originally published in whole in 1952. This in turn comes from the afforementioned ASV of 1901 and also the Revised Version from 1885, which is an updated translation of the King James. That is not to say that any of these are merely updated versions of the one prior. The translators have gone back to the original source texts to translate those while keeping the essence of the previous translation. To these eyes, the ESV is easy to read while being true to the KJV's literary qualities.

The other Bible translation you should have is the New International Version. Published in whole by 1978, it is the most popular of the Enlgish translations. Even more so than the KJV. It is the easiest to read and is the least literal of the literal translations. It is not in the same league wih the NASB nor is it a parphrase like The Message. There are many who complain about it having a liberal slant to it, especially those of the King James Only movement. They tend to be crazy so it doesnt really matter what they think. This is a good reading Bible but maybe not your "studying" Bible.

Other translations to consider would be the New King James and the newly re-introduced 1599 Geneva Bible. The NKJV is easier to read than the KJV but that is it's drawback. It doesnt have the same poetic quality as the KJV, it tries to maintain the same literary style but it falls short. It is none the less a good translation and I would continue to urge you to use it if you already do or subsitute it for any of the translations mentioned.

The 1599 Geneva Bible has been re-published by Tolle Lege and is nearly identical to the original except for a modern typeface and modernized spellng. The Geneva Bible was the Bible of the Reformers and of the Puritans that came over on the Mayflower. It was the household Bible of much of England even after the KJV was published. It is a great translation, I really enjoy reading it. It's literary style is like Jack Kerouac as the KJV is like T.S. Eliot. look for a review of this Bible at a later date.

There you have it. Choose one translation as your primary translation but use the others for cross reference, easy reading or deep studying. You don't have to carry these around with you and you don't have to buy the most expensive one. Hardbacks tend to be cheaper and sometimes better made. Look for one with large print for easier reading and don't be afraid to write in your Bibles. Be a Berean!

May God bless the study of His word.