Ancient Landmarks

There are seven new wonders of the world (www.new7wonders.com). I like that kind of stuff. Now, don't make fun of me for making this comparison - there is nothing wrong with people picking 7 new wonders of the world, etc. But, here's the thing - landmarks are changing. Proverbs 22:28 tells us not to remove the ancient landmarks.

So, I don't have time for a long thought today. Lunch doesn't look like a reality with today's schedule, but I wanted to ponder this: When is it ok to change the standards that heroes of the faith have held to? Billy Sunday preached against the theater, cards and dancing. And, I'm not going to take the time right now to list all of the others and the things they preached against. But today some Christians have taken down those landmarks - those boundaries (protective measures) - and have no problems doing these types of things.

Now, the Reformers also removed some ancient landmarks - things like the sale of indulgences, the authority of the pope, etc., but that was because those things violated Scriptures.

What qualifications should we put on an ancient landmark before we can take it down? Is it just because we don't want to have the same standards any more that we can chuck them? Should we play cards now (I assume he refers specifically to gambling, not Go Fish) just because we want to? Should we dance just because we want to - even though a generation ago dancing was worldly and evangelical Christians would have no part of it.

Anyway, just a thought...

KJV-Only Reason # 5

Ok, let's start out by reviewing... I have been going through the reasons why I am King James Only. For what I mean by that, I refer you back to: Reason # 1. The first four reasons that I gave for being King James Only are:

• Reason #1: Because a man of God challenged me on the issue when I spued my ignorant challenges against it.
• Reason #2: Because the KJV has all of the verses that are supposed to be in there.
• Reason #3: Because the Translators of the King James Bible treated the Scriptures as the word of God.
• Reason # 4: Because the KJV was translated from the Most and Best manuscripts

The next reason I am going to give is not conclusive in itself, but does add to it. The reason has to do with the faithfulness and dependability of the King James. The KJV has been around for almost 400 years (I wonder what kind of anniversary party will be had in 4 years!). Even though it has been under the most severe attacks my Laodicean-aged scholars - oftentimes the most respected in the field - the King James Version has stood the fire. I have to admit that in the past few years (finally) it has ceased to be the number one Bible Version sold, however just the fact that it is still among the top couple, shows that it has not gone anywhere.

Reason # 5: Because I can depend on it being around for another 100 years and I won't need to replace it and learn a new version.

20 years from now, when the Even More Newly Revised-Again Update New Revised Standard Version is released, or the So-Far Most Recent For This New Day Today's New International Version (those are the EMNRAUNRSV and the SFMRFTNDTNIV for those of you that are interested, coming soon to an encyclopedia near you), I will be able to sit down with my AV and read it the same as I am reading it today.

I said that this reason is not conclusive in itself, because if history shows that another translation ends up lasting for 400 years and truly "replaces" the KJV in its popularity, that will not change the truth of some of the other reasons that I have been giving.

Now, I probably won't be so concerned about the KJV in 100 years, as I suspect that I will be able to see the Word of God in Person! But until then, it is reasonable to be KJV-Only.

Silence

Shhhh...



Everybody quiet...



Was that difficult for you? It seems that silence is such a difficult thing for many people to deal with in America. We would not dare allow silence on the radio or on TV, and of course that has spilled over into the church service where we can't allow there to be any dead air-space. On our drives, we have the music going - not even necessarily vain or bad music, but it's playing and making noise.


When there's nothing going on, you have a tendency to... brace yourselves... to Think. You might find yourself contemplating the things of God.


So, my challenge to all of you - turn off your radios/CDs/tapes in the car for one week. Good or bad - and see how it goes.


Be still and know that I [not I as in Andy, but as in the LORD] am God.

The Good, the Bad and the Vain

The Good, the Bad, and the vain (for those that are interested, that would be the Substantival use of the adjectives):

I was thinking this morning (sorry, I'm only developing the thought this lunch time, it originated closer to breakfast time). It seems to be me that you can divide everything into 3 categories: good, bad and vain. The word vain means "empty" or "worth-less." So, things are either Good, or they are bad, or they are empty. I was thinking that music could fall into this category: Music can be good (FYI: this is the Predicate use of the adjective), if it is glorifying God. Music can be bad, if it is promoting sin or a false view of God. Music can be empty - "you're a grand ol' flag," etc. Is it wrong to listen to Vain (this here would be the Attributive use of the adjective) music? No, I don't think so, but it is vain - just like it is vain to watch sports or TV programs and movies or to get your feet pedicured...

Now, whether therefore ye eat or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all for the glory of God. The thing that you have to ask yourself is can you do whatever vain thing it is, to give God glory? Can you listen to vain music, watch vain TV, get vain pedicures and give God glory in it? Apparently, you can eat and drink for God's glory...

Just a thought.

Sinners

Yesterday marked the 266th anniversary of Jonathan Edwards' preaching his sermon: Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. That is important because 2 + 6 + 6 = 14 which is the number of completion times two!

Anyway, a major component of that sermon is that it is of God's mercies that we are not consumed (or maybe that was a major part of Jeremiah's sermon in Lam. 3...). And, that is the truth. We truly are sinners in the hands of an angry God, but God be praised that Jesus has become sin for us, that He has reconciled us to God in order to avoid God's wrath!

So, I had gone online to search for Edwards' sermon to look at it, and came across The Jonathan Edwards Center at Yale University. In introducting that sermon, they have written, "For better or worse, the sermon for which Edwards is probably most famous—or infamous—is the one preached to the congregation of Enfield, Massachusetts (later Connecticut) in July 1741." Immediately, I sensed a negative tone towards it: "better or worse" "famous-or infamous..." So, I continued reading, "Sinners, represents in many persons' minds the bleak, cruel, and hell-bent outlook of Edwards and his Puritan predecessors." Now, what would make them think that Edwards was 'hell-bent?'

The observation from the words that I would now insist upon is this. "There is nothing that keeps wicked men at any one moment out of hell, but the mere pleasure of God." By the mere pleasure of God, I mean his sovereign pleasure, his arbitrary will, restrained by no obligation, hindered by no manner of difficulty, any more than if nothing else but God's mere will had in the least degree, or in any respect whatsoever, any hand in the preservation of wicked men one moment.

We find it easy to tread on and crush a worm that we see crawling on the earth; so it is easy for us to cut or singe a slender thread that any thing hangs by: thus easy is it for God, when he pleases, to cast his enemies down to hell. What are we, that we should think to stand before him, at whose rebuke the earth trembles, and before whom the rocks are thrown down?

I wonder if Edwards was too hard for some of them and they wanted to present a softer picture of him...