Friday, September 14, 2007

My Kids' Salvation

I hope you all enjoy or are challenged by reading my lunch-time thoughts, and I do hope that what I write can be edifying to the saints. This is my 100th post on this blog, and honestly, I have never written on a topic about which I am more concerned than today's: The salvation of my children. Paul wrote in Romans 9:3, "For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren..." He is referring to the people of Israel. Truthfully, I don't think I could honestly say that about anybody in this world. I don't think that I would be willing to exchange my eternal salvation just to let somebody else get in... The only exceptions to that might be for my wife and children. I praise God that I will never be in a place that I would have to make that decision.

How do you bring your kids to Christ?

I start my post with this: There is one example in all of the Bible where a person made a sinner's prayer and was justified. That is the story of the publican (as opposed to the Pharisee) that begged God to be merciful to him a sinner. The next verse says that he want home justified. Other than that, salvation is always an issue of believing, and not of saying some prayer.

Because salvation does not come as the result of a prayer but rather from believing, and believing is described as being "...faith which worketh by love." (Galatians 5:6), because that is true, I don't want to lead my kids in a prayer and then say, "If you really mean that, you are now saved, and since you are saved, you can never lose that. Congratulations. Let's go get baptized." Honestly, I could do that with my three year old. He would agree with everything, and would repeat the prayer after me. But, I don't think Joe has the moral capacity to understand what sin really is and that he needs a Savior. I don't believe that God is holding him responsible for his sinful nature at this point in time in his life. When the law comes, sin will revive in his life, and he will die (Romans 7:9).

So, what do I do as a father that loves his children? I admit up front that I am lacking in definitive answers here. If I perfectly knew the right answer without doubt, then I would not struggle with this issue, I would just do whatever it was. But since I don't, I am going to share my random thoughts with you all here.

1) Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Romans 10:17. I believe that we need to have the word of God given to our kids - when we lie down, stand up, walk in the way, sit in our house, etc. The word of God must established as the true authority in our lives.

2) For the word of God to be recognized as the true authority in our lives, then we have to live by it. If I teach my kids they need to obey their parents because the Bible says so, but then I am not kind one to another, and my kids realize that, then they will learn from me that God's word isn't really that authoritative. They will grow up as a Christian by name only, and never believe from the heart unto righteousness.

3) The law is our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. Ray Comfort wrote a great book on this subject, How to Bring Your Children To Christ and Keep Them There. I read that book a while ago, and as I am writing this, I realize that I want to read it again. Part of that book teaches that we need to make our children understand the law of God and that when they violate that law, they are offending the very God that brought them life. Again, this demands holy living on the part of us parents, or else the children will not believe it to be true. But we unfortunately need to say to our kids sometimes, "Joseph, that was wrong. You did bad." (And after the modern day self-ego-building philosophers stop having their hissy fit, we as Christians need to remember not to be deceived by the philosophies and vain deceit of the world.) God has set the standard. It is NOT ok to ignore it, and it’s not OK to let our kids ignore it.

4) We need to pray. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. We need to pray for the influences in the lives of our children - their friends, teachers, neighbors, etc. I can remember friends in my life that were not positive Christian influences on me... And some of my old friends could be saying the same thing referring to me.

5) We need to teach them Jesus and His cross. It is only through faith in the blood of Christ that a person can be saved. It is by faith that we have access into the grace wherein we stand. After that we believe we are sealed with the Holy Ghost (Rom 5:2 & Eph 1:13). We need to teach our kids that they are not good enough to do anything to merit their own salvation! They need to understand their weakness (we use the law to show them their sin and exceeding sinfulness), and learn to fully trust in Jesus for forgiveness. When we demonstrate how to trust God in all areas of our lives, it becomes easier for our children to see it. Like it has been said, if we are willing to trust God with our eternal souls, we ought to be able to trust Him with whatever we're facing today.

What else? What am I missing? I have never been so concerned about a subject before. Would you be willing to wish yourself accursed from Christ for your children? Would you give up your eternal salvation for your son or daughter? I thank God that I will never have to make that decision, HOWEVER, what will I be willing to give up in this life for the eternal salvation of my children? What if it means I have to stop watching movies? Stop listening to certain music? Go to church more faithfully? Hold better times of family devotions? Have some standards that will cause us as a family to be mocked? Am I willing to cause this discomfort to myself if it will help nurture faith in my children? I would contemplate the idea of giving up my eternal salvation for them - I love them that much - but will I give up temporal pleasures?

Just a thought... or two...

Andy Hinds

Thursday, September 13, 2007

NOT KJV-Only Reason # 3

The third reason I would like to give... or better put the third NON-reason I am KJV is:

Reason # 3: Because the King James Version is an example of progressive or advanced revelation.

The basic premise of this point is that the King James Bible contains some sort of revelation that God wanted to get across to mankind that was not contained in the original languages and autographs. The reason I don't accept this is that God told us not to add to His word, and I don't believe He has added to it either. God inspired His word in the canon of Scripture ending about 95 AD with the Apostle John. If we allow that a translation of the Bible contains more revelation from God, then we would have to allow the possibility that God is revealing His word still today in other ways. Perhaps He is using men as prophets to add to His word again. Maybe the book of Mormon is actually just progressive revelation that He had not given back then... I don't see how we could make a difference between those ideas.

There are advantages in my KJV Bible over the original autographs:
First, I have all 66 books together in one book in my lap. The original autographs were not together.

Second, I can read English :)
Third, I like being able to go to a specific chapter and verse, rather than having to turn to a book and skim through it to find a particular point. That would be an interesting way to preach - I guess you really would stick to expository preaching.

Fourth, It is an advantage to me to have spaces in between words, ANDNOTHAVEALLOFTHEWORDSTOGETHERLIKETHIS.


Now, all of those things are advantages - so is the dictionary & concordance in the back of my Bible. But that does not mean that those things are added revelation from God. They are helps, and since every good & perfect gift comes from the Father of lights, I will even say that those helps are from God, but not that they are inspired revelation that was not found in the original autotraphs.

Just a thought...

Andy Hinds

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

9/11 & Rosh Hashana


So, yesterday was 9/11, and I, in my carelessness, failed to even mention it on my blog. Forgive me. Today, the D&C tells me that Rosh Hashana starts tonight...

Rosh Hashana (according to the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs) has the main themes of: repentance, preparation for the Day of Atonement (10 days later), and prayer for a fruitful year. It is the beginning of the Jewish New Year.

September 11th, 2001 was a wake-up call for America. I believed that people in this country ignored the goofy idea of moral relativism for a little while. Americans ignored the foolish idea of atheism when they all began to pray. It was a wakeup call that for a time softened some of the hardest hearts - I'm afraid we missed a great opportunity for revival in America... (Though to be honest, as a personal testimony, that is right about the time where I committed to being a more serious student of the Bible and a more real disciple of Jesus.) As we look through the book of Judges, only when the people found themselves in a catastrophic situation did they cry out to God, and God was faithful to send a deliverer.

Tying this in to Rosh Hashana which is tomorrow, this should be a time of repentance for us Christians in America. The Day of Atonement, the day of judgment is coming, and I believe that it is soon. But even though it appears to some of us that God is slacking concerning the promise of His return... He is not slack concerning it. His longsuffering is just to lead more to repentance.

Right now I am reading this book written by an ancient Jewish author. His name is Ezekiel - not sure on his last name. Throughout this book, you find God pronouncing judgment on a people, and then He gives the reason: That they may know that the LORD God is God.

Just a thought...

by Andy Hinds

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

NOT KJV-Only Reason # 2

As we continue this week's theme of reasons I am NOT KJV-Only (again, not the best way to say it, but the most eye-catching!), yesterday I talked about not being KJV-Only because of the copyright issue. Today, I want to give you reason number 2:

Reason # 2: Because you can only be saved if you are using the KJV.

The argument would go like this: James 1:21 says that we can be saved by the 'engrafted word.' 1 Peter 1:23 is more specific, "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever." Since the KJV is the word of God and is without corruption, and "the other version" is full of corruption, it goes without saying that you can't be born again with "the other version"... Right!?

Well, I have a couple of issues with that. First, I'm pretty sure that people were saved before 1611 (think about guys like Martin Luther or John Knox here...). Some would say, then they must have been using the Greek Textus Receptus for that... Ok, but I'm pretty sure that there were some people that were saved before 1611 that did not speak Greek. They would have either used the Latin, or some other language of Scripture. That means, that they were saved using a translation that most people realize would have had some level of corruption...

Second, what if someone is just saved from the testimony of others. What if somebody witnesses to someone else using their personal salvation story and including the truths of the gospel without quoting the Scriptures behind it. For example, what if I say: "You're a sinner, and Jesus died for your sins. He then rose from the dead, and you need to repent and put your faith in Him or else you will die and go to Hell." If someone believes that and repents... can they be saved? Even though there was no Bible verses quoted? I think so... The authority needs to be God's word, found in the Bible, but I don't think an exact quote is mandatory for the person to receive God's word - arguments?

It is the gospel that is the power of God unto salvation. When we witness, we ought to use Scripture - the word of God is quick and powerful - but if we misquote a verse on accident, we don't need to be afraid about that person not being able to get saved. (I don't think we ought to misquote verses either!) Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. The closer we are to the word of God (which is pure), the greater opportunity there is for faith to increase.

Just a thought...

Monday, September 10, 2007

NOT KJV-Only Reason # 1


Ok, I have gone through and shared 10 reasons why I am KJV-Only. If you haven't read them, they can be found here: KJV-Only. What I'd like to do now is share some reasons why I am NOT KJV-Only. Ok, I know that it is not the best way to word it, but it gets people's attention! I should say, this is not a reason that I am KJV-Only.

Reason # 1: Because the KJV is not copyrighted, whereas all the rest of the versions are copyrighted and only out for money.

There is a mixture of truth and falsehood in what I just wrote.

Truth: The KJV is not 'copyrighted.' That statement is true as far as we understand current coyright laws. However, the situation in England at the time of the translation in 1611, and the desire of the king at the time (I think his name was James), had what is known as the Crown Copyright - or something like that. It actually was more binding than what we consider current copyright. It never expires... just it is only good for England. Here in the United States, we were under that law until around 1776 - about July 4th I think it was, when in the course of human events it became necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands... OK, I'm off topic. If you look at a Bible printed in England (that would be an Oxford or a Cambridge), you will find the phrase 'cum privilegio' which means that it was printed with permission, or it was 'copied' with 'rights' by the crown. In England, the KJV is still copyrighted.

False: all the rest of the versions are copyrighted and only out for money. That is false because the copyrights of some verions have expired. Normal copyrights lasted for about 75 years. That means, that today, the American Standard Version (which is the American edition of the 1881 Revised Version of England) is no longer under copyright. But, just because it isn't copyrighted, does not mean that it's a good translation.

As for whether or not they are just out for money... I imagine some of them are, but I imagine some (if not the majority?) are actually out there trying to improve God's word... er, I mean, trying to improve the translation of God's word. I really don't know their motive. None of us do.

The copyright of the KJV by the crown was not for monetary benefit like copyrights are USUALLY employed today, but rather for political reasons. In America, there is freedom of the press, so books can be printed at will - though you can't copy someone else's work without permission. So, had the KJV been translated in America today, would it have been copyrighted?

...Interesting thought.