Different days demand their own special testimony. The watchman who would be faithful to his Lord and the city of his God has need to carefully note the signs of the times and emphasize his witness accordingly. Concerning the testimony needed now, there can be little, if any, doubt. An evil is in the professed camp of the Lord, so gross, so brazen in its impudence, that the most shortsighted of spiritual men can hardly fail to notice it. During the past few years it has developed at an abnormal rate, even for evil. It has worked like leaven until now the whole lump ferments. Look which way you may, its presence makes itself manifest. There is little if anything, to choose between Church, Chapel, or Mission Hall. However they may differ in some respects, they bear a striking likeness in the posters that figure upon and disfigure their notice boards. Amusement for the people is the leading article advertised by each. If any of my readers doubt my statement, or think my utterance too sweeping, let them take a tour of inspection and study the announcements for the week at the doors of the sanctuaries of the neighbourhood; or let them read the religious advertisements in their local papers. I have done this again and again, until the hideous fact has been proved up to the hilt, that amusement is ousting the preaching of the gospel as the great attraction.

‘Concerts’, ‘Entertainments’, ‘Fancy Fairs’, ‘Dramatic Performances’, are the words honoured with biggest type and most startling colours. The Concert is fast becoming as much a recognized part of church life as the Prayer Meeting, and is already, in most places, far better attended. The author, Archibald G. Brown, was a student and a contemporary of C. H. Spurgeon. He and Spurgeon were the leading Baptist preachers of late 19th-century London. Under Brown’s ministry, scores were saved and instructed in the capital’s East End. His voice raised in protest against the early features of entertainment evangelism was that of an active servant of Christ, not merely the protest of an idle crank or mere theorist.

The Devil’s Mission of Amusement

‘Providing recreation for the people’ will soon be looked upon as a necessary part of Christian work and as binding upon the church of God, as though it were a divine command, unless some strong voices be raised which will make themselves heard. I do not presume to possess such a voice, but I do entertain the hope that I may awaken some louder echoes. Anyway, the burden of the Lord is upon me in this matter, and I leave it with him to give my testimony ringing tone, or to let it die away in silence. I shall have delivered my soul in either case. Yet the conviction fills my mind that in all parts of the country there are faithful men and women who see the danger and deplore it and will endorse my witness and my warning. It is only during the past few years that ‘amusement’ has become a recognized weapon of our warfare and developed into a mission. There has been a steady ‘down grade’ in this respect. From ‘speaking out’, as the Puritans did, the church has gradually toned down her testimony; then winked at and excused the frivolities of the day. Then she has tolerated them in her borders, and now she has adopted them and provided a home for them under the plea of ‘reaching the masses and getting the ear of the people’. The devil has seldom done a cleverer thing than hinting to the church of Christ that part of her mission is to provide entertainment for the people with a view to winning them into her ranks. The human nature that lies in every heart has risen to the bait. Here, now, is an opportunity of gratifying the flesh and yet retaining a comfortable conscience. We can now please ourselves in order to do good to others. The rough old cross can be exchanged for a costume, and the exchange can be made with the benevolent purpose of elevating the people. All this is terribly sad, and the more so because truly gracious souls are being led away by the specious pretext that it is a form of Christian work. They forget that a seemingly beautiful angel may be the devil himself, for ‘Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light’ (2 Cor.11:14).



Not a Function of the Church

My first contention is that providing amusement for the people is nowhere spoken of in Holy Scripture as one of the functions of the church. What her duties are will come under our notice later on. At present it is the negative side of the question that we are dealing with. Now, surely, if our Lord had intended his church to be the caterer of entertainment, and so counteract the god of this world, he would hardly have left so important a branch of service unmentioned. If it is Christian work, why did not Christ at least hint it? ‘Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature’, is clear enough. So would it have been if he had added, ‘and provide amusement for those who do not relish the gospel.’ No such addendum, however, is to be found, nor even an equivalent for such, in any one of our Lord’s utterances. This style of work did not seem to occur to his mind.

Then again, Christ, as an ascended Lord, gives to his church specially qualified men for the carrying on of his work, but no mention of any gift for this branch of service occurs in the list. ‘He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers — for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.’ Where do the ‘public entertainers’ come in? The Holy Ghost is silent concerning them, and his silence is eloquence. If ‘providing recreation’ be a part of the church’s work, surely we may look for some promise to encourage her in the toilsome task. Where is it? There is a promise for ‘my Word’; it ‘shall not return unto me void’. There is the heart-rejoicing declaration concerning the gospel: ‘It is the power of God.’ There is the sweet assurance for the preacher of Christ that, whether he be successful or no — as the world judges success — he is a ‘sweet savour unto God’. There is the glorious benediction for those whose testimony, so far from amusing the world, rouses its wrath: ‘Blessed are ye when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven; for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.’ Were the prophets persecuted because they amused the people, or because they refused to? The gospel of amusement has no martyrology. In vain does one look for a promise from God for providing recreation for a godless world. That which has no authority from Christ, no provision made for it by the Spirit, no promise attached to it by God, can only be a lying hypocrite when it lays claim to be a branch of the work of the Lord.



Antagonistic to the Teaching and Life of Christ

But again, providing amusement for the people is in direct antagonism to the teaching and life of Christ and all his Apostles. What is to be the attitude of the church towards the world, according to our Lord’s teaching? Strict separation and uncompromising hostility. While no hint ever passed his lips of winning the world by pleasing it, or accommodating methods to its taste, his demand for unworldliness was constant and emphatic. He sets forth in one short sentence what he would have his disciples to be: ‘Ye are the salt of the earth.’ Yes, the salt: not the sugar-candy nor a ‘lump of delight’. Something the world will be more inclined to spit out than swallow with a smile. Something more calculated to bring water to the eye than laughter to the lip. Short and sharp is the utterance, ‘Let the dead bury their dead; but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.’ ‘If ye were of the world, the world would love his own; but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.’ ‘In the world ye shall have tribulation but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world’. ‘I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.’ ‘My kingdom is not of this world.

These passages are hard to reconcile with the modern idea of the church providing recreation for those who have no taste for more serious things – in other words, of conciliating the world. If they teach anything at all, it is that fidelity to Christ will bring down the world’s wrath, and that Christ intended his disciples to share with him the world’s scorn and rejection. How did Jesus act? What were the methods of the only perfectly ‘faithful witness’ the Father has ever had? As none will question that he is to be the worker’s model, let us gaze upon him. How significant the introductory account given by Mark: ‘Now, after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.’ And again, in the same chapter, I find him saying, in answer to the announcement of his disciples that all men were seeking for him, ‘Let us go into the next towns that I may preach there also: for therefore came I forth.’ Matthew tells us, ‘And it came to pass when Jesus had made an end of commanding his twelve disciples, he departed thence to teach and preach in their cities.’ In answer to John’s question, ‘Art thou he that should come?’ he replies, ‘Go and show John those things which ye do hear and see; the blind receive their sight, and the lame walk; the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear; the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.’ There is no item in the catalogue after this sort. ‘And the careless are amused, and the perishing are provided with innocent recreation.’ We are not left in doubt as to the matter of his preaching, for ‘when many were gathered together, insomuch that there was no room to receive them, no, not so much as about the door, he preached the word unto them.’ There was no change of method adopted by the Lord during his course of ministry; no learning by experience of a better plan. His first word of command to his evangelists was, ‘As ye go, preach.’ His last, ‘Preach the gospel to every creature.’ Not an Evangelist suggests that at any time during his ministry Jesus turned aside from preaching to entertain, and so attract the people. He was in awful earnestness, and his ministry was like himself. Had he been less uncompromising, and introduced more of the ‘bright and pleasant’ element into his mission, he would have been more popular.

Yet, when many of his disciples went back, because of the searching nature of his preaching, I do not find there was any attempt to increase a diminished congregation by resorting to something more pleasant to the flesh. I do not hear him saying, ‘We must keep up the gatherings anyway: so run after those friends, Peter, and tell them we will have a different style of service tomorrow. Something very short and attractive, with little, if any, preaching. Today was a service for God, but tomorrow we will have a pleasant evening for the people. Tell them they will be sure to enjoy it, and have a happy hour. Be quick, Peter; we must get the people somehow; if not by gospel, then by nonsense. No, this was not how he argued. Gazing in sorrow on those who would not hear the word, he simply turns to the Twelve, and asks, ‘Will ye also go away?’ Jesus pitied sinners, pleaded with them, sighed over them, warned them, and wept over them; but never sought to amuse them. When the evening shadows of his consecrated life were deepening into the night of death, he reviewed his holy ministry, and found comfort and sweet solace in the thought, ‘I have given them thy word.’ As with the Master, so with his Apostles — their teaching is the echo of his. In vain will the epistles be searched to discover any trace of a gospel of amusement. The same call for separation from the world rings in every one. ‘Be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed’, is the word of command in the Romans. ‘Come out from among them, and be ye separate and touch no unclean thing.’ It is the trumpet call in the Corinthians. In other words it is COME OUT — KEEP OUT — KEEP CLEAN — ‘for what communion hath light with darkness? and what concord hath Christ with Belial?’ ‘God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom the world is crucified unto me and I unto the world.’ Here is the true relationship between the church and the world according to the Epistle to the Galatians. ‘Be not ye, therefore, partakers with them. Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them’, is the attitude enjoined in Ephesians. ‘Sons of God without rebuke in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world: holding forth the word of life’, is the word in Philippians. ‘Dead with Christ from the elements of the world’, says the Epistle to the Colossians. ‘Abstain from every form of evil’ (RV), is the demand in Thessalonians. ‘If a man, therefore, purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the Master’s use’, is the word to Timothy. ‘Let us go forth, therefore, unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach’, is the heroic summons of the Hebrews. James, with holy severity, declares that ‘The friendship of the world is enmity with God; whosoever, therefore, will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.’ Peter writes: ‘Not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance; but as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of living’ (RV). John writes a whole epistle, the gist of which is, Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof, but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

Here are the teachings of the Apostles concerning the relationship of the church and the world. And yet, in the face of them, what do we see and hear? A friendly compromise between the two, and an insane effort to work in partnership for the good of the people. God help us, and dispel the strong delusion. How did the Apostles carry on their mission work? Was it in harmony with their teaching? Let the Acts of the Apostles give the answer. Anything approaching the worldly fooling of today is conspicuous by its absence. The early evangelists had boundless confidence in the power of the gospel, and employed no other weapon. Pentecost followed plain preaching. When Peter and John had been locked up for the night for preaching the resurrection, the early church had a prayer meeting directly they returned, and the petition offered for the two was, ‘And now, Lord, grant unto thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word.’ They had no thought of praying, ‘Grant unto thy servants more policy, that by a wise and discriminating use of innocent recreation they may avoid the offence of the cross, and sweetly show this people how happy and merry a lot we are.’ The charge brought against the apostles by the members of the Council was, ‘Ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine.’ Not much chance of this charge being brought against modern methods. The description of their work is, ‘And daily in the temple, and in every house they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ. Then, if they ‘ceased not’ from this, they had no time for arranging for entertainments; they gave themselves continually ‘to the ministry of the word’. Scattered by persecution, the early disciples ‘went everywhere preaching the word’. When Philip went to Samaria, and was the means of bringing ‘great joy in that city’, the only recorded method is, ‘He preached Christ unto them.’ When the Apostles went to visit the scene of his labours it is stated, ‘And they, when they had testified and preached the word of the Lord, returned to Jerusalem, and preached the gospel in many villages of the Samaritans.’ As they went back to Jerusalem directly they had finished their preaching. It is evident they did not think it their mission to stay and organize some ‘pleasant evenings’ for the people who did not believe.

The congregations in those days did not expect anything but the word of the Lord, for Cornelius says to Peter, ‘We are all here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God.’ The message given was ‘words whereby thou and all thine house shall be saved’. Cause and effect are closely linked in the statement, ‘Men of Cyrene spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus; and the hand of the Lord was with them; and a great number believed, and turned to the Lord.’ Here you have their method — THEY PREACHED. Their matter —the Lord Jesus. Their power — the hand of the Lord was with them. Their success — many believed. What more does the church of God require today? When Paul and Barnabas worked together, the record is, ‘The Lord gave testimony unto the word of his grace.’ When Paul, in a vision, hears a man of Macedonia saying ‘Come over and help us’, he assuredly gathers that the Lord had called him to preach the gospel unto them. Why so? How did he know but that the help needed was the brightening of their lives by a little amusement. or the refining of their manners by a collection of paintings? He never thought of such things. ‘Come and help us!’ meant to him, ‘Preach the gospel.’ ‘And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and reasoned with them out of the Scriptures’ — not about the Scriptures, mark, but out of them — opening and alleging that Christ must needs have suffered and risen from the dead.’ That was the ‘manner’ of evangelistic work in those days, and it seems to have been wonderfully powerful: for the verdict of the people is, ‘These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also.’ Just now the world is turning the church upside down; that is the only difference. When God told Paul that he had much people in Corinth, I read, ‘And he continued there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.’ Evidently then, he judged that the only way to bring them was by the Word. A year and a half, and only one method adopted. Wonderful! We should have had a dozen in that time! But then Paul never reckoned that providing something pleasant for the ungodly was part of his ministry; for, on his way to Jerusalem and martyrdom, he says, ‘Neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.’ This was all the ministry he knew. The last description we have of the methods of this prince of evangelists is of a piece with all that has gone before, ‘He expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses and out of the prophets, from morning till evening, preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus.’ What a contrast to all the rot and nonsense now being perpetrated in the holy name of Christ! The Lord clear the church of all the rubbish that the devil has imposed upon her, and bring us back again to apostolic methods!

Fails Badly on Two Counts

Lastly, the mission of amusement utterly fails to effect the desired end among the unsaved; but it works havoc among the young converts. Were it a success, it would be nonetheless wrong. Success belongs to God; faithfulness to his instructions to me. But it is not. Test it even by this, and it is a contemptible failure: let that be the method that is answered by fire, and the verdict will be ‘The preaching of the word, that is the power.’ Let us see the converts who have been first won by amusement. Let the harlots and the drunkards to whom a dramatic entertainment has been God’s first link in the chain of their conversion stand forth. Let the careless and tho scoffers who have cause to thank God that the church has relaxed her spirit of separation and met them half-way in their wordliness speak and testify. Let the husbands, wives, and children, who rejoice in a new and holy home through ‘Sunday Evening Lectures on Social Questions’ tell out their joy. Let the weary, heavy-laden souls, who have found peace through a concert, no longer keep silent. Let the men and women who have found Christ through the reversal of apostolic methods declare the same, and show the greatness of Paul’s blunder when he said, ‘I determined not to know anything among you save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.’ There is neither voice nor any to answer. The failure is on a par with the folly, and as huge as the sin. Out of thousands with whom I have personally conversed, the mission of amusement has claimed no convert. Now let the appeal be made to those who, repudiating every other method, have staked everything on the Book and the Holy Ghost. Let them be challenged to produce results. There is no need. Blazing sacrifices on every hand attest the answer by fire. Ten thousand times ten thousand voices are ready to declare that the plain preaching of the Word was, first and last, the cause of their salvation. But how about the other side of this matter — what are the baneful effects? Are they also nil? I will here solemnly as before the Lord give my personal testimony. Though I have never seen a sinner saved, I have seen any number of backsliders manufactured by this new departure. Over and over again have young Christians, and sometimes Christians who are not young, come to me in tears, and asked what they were to do, as they had lost all their peace and fallen into evil. Over and over again has the confession been made, ‘I began to go wrong by attending worldly amusements that Christians patronized.’ It is not very long since that a young man, in an agony of soul, said to me, ‘I never thought of going to the theatre until my minister put it into my heart by preaching that there was no harm in it. I went, and it has led me from bad to worse and now I am a miserable backslider; and he is responsible for it.’

When young converts begin to ‘damp off’, forsake the gatherings for prayer and grow worldly, I almost always find that worldly Christianity is responsible for the first downward step. The mission of amusement is the devil’s half-way house to the world. It is because of what I have seen that I feel deeply, and would fain write strongly. This thing is working rottenness in the church of God, and blasting her service for the King. In the guise of Christianity, it is accomplishing the devil’s own work. Under the pretence of going out to reach the world, it is carrying our sons and daughters into the world. With the plea of ‘Do not alienate the masses with your strictness’, it is seducing the young disciples from ‘the simplicity and the purity that is toward Christ’ (RV). Professing to win the world, it is turning the garden of the Lord into a public recreation ground. To fill the temple with those who see no beauty in Christ, a grinning Dagon is put over the doorway. It will be no wonder if he Holy Ghost, grieved and insultcd withdraws his presence; for ‘what concord hath Christ with Belial, and what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?’ ‘Come out!’ is the call for today, Sanctify yourselves. Put away the evil from among you. Cast down the world’s altars and cut down her groves. Spurn her offered assistance. Decline her help as your Master did the testimony of devils, for, ‘He suffered them not to speak, because they knew him.’ Renouncc all the policy of the age. Trample upon Saul’s armour. Grasp the Book of God. Trust the Spirit who wrote its pages. Fight with this weapon only and always. Cease to amuse and seek to arouse. Shun the clap of a delighted audience, and listen for the sobs of a convicted one. Give up trying to ‘please’ men who have only the thickness of their ribs between their souls and hell; and warn, and plead, and intreat, as those who feel the waters of eternity creeping upon them. Let the church again confront the world; testify against it: meet it only behind the cross; and, like her Lord, she shall overcome, and with him share the victory.

The Purpose of Worship

The purpose of worship is clearly to express the greatness of God and not simply to find inward release or, still less, amusement. Worship is theological rather than psychological.

DAVID WELLS

And in truth we know by experience that singing has great force and vigour to move and inflame the hearts of men to invoke and praise God with a more vehement and ardent zeal. Care must always be taken that the song be neither light nor frivolous; but that it have weight and majesty (as St Augustine says), and also, there is a great difference between music which one makes to entertain men at table and in their houses, and the Psalms which are sung in church in the presence of God and his angels.

JOHN CALVIN

For God will have his people edified . . . when we come together in the name of God, it is not to hear merry songs and to be fed with wind . . . but to receive spiritual nourishment.

JOHN CALVIN

Used with kind permission of the Banner of Truth Trust, USA, an article from the Banner of Truth Magazine, August-September, 2009

 John Piper has gone from defending Doug Wilson and N. T. Wright to inviting him to come and speak at his Desiring God National Conference titled “With Calvin in the Theatre of God”, as seen around the 43 minute mark of the video at (information at Desiring God I.). Piper even gives his rationale for why he invited Wilson, which can be seen at Desiring God II. As part of his rationale, he quotes Doug Wilson giving an analogy about the difference between “good advice” and “good news.” Piper draws the conclusion from this analogy that Doug Wilson has the Gospel right. He even has a video of Wilson’s testimony immediately after his rationale.

Further, in the June 2009 edition of Christianity Today, Piper continues his teaching on “future justification”:

Present justification is based on the substitutionary work of Christ alone, enjoyed in union with him through faith alone. Future justification is the open confirmation and declaration that in Christ Jesus we are perfectly blameless before God. This final judgment accords with our works. That is, the fruit of the Holy Spirit in our lives will be brought forward as the evidence and confirmation of true faith and union with Christ. Without that validating transformation, there will be no future salvation.

Notice the last sentence - “Without that validating transformation, there will be no future salvation.” Our “present justification” is not enough to save us; rather it is our works done in union with Christ, which will determine our “future justification” and salvation. Peter Leithart has said the said the same thing. In fact it is one of the teachings of the Federal Vision. Is it any wonder that Piper has invited Wilson, the leading proponent of the Federal Vision, to speak with him at a conference?

On crossing the threshold of La Montaigu, Calvin felt himself in a new but not a better atmosphere. Unlike that of La Marche, which was sunny with the free ideas of Republican Rome, the air of Montaigu was musty with the dogmas of the school-men. But as yet Calvin could breathe that air. The student with the pale face, and the grave and serious deportment, did not fail to satisfy the most scholastic and churchy of the professors at whose feet he now sat. His place was never empty at mass; no fast did he ever profane by tasting forbidden dish; and no saint did he ever affront by failing to do due honor to his or her fete-day.

The young student; was not more punctual in his devotions than assiduous in his studies. So ardent was he in the pursuit of knowledge that often the hours of meal passed without his eating. Long after others were locked in sleep he was still awake; he would keep poring over the page of schoolman or Father till far into the morning. The inhabitants of that quarter of Paris were wont to watch a tiny ray that might be seen streaming from a certain window of a certain chamber Calvin's of the college after every other light had been extinguished, and long after the midnight hour had passed. His teachers formed the highest hopes of him.

A youth of so fine parts, of an industry so unflagging, and who was withal so pious, was sure, they said, to rise high in the Church. They prognosticated for him no mere country curacy or rectorship, no mere city diocese, nothing less was in store for such a scholar than the purple of a cardinal. He who was now the pride of their college, was sure in time to become one of the lights of Christendom. Yes! one of the lights of Christendom, the student with the pale face and the burning eye was fated to become. Wide around was his light to beam; nor was it the nations of Europe only, sitting meanwhile in the shadow of Rome, that Calvin was to enlighten, but tribes and peoples afar off, inhabiting islands and continents which no eye of explorer had yet discovered, and no keel of navigator had yet touched, and of which the Christendom of that hour knew nothing.

But the man who had been chosen as the instrument to lead the nations out of their prison-house was meanwhile shut up in the same doleful captivity, and needed, first of all, to be himself brought out of the darkness. The story of his emancipation his struggles to break his chain is instructive as it is touching. Calvin is made to feel what Scripture so emphatically terms "the power of darkness," the strength of the fetter, and the helplessness of the poor captive, that "remembering the gall and the wormwood" he may be touched with pity for the miseries of those he is called to liberate, and may continue to toil in patience and faith till their fetters are broken.

The Reformation was in the air, and the young student could hardly breathe without inhaling somewhat of the new life; and yet he seemed tolerably secure against catching the infection. He was doubly, trebly armed. In the first place, he lived in the orthodox atmosphere of the Montaigu; he was not likely to hear anything there to corrupt his faith: secondly, his head had been shorn; thus he stood at the plough of Rome, and would he now turn back? Then, again, his daily food were the schoolmen, the soundly nutritious qualities of whose doctrines no one in the Montaigu questioned. Over and above his daily and hourly lessons, the young scholar fortified himself against the approaches of heresy by the rigid observance of all outward rites. True, he had a mind singularly keen, penetrating, and inquisitive; but this did not much help the matter; for when a mind of that caste takes hold of a system like the Papacy, it is with a tenacity that refuses again to let it go; the intellect finds both pleasure and pride in the congenial work of framing arguments for the defense of error, till at last it becomes the dupe of its own subtlety. This was the issue to which the young Calvin was now tending. Every day his mind was becoming more one-sided; every day he contemplated the Papacy more and more, not as it was in fact, but as idealised and fashioned in his own mind; a few years more and his whole thinking, reasoning, and feeling would have been intertwined and identified with the system, every avenue would have been closed and barred against light, and Calvin would have become the ablest champion that ever enrolled himself in the ranks of the Roman Church. We should, at this day, have heard much more of Calvin than of Bellarmine.

But God had provided an opening for the arrow to enter in the triple armor in which the young student was encasing himself. Calvin's cousin, Olivetan, a disciple of Lefevre's, now came to Paris. Living in the same city, the cousins were frequently in each other's company, and the new opinions, which were agitating Paris, and beginning to find confessors in the Place de Greve, became a topic of frequent converse between them. Nay, it is highly probable that Calvin had witnessed some of the martyrdoms we have narrated in a previous chapter. The great bell of Notre Dame had summoned all Paris and why not Calvin? To see how the young Pavane and the hermit of Livry could stand with looks undismayed at the stake. Olivetan and Calvin are not of one mind on the point, and the debates wax warm. Olivetan boldly assails, and Calvin as boldly defends, the dogmas of the Church. In this closet there is a great battlefield. There are but two combatants before us, it is true; but on the conflict there hang issues far more momentous than have depended on many great battles in which numerous hosts have been engaged. In this humble apartment the Old and the New Times have met. They struggle the one with the other, and as victory shall incline so will the New Day rise or fade on Christendom. If Olivetan shall be worsted and bound again to the chariot-wheel of an infallible Church, the world will never see that beautiful version of the New Testament in the vernacular of France, which is destined to accomplish so much in the way of diffusing the light. But if Calvin shall lower his sword before his cousin, and yield himself up to the arguments of Lefevre's disciple, what a blow to Rome! The scholar on whose sharp dialectic weapon her representatives in Paris have begun to lean in prospect of coming conflict, will pass over to the camp of the enemy, to lay his brilliant genius and vast acquirements at the feet of Protestantism.

The contest between the two cousins is renewed day by day. These are the battles that change the world not those noisy affairs that are fought with cannons and sabres, but those in which souls wrestle to establish or overthrow great principles. "There are but two religions in the world," we hear Olivetan saying. "The one class of religions are those which men have invented, in all of which man saves himself by ceremonies and good works; the other is that one religion which is revealed in the Bible, and which teaches man to look for salvation solely from the free grace of God." "I will have none of your new doctrines," Calvin sharply rejoins; "think you that I have lived in error all my days?" But Calvin is not so sure of the matter as he looks. The words of his cousin have gone deeper into his heart than he is willing to admit even to himself; and when Olivetan has taken farewell for the day, scarce has the door been closed behind him when Calvin, bursting into tears, falls upon his knees, and gives vent in prayer to the doubts and anxieties that agitate him.

The doubts by which his soul was now shaken grew in strength with each renewed discussion. What shall he do? Shall he forsake the Church? That seems to him like casting himself into the gulf of perdition. And yet can the Church save him? There is a new light breaking in upon him, in which her dogmas are melting away; the ground beneath him is sinking. To what shall he cling? His agitation grew anon into a great tempest. He felt within him "the sorrows of death," and his closet resounded with sighs and groans, as did Luther's at Erfurt. This tempest was not in the intellect, although doubtless the darkness of his understanding had to do with it; its seat was the soul the conscience. It consisted in a sense of guilt, a consciousness of vileness, and a shuddering apprehension of wrath. So long as he had to do merely with the saints, creatures like himself, only a little holier it might be, it was all well. But now he was standing in the presence of that infinitely Holy One, with whom evil cannot dwell. He was standing there, the blackness and vileness of his sin shown in the clear light of the Divine purity; he was standing there, the transgressor of a law that says, "The soul that sinneth shall die" that death how awful, yet that award how righteous! He was standing there, with all in which he had formerly trusted saints, rites, good works swept clean away, with nothing to protect him from the arm of the Lawgiver. He had come to a Judge without an advocate. It did not occur to him before that he needed an advocate, at least other than Rome provides, because before he saw neither God's holiness nor his own guilt; but now he saw both.

The struggle of Calvin was not the perplexity of the skeptic unable to make up his mind among conflicting systems, it was the agony of a soul fleeing from death, but seeing as yet no way of escape. It was not the conflict of the intellect which has broken loose from truth, and is tossed on the billows of doubt and unbelief a painful spectacle, and one of not infrequent occurrence in our century; Calvin's struggle was not of this sort; it was the strong wrestling’s of a man who had firm hold of the great truths of Divine revelation, although not as yet of all these truths, and who saw the terrible realities which they brought him face to face with, and who comprehended the dreadful state of his case, fixed for him by his own transgressions on the one hand, and the irrevocable laws of the Divine character and government on the other. A struggle this of a much more terrific kind than any mere intellectual one, and of this latter sort was the earnestness of the sixteenth century. Not knowing as yet that "there is forgiveness with God," because as yet he did not believe in the "atonement," through which there cometh a free forgiveness, Calvin at this hour stood looking into the blackness of eternal darkness. Had he doubted, that doubt would have mitigated his pain; but he did not and could not doubt; he saw too surely the terrible reality, and knew not how it was to be avoided. Here was himself, a transgressor; there was the law, awarding death, and there was the Judge ready nay, bound to inflict it: so Calvin felt.

The severity of Calvin's struggle was in proportion to the strength of his self-righteousness. That principle had been growing within him from his youth upwards. The very blamelessness of his life, and the punctuality with which he discharged all the acts of devotion, had helped to nourish it into rigor and strength; and now nothing but a tempest of surpassing force could have beaten down and laid in the dust a pride which had been waxing higher and stronger with every rite he performed, and every year that passed over him. And till his pride had been laid in the dust it was impossible that he could throw himself at the feet of the Great Physician.

But meanwhile, like King Joram, he went to physicians "who could not heal him of his disease;" mere empirics they were, who, gave him beads to count and relics to kiss, instead of the "death" that atones and the "blood" that cleanses. "Confess!" cried the doctors of the Montaigu, who could read in his dimmed eye and wasting form the agony that was raging in his soul, and too surely divined its cause. "Confess, confess!" cried they, in alarm, for they saw that they were on the point of losing their most promising pupil, on whom they had built so many hopes. Calvin went to his confessor; he told him not all but as much as he durst, and the Father gave him kindly a few anodynes from the Church's pharmacopoeia to relieve his pain. The patient strove to persuade himself that his trouble was somewhat assuaged, and then he would turn again to the schoolmen, if haply he might forget, in the interest awakened by their subtleties and speculations, the great realities that had engrossed him. But soon there would descend on him another and fiercer burst of the tempest, and then groans louder even than before would echo through his chamber, and tears more copious than he had yet shed would water his couch.

One day, while the young scholar of the Montaigu was passing through these struggles, he chanced to visit the Place de Greve, where he found a great crowd of priests, soldiers, and citizens gathered round a stake at which a disciple of the new doctrines was calmly yielding up his life. He stood till the fire had done its work, and a stake, an iron collar and chain, and a heap of ashes were the only memorials of the tragedy he had witnessed. What he had seen awakened a train of thoughts within him.

"These men," said he to himself, "have a peace which I do not possess. They endure the fire with a rare courage. I, too, could brave the fire, but were death to come to me, as it comes to them, with the sting of the Church's anathema in it, could I face that as calmly as they do? Why is it that they are so courageous in the midst of terrors that are as real as they are dreadful, while I am oppressed and tremble before apprehensions and forebodings? Yes, I will take my cousin Olivetan's advice, and search the Bible, if haply I may find that 'new way' of which he speaks, and which these men who go so bravely through the fire seem to have found." He opened the Book which no one, says Rome, should open unless the Church be by to interpret. He began to read, but the first effect was a sharper terror. His sins had never appeared so great, nor himself so vile as now.

He would have shut the Book, but to what other quarter could he turn? On every side of him abysses appeared to be opening. So he continued to read, and by-and-by he thought he could discern dimly and afar off what seemed a cross, and One hanging upon it, and his form was like the Son of God. He looked again, and the vision was clearer for now he thought he could read the inscription over the head of the Sufferer: "He was wounded for our iniquities, he was bruised for our transgressions; the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed." A ray now shone through his darkness; he thought he could see a way of escape a shelter where the black tempest that lowered over him would no longer beat upon his head; already the great burden that pressed upon him was less heavy, it seemed as if about to fall off, and now it rolled down as he kept gazing at the "Crucified." "O Father," he burst out it was no longer the Judge, the Avenger "O Father, his sacrifice has appeased thy wrath; his blood has washed away my impurities; his cross has borne my curse; his death has atoned for me!" In the midst of the great billows his feet had touched the bottom: he found the ground to be good: he was upon a rock.

Calvin, however, was not yet safe on shore and past all danger. One formidable obstacle he had yet to surmount, and one word expresses it the Church. Christ had said, "Lo, I am with you alway." The Church, then, was the temple of Christ, and this made unity in all ages and in all lands one of her essential attributes. The Fathers had claimed this as a mark of the true Church. She must be one, they had said.

Precisely so; but is this unity outward and visible, or inward and spiritual? The "Quod semper, quod ubique et ab omnibus," if sought in an outward, realization, can be found only in the Church of Rome. How many have fallen over this stumbling-block and never risen again; how many even in our own age have made shipwreck here! This was the rock on which Calvin was now in danger of shipwreck. The Church rose before his eyes, a venerable and holy society; he saw her coming down from ancient times, covering all lands, embracing in her ranks the martyrs and confessors of primitive times, and the great doctors of the Middle Ages, with the Pope at their head, the Vicar of Jesus Christ. This seemed truly a temple of God's own building. With all its faults it yet was a glorious Church, Divine and heavenly. Must he leave this august society and join himself to a few despised disciples of the new opinions? This seemed like a razing of his name from the Book of Life. This was to invoke excommunication upon his own head, and write against himself a sentence of exclusion from the family of God nay, from God himself! This was the great battle that Calvin had yet to fight.

How many have commenced this battle only to lose it! They have been beaten back and beaten down by the pretended Divine authority of "the Church," by the array of her great names and her great Councils, and though last, not least, by the terror of her anathemas. It is not possible for even the strongest minds, all at once, to throw off the spell of the great Enchantress Nor would even Calvin have conquered in this sore battle had he not had recourse to the Sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God. Ever and anon he came back to the Bible; he sought for the Church as she is there shown a spiritual society, Christ her Head, the Holy Spirit her life, truth her foundation, and believers her members and in proportion as this Church disclosed her beauty to him, the fictitious splendor and earthly magnificence which shone around the Church of Rome waned, and at last vanished outright.

"There can be no Church," we hear Calvin saying to himself, "where the truth is not. Here, in the Roman Communion, I can find only fables, silly inventions, manifest falsehoods, and idolatrous ceremonies. The society that is founded on these things cannot be the Church. If I shall come back to the truth, as contained in the Scriptures, will I not come back to the Church? and will I not be joined to the holy company of prophets and apostles, of saints and martyrs? And as regards the Pope, the Vicar of Jesus Christ, let me not be awed by a big word. If without warrant from the Bible, or the call of the Christian people, and lacking the holiness and humility of Christ, the Pope place himself above the Church, and surround himself with worldly pomps, and arrogate lordship over the faith and consciences of men, is he therefore entitled to homage, and must I bow down and do obeisance? The Pope," concluded Calvin, "is but a scarecrow, dressed out in magnificences and fulminations. I will go on my way without minding him."

In fine, Calvin concluded that the term "Church" could not make the society that monopolized the term really "the Church." High-sounding titles and lofty assumptions could give neither unity nor authority; these could come from the Truth alone; and so he abandoned "the Church" that he might enter the Church the Church of the Bible.

The victory was now complete. The last link of Rome's chain had been rent from his soul; the huge phantasmagoria which had awed and terrified him had been dissolved, and he stood up in the liberty wherewith Christ had made him free. Here truly was rest after a great fight a sweet and blessed dawn after a night of thick darkness and tempest.

Thus was fought one of the great battles of the world. When one thinks of what was won for mankind upon this field, one feels its issues important beyond all calculation, and would rather have conquered upon it than have won all the victories and worn all the laurels of Caesar and Alexander. The day of Calvin's conversion is not known, but the historian D'Aubigne, to whose research the world is indebted for its full and exact knowledge of the event, has determined the year, 1527; and the place, Paris that city where some of the saints of God had already been put to death, and where, in years to come, their blood was to be poured out like water. The day of Calvin's conversion is one of the memorable days of time.

TO THE MOST HIGH AND MIGHTY PRINCE

JAMES,

BY THE GRACE OF GOD

KING OF GREAT BRITAIN, FRANCE, AND IRELAND, DEFENDER OF THE FAITH, &C.,/P

The Translators of the Bible wish Grace, Mercy and Peace, through JESUS CHRIST, our Lord.

____________

G REAT and manifold were the blessings, most dread Sovereign, which Almighty God, the Father of all mercies, bestowed upon us the people of England, when first he sent Your Majesty's Royal Person to rule and reign over us. For whereas it was the expectation of many, who wished not well unto our Sion, that upon the setting of that bright Occidental Star, Queen Elizabeth of most happy memory, some thick and palpable clouds of darkness would so have overshadowed this Land, that men should have been in doubt which way they were to walk; and that it should hardly be known, who was to direct the unsettled State; the appearance of your Majesty, as the Sun in his strength, instantly dispelled those supposed and surmised mists, and gave unto all that were well affected exceeding cause of comfort; especially when we beheld the Government established in Your Highness, and Your hopeful Seed, by an undoubted Title, and this also accompanied with peace and tranquillity at home and abroad.

But among all our joys, there was no one that more filled our hearts, than the blessed continuance of the preaching of God's sacred Word among us; which is that inestimable treasure, which excelleth all the riches of the earth; because the fruit thereof extendeth itself, not only to the time spent in this transitory world, but directeth and disposeth men unto that eternal happiness which is above in heaven.

Then not to suffer this to fall to the ground, but rather to take it up, and to continue it in that state, wherein the famous Predecessor of Your Highness did leave it: nay, to go forward with the confidence and resolution of a Man in maintaining the truth of Christ, and propagating it far and near, is that which hath so bound and firmly knit the hearts of all Your Majesty's loyal and religious people unto You, that Your very name is precious among them: their eye doth behold You with comfort, and they bless You in their hearts, as that sanctified Person who, under God, is the immediate Author of their true happiness. And this their contentment doth not diminish or decay, but every day increaseth and taketh strength, when they observe, that the zeal of Your Majesty toward the house of God doth not slack or go backward, but is more and more kindled, manifesting itself abroad in the farthest parts of Christendom, by writing in defence of the Truth, (which hath given such a blow unto that man of sin, as will not be healed,) and every day at home, by religious and learned discourse, by frequenting the house of God, by hearing the Word preached, by cherishing the Teachers thereof, by caring for the Church, as a most tender and loving nursing Father.

There are infinite arguments of this right Christian and religious affection in Your Majesty; but none is more forcible to declare it to others than the vehement and perpetuated desire of accomplishing and publishing of this work, which now with all humility we present unto Your Majesty. For when Your Highness had once out of deep judgment apprehended how convenient it was, that out of the Original Sacred Tongues, together with comparing of the labours, both in our own, and other foreign Languages, of many worthy men who went before us, there should be one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English Tongue; Your Majesty did never desist to urge and to excite those to whom it was commended, that the work might be hastened, and that the business might be expedited in so decent a manner, as a matter of such importance might justly require.

And now at last, by the mercy of God, and the continuance of our labours, it being brought unto such a conclusion, as that we have great hopes that the Church of England shall reap good fruit thereby; we hold it our duty to offer it to Your Majesty, not only as to our King and Sovereign, but as to the principal Mover and Author of the work: humbly craving of Your most Sacred Majesty, that since things of this quality have ever been subject to the censures of ill meaning and discontented persons, it may receive approbation and patronage from so learned and judicious a Prince as Your Highness is, whose allowance and acceptance of our labours shall more honour and encourage us, than all the calumniations and hard interpretations of other men shall dismay us. So that if, on the one side, we shall be traduced by Popish Persons at home or abroad, who therefore will malign us, because we are poor instruments to make God's holy Truth to be yet more and more known unto the people, whom they desire still to keep in ignorance and darkness; or if, on the other side, we shall be maligned by self-conceited Brethren, who run their own ways, and give liking unto nothing, but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their anvil; we may rest secure, supported within by truth and innocency of a good conscience, having walked the ways of simplicity and integrity, as before the Lord; and sustained without by the powerful protection of Your Majesty's grace and favour, which will ever give countenance to honest and christian endeavours against bitter censures and uncharitable imputations.

The Lord of heaven and earth bless Your Majesty with many and happy days, that, as his heavenly hand hath enriched Your Highness with many singular and extraordinary graces, so You may be the wonder of the world in this latter age for happiness and true felicity, to the honour of that great GOD, and the good of his Church, through Jesus Christ our Lord and only Saviour.

---

In 1911 a book appeared commemorating the three-hundredth anniversary of the publication of King James’ Bible of 1611. The title of the book was, The History of the English Bible. The authors were the two sons of the 19th century N.T. scholar W.F. Moulton, who had himself worked on the revision committee of the Revised Version of 1881, the first ever attempt by the established Church of England to revise the old Authorized or King James Version. As you might imagine, the authors had a vested interest in painting their father’s legacy in this matter in the most flattering of terms. More than this, however, their remarks on this momentous revision event of 1881-5 serve us today as a wonderful benchmark for both evaluating their optimism about the success of the Revised Version, by the year 1911; and for assessing the state of the contemporary debate surrounding those who, to this day, continue to use the King James Version on critical principles and those who opt for more modern options. The following quote is a sample of their rhetoric. Please keep in mind that the following statement was made ninety-one years ago:- “That the Revised Version has, in a quarter of a century, superseded the venerable classic which is now keeping its  tercentenary, would be obviously a rash assertion; but to talk of its failure is at least equally absurd. In a large and increasing number of places of worship it [the Revised Version] will be found in the pulpit, as an alternative to that Authorized [or, King James Version], or even alone. Intelligent people are familiar with its rendering, and ignorant prejudice against its more startling changes of text in the New Testament seems to have died away. In the matter of text, indeed, an epoch was marked by the British and Foreign Bible Society’s centenary
publication of Nestle’s edition of the Greek Testament which was almost an official registration of the decrease of the “Received Text.” Dean Burgon’s thunder rolls no more, and no scholar of any reputation remains to plead for his views. This fact alone, of course, disposes of the only serious attack upon the Revised New Testament.”

Now, because there are so many interesting claims found here I want to take just a moment and examine each, discovering in the process how they stand up in light of the contemporary situation.

The authors admit here, in the year 1911, that by their day, the Revised Version had made
some inroads. It was found along side the Authorized Version in some churches, and in others, it was found to have the sole dignity as the pulpit Bible. But they also admit that it had in no way, by that day, “superseded the venerable classic,” that is the Authorized Version of 1611. Moreover, we are told that the educated classes were now familiar with its alternative renderings. Furthermore, the rank prejudice against “its more startling changes of text in the N.T. seem[ed] to have died away.” And against just what was all this prejudice unjustly directed?

Well, the most striking change in the Revised Version was, of course, the treatment of the
last twelve verses of Mark’s gospel as non-canonical, which just happened to contain the
resurrection and ascension accounts of Jesus. Was it really mere prejudice that caused the Christian rank and file, as well as the Christian educator, or pastor, to feel alarm at the loss of such material, particularly since Mark’s account is considered to be the very earliest life of Jesus we have? Surely, if we have no resurrection, or ascension here, it leaves some considerable room for doubt about these events being real history.

Furthermore, by questioning the authenticity of these last twelve verses one invites the
higher critical suggestion that these events were added to the text later, as an after thought, to compensate for the scandal of the defeat of Jesus and his followers jointly at the hands of the Romans and Jewish leaders.

On this point, I fear I must make clear that contemporary scholarship is no longer in
agreement with either the Revised Version, nor with the Moulton brothers on this point.
Bruce Metzger, the undisputed dean of text critical scholarship in America, has made very plain for us the fact that these last twelve verses are, indeed, canonical. Hear his judgment:-
“Already in the second century…the so-called long ending of Mark was known to Justin Martyr and to Tatian, who incorporated it into his Diatesseron. There seems to be no good reason, therefore, to conclude that, though external and internal evidence is conclusive against the authenticity of the last twelve verses as coming from the same pen as the rest of the gospel, the passage ought to be accepted as part of the canonical text of Mark” [emphasis mine] (Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament 1987:269-270).

Moreover, the undisputed leading authority in Europe on text critical matters in the post-war era was the late Kurt Aland. Again, in his estimation, RV loses and King James wins:- “The practice of concluding the gospel of Mark at 16:8 [minus the resurrection/ascension] continued to be observed in some Greek manuscripts [only three have ever been found]… although the ‘longer ending of Mark 16:9-20 was recognized as canonical… [emphasis mine] (Aland/Aland, The Text of the New Testament, 1987), p. 69.

And yet, the natural descendents of the Revised Version, The Revised Standard Version, the
New Revised Standard Version, the New International Version, and the most recent addition
in this series, what I call the “Evangelical RSV,” better known as the English Standard Version, continue to cast doubt on the historicity of this account in their footnotes. And in the case of the ESV, the narrative itself is interrupted to allow the editors to inform the reader that the resurrection in this Gospel is in dispute! This is very unfortunate, indeed.

And what of this “Nestle Greek Text” versus this “Textus Receptus” referred to by the
Moulton brothers? The Nestle Greek text was a kind of “scholars” text that was pieced
together in the late nineteenth century and is the kind of text that was used in the production of the Revised Version. It was a reconstructed text that the nineteenth-century
scholars believed they had recovered, just as is the contemporary Nestle/Aland edition, now in its 27th altered edition.

Note the words of Richard N. Soulen and R. Kendal Soulen in description of this “critical text” in their 3rd edition of Handbook of Biblical Criticism (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), pp. 41-42:- “A critical text is a conjectural reconstruction of a document of which only divergent RECENSIONS are extant; it is therefore a hypothetical text usually based on the one or two best MSS available.”

The Textus Receptus, on the other hand, was the text used in the production of the King
James Version and all Protestant editions from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, with a manuscript lineage going back to the earliest emergence of the Nicene Church.

The Nestle’s text edition, while a scholar’s conjectural, or suppositional text, was never
actually found to have been used by the orthodox church, while the Textus Receptus was the kind of text continuously used by the church in her lectionaries, commentaries, and reproduced in the medieval monasteries during the Middle-Ages. Hence, this Textus Receptus is known as the Ecclesiastical Text.

The Moulton brothers in this book of theirs, The History of the English Bible, further suggested that because a “Bible society” was now using the Scholars text, over the Ecclesiastical Text, that this now meant that the Church Bible had now come to an end. But how did we get to the place where a Bible society dictated to the Church what is Scripture, and what is not (on this see my unpublished lecture: “Contemporary Bible Translations: Anabaptist Victories in the New World”). That, I am afraid, is another story for another time.

But has their prediction come true? Has the Ecclesiastical Text been completely replaced by the Scholar’s text? Well, almost, in certain circles. The so called “New International Bible Society” gave us, about thirty years ago, the New International Version, which has, more or less, replaced the King James Bible as the all time best selling English Bible. But the Textus Receptus, or Ecclesiastical Text, is far from dead. Thomas Nelson has produced the New King James Bible, which employs the Ecclesiastical Text and which still rivals the NIV. Moreover, the very popular New Geneva Study Bible is founded on this New King James Bible.

Furthermore, with the recent appearance of the 21st Century King James Bible we have one more edition still employing the Ecclesiastical Text as opposed to the Scholars text. In fact, at this very moment, we are in the midst of what scholars are calling a “revival” of the Ecclesiastical Text. But more on this in a minute. One final point from the Moulton brothers.

They claimed that Dean Burgon’s “thunder rolls no more” and that this solitary figure was the one man standing in the way of the complete success of the Revised Version. Just who was this Dean Burgon and how could he wield so much authority?

Dean Burgon was the most vocal expert to oppose the Revised Version on the eve of its birth into the late 19th century world. He did more research on the last twelve verses of Mark’s Gospel than anyone alive in his day and published his results in a book titled: The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel of St. Mark Vindicated and Established. As the title makes clear, one always knew where Burgon stood on such issues. But he was not just heat and fury with no light or reason. He was a bona fide authority in the field of textual studies. The very testimony to his being the single obstacle to the success of the Revised Version is a clear enough indication that the academic community knew there was substance to his rolls of thunder. The absence of such men today might well explain how and why the Bible societies and the NIV have, for the moment, supplanted the Ecclesiastical Text. It seems we have many a blustering would-be-thundering prophet pamphleteer, particularly in fundamentalist ranks, but few willing to become textual authorities to defend the Ecclesiastical Text, such as Burgon was.

You see, Burgon knew that if the Scholar’s Text prevailed and the Church was made to give up the earliest resurrection account, it would just be a matter of time before one after another of the basic tenets of Christianity would be up for renegotiation. While it may not be perfectly obvious to everyone today, the fact that such topics as abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, the ordination of women, etc., are, at this very moment, being debated at all, in so-called evangelical circles, can be directly attributed to the fact that when we look to contemporary editions of the Bible, we receive a progressively less and less certain sound on these subjects, and others (note the current discussion over the Oxford Annotated edition of the NRSV that some see as giving ground to the legitimacy of same sex activity). The most recent example of this is the NIV so-called “Inclusive Language” edition of the Bible (now called in its current incarnation, Today’s New International Version). The conservative evangelical scholar, J.I. Packer said the following regarding this “feminist” edition of Scripture:- “Adjustments made by what I call the feminist edition are not made in the interests of legitimate translation procedure. These changes have been made to pander to a cultural prejudice that I hope will be short-lived”. James Dobson made a similar assessment.

Do keep in mind that the same committee that gave us the NIV, also produced this feminist edition as well. This, I say, is the result of the unprecedented situation in which we find ourselves in today: “Designer Bibles,” produced for profit by the corporate world, with no ecclesiastical or theological constraints, with the end result being the exchange of the Ecclesiastical Text, for the Scholars text, which the Moulton brothers were so keen to celebrate the beginnings of in 1911. I wonder what their assessment would be today if we could bring them back to account for their judgment.

Dean Burgon, an opponent of the revision of 1883-5, made his own prediction. Let the reader decide who was the true prophet, Burgon or the Moulton brothers:- “Whatever may be urged in favour of Biblical revision, it is at least undeniable that the undertaking involves a tremendous risk. Our A.V. is the one religious link which at present binds together ninety millions of English-speaking men scattered over the earth’s surface. Is it reasonable that so unutterably precious, so sacred a bond should be endangered, for the sake of representing certain words more accurately—here and there translating a tense with greater precision—getting rid of a few archaisms? It may be confidently assumed that no revision of our A.V., however judiciously executed, will ever occupy the place in publick [sic] esteem which is actually enjoyed by the work of the translators of 1611—the noblest literary work in the Anglo-Saxon language. We shall in fact never have another ‘Authorized Version’” (Revision Revised, p. 113.).

Powerful words, indeed, and a small indication of what the Moulton brothers feared about the intensity of Burgon’s rhetoric. But were they accurate when they said that “no scholar of any reputation remains to plead for his views”? Well, in 1911, that was nearly the case.

Surprisingly, however, in 1979 Professor Eldon Jay Epp, one of the leading authorities in text critical studies referred in the prestigious Journal of Biblical Literature, to “a revival of the almost century-old view of J.W. Burgon.” Also, the late Professor Kurt Aland of the German Institute for the Study of New Testament Text Criticism also questioned in 1987 in the Trinity Journal, “who in German speaking countries today would seek to revive the arguments of the 18th century orthodoxy?… and yet in the United States Burgon is enjoying a considerable revival.” This revival must never be confused with a Baptist fundamentalist organization that has co-opted Burgon’s name and distorted his views beyond recognition.

Part of this revival is coming out of Yale University. Brevard Childs, recently retired Old
Testament Professor from Yale, has recently given Burgon qualified endorsement in the
following words:- "In spite of the excessive rhetoric, Burgon sensed that a theological dimension of the textus receptus [the Ecclesiastical Text] was not being properly handled in the critical approach….He queried whether the Holy Catholic Church could have been misled from its inception by its use of a corrupt text. Could one discount the continuous witness from antiquity, the church fathers, the versions and lectionaries for a discarded text (Sinaiticus) which a German found in a waste basket"? (The New Testament as Canon Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985, p. 523-524).

And so you see there is some degree of our coming to our senses on this most vital issue as many are now returning to the Ecclesiastical Text and the Authorized Version which is based upon it. Burgon’s thunder, indeed, rolls again. How is it, therefore, that a publication coming out of the U.K. takes an entirely different approach to this subject in its Spring 2002 issue of the CRN Journal? In five essays and one review, the topic of the Authorized Version of Scripture is taken up with a smugness and self-assured superior tone that rivals that of the Moulton brothers above. Is this a legitimate response to the revival of the Ecclesiastical Text? Not at all. It never even engages the debate. Instead, this magazine addresses a parallel movement from within the highly separatist movement of American Baptist fundamentalism.
But what is most unfortunate in this is that the editor and authors of these articles leave the impression that the irresponsible, near cult like advocacy of the Authorized Version from within this subset of American Christianity, is the exhaustive expression of any advocacy whatsoever. That is, this publication deliberately leaves the impression that the profoundly ill-informed, emotionally driven public advocacy of the historic Bible of the Church of England by American fundamentalist Baptists, is the only community attempting to say anything in
favour of this classic English Bible. Hence, in a conscious, fallacious, straw-man fashion, the impression is left that if anyone makes a public defence of either the Ecclesiastical Greek New Testament (so-called Byzantine text, or Textus Receptus), they must needs be a part of this “KJV Only” cult. This is all rather embarrassing for these contributors, to be perfectly honest. This is like saying that those who enjoy listening to Wagner are all neo-Nazis at heart; or all those who like Shakespeare, or Milton, are patriarchal and oppressors of women because those authors wrote when white European men dominated higher educational institutions.

Are the following quotes from KJV Only cultists?

“It will probably be a long time before any English translation excels the King James Version with respect to the much desired quality of literalness (in the sense of faithful reproduction —no more, no less—within the bounds of good expression…)” This is Professor Edward L. Miller in a negative review of the NIV as found in the Harvard Theological Review 72 (July-October 1979): 307-31.
7
How about this statement?:

“We have as a rule used the King James Version in translations, our reasons for doing so must be obvious: it is the version most English readers associate with the literary qualities of the Bible, and it is still arguably the version that best preserves the literary effects of the original languages.” This is R. Alter and F. Kermode, The Literary Guide to the Bible (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987), p. 7.

And what of this statement?:

“There is…no possibility of considering the literary impact of the Authorized Version apart from the Bible in general…. [T]he Authorized Version owes to the original its matter, its images, and its figures.” This is C.S. Lewis, The Literary Impact of the Authorized Version (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967), p. 3.

Now, were someone to read only issue 14 of the CRN Journal, without any other perspective on the issues of modern translations, or the merits of the AV, it would be reasonable for them to conclude that all three of these above statements were made by KJV Only fundamentalists.
Hence, the publishers of this journal have not done a service, but rather a disservice to its readers.

Part of the problem with why this rather one-sided treatment is found within the covers of this popular publication, is that not one of the contributors is anything like an authority in either the fields of N.T. text criticism, or translation philosophy. They are, instead, mostly British Evangelicals, or American fundamentalists (e.g., D. Kutelik and D. Wallace are the latter). Hence, while addressing what to them appears to be a troublesome group, the KJV Only cult—and so they are—they have felt impunity in leaving the impression that anyone who advocates the Ecclesiastical Text even in critical and thoughtful terms, weather Brevard Childs from Yale, or E.F. Hills, or even myself, (none of whom are ever acknowledged); or who might favour the A.V. because of its faithfulness to the original languages, or because of its preferred literary qualities—such as the above authorities do on that subject—must, herefore, be part of this American fundamentalist cult! How very unfortunate that they did not use better judgment. Now they must bear the scorn of fairer and better minds.

Finally, the real purpose of this issue of CRN Journal being dedicated to such a narrow
project is to be found in the final instalment—a review of the English Standard Version of the English Standard Version of the Bible, which is based on the Revised Standard Version, which is copyrighted by the National Council of Churches. This just mentioned point of copyright is never brought to the attention of the reader by the reviewer, Rev. Ligon Duncan III. That the ESV is at least 91% the RSV has been admitted by the publishers of the former. That the RSV was utterly condemned as an altogether liberal bible by perhaps the most learned O.T. scholar ever to hold a seat on the faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary, Professor O.T. Allis, is also never mentioned by Mr. Duncan, though, he, too, is supposed to be a conservative Presbyterian (for more information on this please contact our Institute at the web address below). Perhaps this is because Mr. Duncan is neither an authority in the field, nor someone offering a detached assessment of this work. Rather, he is a pastor of a large Presbyterian Church in the United States, which is spearheading a campaign to adopt this ESV as the next great corporate bible of the Evangelical world, now that the NIV has been turned over to the feminists. In short, this issue of the CRN Journal is a poor example of politics and marketing masking itself as scholarship. Let the reader beware.

This passage, originally entitled Wel Davids luit, niet Davids lied, is from volume one of Om Woord en Kerk, a collection of Dr. K. Schilder's sermons and articles. The translation is by J. H. Visscher.

Woe to those . . .who sing idle songs and like David invent for themselves instruments of music . . . but are not grieved over the ruin of Joseph!
Amos 6:4-6

People who only have a song and not the lute, a psalm but not the harp, the content but not the form, pure thoughts but no pure sounds, are poor. And they are also responsible for their poverty, for God's people can only be poor if they have refused the riches which God offers them.

But there is yet one thing that is poorer than poverty. That is death. And people who have the lute but not the song, the harp but not the psalm, the form but not the content, the pure sounds but not the fine, pure thoughts, are no longer poor, but dead.

And thus, the children of Joseph were poor, in their ruin, when they, in exile, hung their harps on the willows by the waters of Babylon (Ps. 137:1-2). For they missed the harp, the harp of David. But yet the song, the psalm of David was heard again . . . If I forget you, 0 Jerusalem! .. . (Ps. 137:5).

But the ones at ease in Zion, whom Amos addresses, were dead. They had not taken over the entire heritage from David. From David's inheritance they did take over the lute, the harp, the pure sound, the music, the art; but they missed his song, his psalm, his sacred thought, his godliness. And then the result was terrible.

The harp, the lyre, the music is never without contents; they are always based upon ideas. And when David's thoughts had faded in the hearts of Israel's children, they could no longer pray like David, no longer confess like David, no longer cry out for mercy like David, no longer glorify God through song as David did.

Sure, they kept David's harp; the art was still there; but instead of David's psalms, this generation sang idle songs; the sacred music was replaced by dance music, the instrument that David had invented came into the hands of strange, profane persons and the "worldly" songs overpowered David's sacred art.

For David sings, prays, and trembles about Israel's sin and God's justice. But these harpists and lute-players are not grieved over the ruin of Joseph and do not weep about the sin of Israel.

In every worldly tune that Amos' contemporaries played, there was an accusation concerning the sin of those who had given up David's harp because David's thoughts had faded in their minds.

Similarly, for us, worldly music is still always an accusation. 0 church, you have given up the music, the art, out of your own hands. You gave David's harp a vacation because David's thoughts stood still with you.

And at the same time, Amos comes to us saying: every Davidic song seeks a beautiful form, a beautiful sound, also in worship — just like David sought. But if the form excites and enthralls you, where is your content?

You, who search for a new form, or you, who stubbornly hold on to the old form, where are the thoughts of David in you? Where is your distress concerning Israel's sin?

Only he who knows David's thoughts may reach out for his harp in order to do with the strings what is good in his eyes. Keep your thoughts pure and let your heart be like that of the man after God's own heart; then your song, your art-form will come up as spontaneously and will always remain as fresh as David's.

Reformation of the lyre begins with the conversion of the heart — to the God of David. But also—even though you should leave David's harp unchanged in its old form, but no longer think David's thoughts, behold, then also you, who swear by David's harp, have become a noisy gong and a clanging cymbal, (I Cor. 13:1).

By Prof. K. Schilder

From spindleworks.com

The doctrine of baptismal regeneration is not only repudiated by all the Reformed Confessions, but, what perhaps, will to many minds be more convincing, it is impossible to reconcile the doctrine with their theology. Every one knows that the Reformed Churches adopted the theological system of Augustin. They all taught that none are born of the Spirit but those who are finally saved. If a man is called (regenerated,) he is justified; and if justified, he is glorified. There is no such thing, according to their doctrine, as falling from grace. If the Reformed therefore believed that all who are baptized are vitally united to Christ, and regenerated by the Holy Ghost, then they held that all the baptized are saved. They assuredly did not hold the latter, and therefore it is no less certain that they did not hold the former. It is impossible for a man to be a Calvinist, and believe the doctrine of baptismal regeneration.

Charles Hodge from his essay, “The Church Membership of Infants,” The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review 30.2 (April 1858): 382-83.

Every time you buy a copy of the ESV, you contribute to the National Council of Churches, they hold the copyright to it. Please listen to this lecture by the late Theodore Letis, historian, scholar and defender of the true Scriptures, click here to listen.