The NIV's Reformed slant in Galatians 6:16

Part and parcel of Calvinism is the notion that the Church has replaced Israel as the object of Divine favour and as the recipient of Divine promises. Popularly called Replacement Theology, it's technically referred to as Supersessionism, and it not only serves as a doctrinal pillar of Reformed Theology, it can even be shown to have roots about as far back in Church History as we are able to go. The Epistle of Barnabas, placed in the very text of Codex Sinaiticus by whomever compiled it, and thought to date almost as early as the New Testament itself, features it as a core teaching. According to Wikipedia, it argues that the Old Testament scriptures were always intended for Christians, that the Jews misinterpreted them by taking the Law literally, and that the covenant with Israel was broken early on (linked especially to the golden calf incident). Christians alone, it argues, are the true people of God.

Well, there are a lot of Bible verses that have to be suppressed--or at least ignored--for this to work. In writing to the Romans, the apostle Paul painted a picture of the Gentiles being grafted into Israel, not replacing them. His concern with the Jews was not that God had rejected them, but that they had rejected God--a situation he clearly saw as temporary. Thus throughout the millennia, Christian scholars have wrestled with the paradox that although Israel appears to have been set aside in favour of the Church, God's eternal promises to Israel have not been, and cannot be, annulled--if the words of Scripture actually mean anything like what they say. Thus, Barnabas' enduring assertion that God never intended the Law to be taken as written is crucial to the entire argument.

Now, the Geneva Bible, in its notes on Romans 11, does hold out hope that Israel will be saved eventually, but by joining the church; kind of a reverse of Paul's scenario, combining the permanence of all of God's promises to Israel with  the entire church being the actual beneficiary (which still requires some creative interpretation--could we even call it a dismissal?--of a lot of them). But it was this very doctrine, weakened as it was, that led Oliver Cromwell to open throw open the gates of England to Jewish immigration, and eventually led to a widespread rejection of Supersessionism among readers of the English Bible--especially in the United States, where both Dispensationalism and Ministries to Jewish People flourished in the 20th century. It appears that which Bible translation one uses really can affect his doctrine and practice, even at a national scale.

Not to say that I haven't already tipped my hand, but the point of this post is actually not to argue for or against Supersessionism--but rather to point out that the Committee for Bible Translation has done that very thing. A main point of Replacement Theology is to equate the Church of God with the Israel of God, and this is exactly what several Bible translations--could we even call them that--do at Galatians 6:16.

Peace and mercy be upon all who walk by this rule, upon the Israel of God. --RSV
All who walk by this standard are the true Israel of God - his chosen people. Peace and mercy on them! --The Message
May God’s peace and mercy be upon all who live by this principle; they are the new people of God. --NLT
Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule—to the Israel of God. --NIV

All four of these, ranging from the fairly literal to the wildly paraphrastic, have to do one thing to be able to equate the two: ignore not just one, but two of the three occurrences of the word και (and/also/even)--specifically the last one, which appears to draw a distinction between two groups of people: "those who follow this rule" and "the Israel of God." 

Contrast this to the versions that don't leave out any of the conjunctions:
And whosoever shall follow this rule, peace on them and mercy: and upon the Israel of God. --Douay-Rheims
And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God. --KJV
And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God. --ESV

Here, the two categories are clearly separate. It's easy to see that someone whose theology would dictate that they equate Israel and the Church would be inclined to leave out that crucial 'and' to find scriptural justification for their position.

Actually, this is one of the places where I don't think either the KJV or the NIV got it quite right. One recent craze in hermeneutics has been to find chiasms all over the scriptures, and while I think it's possible to take this way too far, the point can be made that a chiastic structure is in play in this verse, and it should actually be translated the way the HCSB did:

May peace be on all those who follow this standard, and mercy also be on the Israel of God!

--which appears a much better fit to the context of Pauline theology in general and Galatians chapter six in particular. 

Whether one decides to directly translate all of the 'ands', or to leave out the first as superfluous in English, it's a doctrinal choice--not a linguistic one--to ignore the last of them.

The CBT made the doctrinal choice, by taking away a word from the Scriptures, to use their translation to push Replacement Theology--or at least the result was indistinguishable from if they had. This, from the Bible whose introduction states that the translators went to great lengths to avoid sectarian bias.

This post will probably undergo a lot of editing over the coming weeks, but it's been percolating in my mind long enough to finally start the process of getting it in writing.

EDITED TO ADD: I do recognize that at least the last couple editions of the TNIV/NNIV have 'and' here in a footnote--but I reiterate that it was a conscious decision to relegate that reading to a footnote rather than leaving it in the text. Unless, of course, the allegation is true that the NIV was just a reworking of the RSV, in which case they did leave intact the reading in their favoured text, and any criticism about this sectarian bias would deservedly be moved back to that translation committee. I forget whether the RSV introduction proclaimed their translation to be free of sectarian bias, but that's one of the things I can track down for future updates. 

ADDED FURTHER: I could be even more magnanimous and say that translating και as 'even' here would provide for the desired equivalence of Israel and the Church. But that's not what the CBT did, even in their footnote. I can see, though, how they could have justified their rendition on linguistic, rather than theological, grounds--but it's still a rendition that only a Calvinist could produce. 

John MacArthur and 1 Peter 2:2

I concluded this post with, "Calvinism, of course, does not stand or fall upon a paraphrase of 1 Peter 2:2. It is able to twist any scripture to its ends, and this one need be no exception. So why not just translate it as it stands, and leave its (mis)interpretation up to the theologians?" and I observed an interesting example of this in a sermon by the late John MacArthur that I heard recently on Christian radio.
John was exegeting 1 Peter 2 and read the verse in its entirety. Since his favourite Bible version contains the phrase, "with respect to salvation," he read that part too--but then went on to exegete the verse exactly as he would have had it not been present.

EDIT: Oh, what do you know--Grace to You has made the whole sermon available on their website, so you don't have to take my word for it.
Note what he did here: he took the words "with respect to" which are, at best, a loose paraphrase of the Greek word εις, ַand applied them literally--something I'm sure would be frowned upon if any of his homiletics students at The Masters College (formerly the Los Angeles Baptist College) tried it on virtually any other passage in the New Testament. It's a metaphor of salvation, he says. A figure of speech, not meant to be taken literally.
John, who started out preaching from the New Testament using the King James Version, switched early on to the NASB because, he said, it was so literal and close to the Greek (well, except for this verse, I guess). It should have bothered him, knowing Greek as well as he did, to see what liberties the NASB translators--some of whom he knew personally--took with this verse, but even when he helped oversee a revision of the NASB--the Legacy Standard Bible--he kept in the paraphrase, I suspect because it suited his Calvinist worldview like a literal, close-to-the-Greek translation (one that stands in the text of the ESV, but in the LSB was relegated to a footnote) never could have.

I thought that Calvinism, to pass itself off as a scriptural worldwview, would not have to rely upon a paraphrase that turned something literal on its face into a metaphor. But if that were indeed the case, why couldn't a Calvinist expositor and Bible translator, one who prides himeself in being as accurate to the literal meaning of the original languages as can reasonably be expected, handle a literal interpretation of this one verse?

A Calvinist Bias in the Translation of Hebrews 10:38--but was it an NIV innovation?

"Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him."
--Hebrews 10:38 KJV

Note the words in italics: what happens if you try to read the verse without them?

"Now the just shall live by faith: but if draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him." 

Clearly, something is missing here. What is it? The singular generic pronoun 'he.'

"Now the just shall live by faith: but if he draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him." 

But wait! protests the Calvinist. A justified person can't lose his salvation, so how could God say that He would have no pleasure in him if he draws back? Well, before I come down to hard on the KJV here, let's see if the NIV managed to escape Calvinist bias:

“But my righteous[Some early manuscripts But the righteous]one will live by faith. And I take no pleasure in the one who shrinks back.”[Hab. 2:4 (see Septuagint)]

Oh, boy. Rather than hiding their bias in an italicized phrase, the CBT changed the personal pronout outright, obscuring the actual meaning even more.

Here is a quick rundown of the English versions WITHOUT a Calvinist bias (ie, they make 'just' or 'righteous' the antecedent:
ASV But my righteous one shall live by faith: And if he shrink back, my soul hath no pleasure in him.
AMP But My righteous one [the one justified by faith] shall live by faith [respecting man’s relationship to God and trusting Him]; And if he draws back [shrinking in fear], My soul has no delight in him.
CJB But the person who is righteous will live his life by trusting, and if he shrinks back, I will not be pleased with him.
ESV but my righteous one shall live by faith, and if he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him.
HCSB But My righteous one will live by faith; and if he draws back, I have no pleasure in him.

Some versions are even able to play around with gender and number without making the one who turns back a different category than the just:

GNT My righteous people, however, will believe and live; but if any of them turns back, I will not be pleased with them.

But it looks like ALL translations based on the TR--starting with that bastion of Calvinist translation, the Geneva Bible--twist the text to separate the one who lives by faith from the one who turns away. An intersting exception is Young's Literal Translation, which makes the separation but blames it on being two separate quotes from the Old Testament:
and `the righteous by faith shall live,' and `if he may draw back, My soul hath no pleasure in him,'
Green's Literal Translation goes one step further, cutting the NT verse into THREE OT quotes, with reciepts:
"But the just shall live by faith;" "and if he draws back," "My soul is not pleased in him." Hab. 2:4; Zeph. 1:6; Mal. 1:10 
The problem with that third reference, though, is that it switches the person from second to third--Green should have put the end quotes after "pleased."

Now, the theme of drawing back is a big one in Hebrews, with five different passages warning of the danger of drawing back:
Hebrews 2:1-4 — Warning against drifting away from the message of salvation.
Hebrews 3:7–4:13 — Warning against unbelief and failing to enter God's rest (drawing from Psalm 95 and the wilderness generation).
Hebrews 5:11–6:12 (with the core warning in 6:4-8) — Warning against falling away after receiving enlightenment and spiritual privileges.
Hebrews 10:19-39 (especially 10:26-31) — Warning against willful sin and the terrifying prospect of judgment.
Hebrews 12:14-29 — Warning against refusing God's voice and failing to receive the unshakable kingdom.

Calvinists have their work cut out for them, proving in each of the five cases that these warnings don't apply to anyone that God has already justified. But it appears they needed a little help in this fourth passage, cutting the link between the just person and the one that draws back--a link so obviouls that dozens of English Versions had translators who could see it, and weren't ashamed to admit it. It's odd that the CBT, in cutting themselves loose from a lot of the language of the KJV, were unable to do what so many other modern Bible Version editors have done, and cut themselves free from its Calvinist bias as well.

The Never-dying Confusion over the Never-die Promise of Jesus

"Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again. Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day. Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world." John 11: 23-27 [KJV]

These words of Jesus, that those who believe in him will never die, have been appropriated many times in the thousands of years since he spoke them by cult leaders who offer their followers the same promise. Never mind that every one of Jesus' disciples died, typically by violent means; it's incredibly easy to found a cult on this premise, and, contrary to what one would think, these typically continue without all that much of a hitch following the deaths of their founders. That is, Never-die movements never seem to die, so strong is the temptation to appropriate this promise as one of eternal life in this present age. 

But what did Jesus actually mean by “Everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die” [ESV]? Well, commentators have taken different approaches to solving this, with various Bible translators following their leads. One of the easiest ways out has been to focus on the eschatological context of Martha's affirmation, and interpret Jesus as meaning, “When I return, everyone who is then alive, of those who have believed in me, will be immediately translated into eternity in a resurrection body.” Convenient as that is, I don't see it coming across in any of the dozens of versions I checked.

What many translators do instead is to modify 'will never die' with some emphatic modifier like “really.”

And everyone who lives and believes in me will never really die. [ERV]

That, I guess, gives some room for the expositor to further address the problem of Jesus' disciples actually dying, but doesn't really say how that works. Nor does it actually translate the Greek.

Some play around with the conjunction a little, without coming up with anything new, other than perhaps to emphasise that one actually has to be living as a beliver to appropriate this promise:

And whoever lives by believing in me will never die. [NIV]

As can be expected, the Amplified finds room for a couple of these options:

And whoever continues to live and believes in (has faith in, cleaves to, and relies on) Me shall never [actually] die at all.

The Message basically combines all of them:

And everyone who lives believing in me does not ultimately die at all.

But I'd like to direct you to that last clause, with a word not found in any of the dozens of other versions: ultimately. This actually translates the final clause of Jesus' statement in Greek, εισ τον αιωνα, literally, 'unto the age'. What readers of most English versions miss out on is that 'die' is actually negated three times in this verse, which is so difficult to express in English that only this hyper-paraphrase actually manages to translate all three of them. 'ου', 'εισ τον αιωνα' and 'μη' become 'does not', 'ultimately', and 'at all'.

I think the key to understanding this is that third negation expressed in the original, εισ τον αιωνα. That is, anyone who believes in Jesus (and I think the NNIV may even be on to something here: anyone who lives by believing in Jesus, or to expand it a bit, believes in Jesus whilst he still lives—there being no second chance once earthy life is over) will only be “mostly dead” when his body succumbs to mortality; but not “all dead,” because that body awaits a future resurrection. And to prove this, Jesus will shortly resurrect the body of Lazarus, purposely left to stew in the grave long enough for decomposition to begin.

So don't get tripped up by this passage, or trapped by the claims of a cult founder: Jesus promised, not a never-ending life stuck in a sinful human body, but something far better: an eternity in a resurrection body. All that is required is that your physical death, when it does come, finds you believing in him.

1 Peter 2:2--Another Calvinist mistranslation in the NIV

"Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation," --NIV 1973-2011

"As infants euen now borne, reasonable, milke without guile desire ye, that in it you may grow vnto saluation." --Rheims NT 1582

There are several issues here; we may as well begin with the textual issue. Most Greek NT manuscripts don't have the last 2 words of the verse, εἰς σωτηρίαν. But it's a rather slim majority, and the words are well attested in the sizable minority, with omission tending to increase rapidly toward the end of the manuscript era, when most extant manuscripts were made. Of special note is that the words ARE found in the versions, whether early, middle, or late. It would appear that theological reasons were behind transmitting a text without them--and that, even as recently as the textual selections behind the King James Version--but we'll leave such questions for another day, because even by including the variant, the CBT managed to rob it of its meaning by mistranslating it into English.

And thus we come to the translational issue: how should one translate εἰς σωτηρίαν? Well, literally, it's "unto salvation." Εἰς is a directional preposition, most often translated into in the KJV.

Here is a lexical definition:
eis (a preposition) – properly, into (unto) – literally, "motion into which" implying penetration ("unto," "union") to a particular purpose or result.

We can see that in regards to entering into salvation, 'unto' would be a more grammatically apt wording. But I'll accept 'into,' as it wouldn't make a difference either way. The vital point is that salvation is being entered through the process of craving pure metaphoric milk (the Greek literally means 'wordly,' or--idiomatically--'reasonable' or 'logical,' not 'spiritual'). "In" is an unacceptable translation, as it denotes position, not transposition.

Now, why would the CBT want to have us "grow up in our salvation" rather than "grow into salvation," maugre well-established translation principles? Clearly, this paraphrase was made for no other reason than to avoid the implication that salvation is a goal to attain rather than a state to improve. And this is an characteristically Calvinist interpretation, pressed into service under the guise of the most accurately translated English Bible possible.

Calvinism, of course, does not stand or fall upon a paraphrase of 1 Peter 2:2. It is able to twist any scripture to its ends, and this one need be no exception. So why not just translate it as it stands, and leave its (mis)interpretation up to the theologians?

The pro-Calvinist slant of the NIV

I have not written on the NIV for some time, but recent posts by Brian Abasciano brought out the fact that a pro-Calvinist interpretation of Acts 13:48 is firmly ensconced in the NIV, despite his promotion of a translation that preserves the ambiguity of the Greek. Here is a link, with some relevant parts quoted (with the spelling standardised):
----------------------
Back in December of 2009, I wrote [this] letter to the NIV Translation Committee recommending a change in their translation of Acts 13:48[:]

The present NIV has this for Acts 13:48 — “When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.”

Of course, the main translation issue has to do with the translation of tetagmenoi, which the NIV translates (together with esan) as “were appointed”. This is such an important text theologically because it gives the impression that the people referred to believed because God first appointed them to eternal life. Some consider this a slam dunk proof for Calvinism/unconditional election. Indeed, some consider this to be the most powerful text in favor of Calvinism. So I would argue that it is especially important to take care to be fair-handed in the translation and indicate if there is any serious alternative. Now I don’t think this is the best translation, and a number of scholars have objected to it. But even if one disagrees with the alternative, I think it would be most fitting at least to indicate that there is a legitimate alternative.

An alternative has made it into a legitimate lexicon. Friberg’s has: (2) passive, with an abstract noun ὅσοι ἦσαν τεταγμένοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον as many as had become disposed toward eternal life (possibly AC 13.48) or all those who were appointed to eternal life (probably AC 13.48)

Now I note that Friberg does think “disposed” less likely, but that is essentially an interpretive decision. That then means context etc., not grammar or pure lexicography, must decide. And the context favors taking the Gentiles as being set on eternal life in contrast to the Jews of the same episode who judged themselves unworthy of eternal life. It is imperative to note that this alternative rendering is a rendering of the passive; it does not construe tetagmenoi as a middle. . . .

Turning to BDAG, it is significant that this most authoritative lexicon for NT studies does not take tasso as “appoint” in Acts 13:48. It gives two major meanings for tasso: (1) to bring about an order of things by arranging — arrange, put in place; (2) to give instructions as to what must be done — order, fix, determine, appoint. BDAG places tetagmenoi in Acts 13:48 in the first meaning. Now BDAG happens to assign a specific sense within that meaning that would practically arrive at a similar theological place as “appoint”, but with a decidedly different lexical meaning for the word: “belong to, to be classed among”. Nevertheless, it is significant that they conclude that the meaning of tetagmenoi in Acts 13:48 lies in the domain of placement/position, and specifically under the meaning of people being put into a specific position. It is also worth noting that BDAG places the use of tasso in 1 Cor 16:15 under this specific heading (people being put into a specific position), an instance that specifically means “to devote to” (speaking of the household of Stephanus: “they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints”, which obviously refers to an inward positioning of will or intent, a disposition/commitment or something along these lines). The use of tasso for disposition can be seen in non-biblical texts as well such as Philo Quod. Det., 166. . . .

In Conclusion:
I believe that the current translation of Acts 13:48 in the NIV is inaccurate, and that the best understanding of tasso in Acts 13:48 is that it refers to Gentiles who were in position for eternal life / ready for eternal life / even intent on obtaining eternal life (particularly in contrast to the Jews of the same episode who opposed Paul and rejected the gospel, and so who judged themselves unworthy of eternal life [Acts 13:46]), and that the most accurate translation of the phrase in question would be something like: “as many as were disposed to eternal life believed” or “as many as were aligned for eternal life believed” or “as many as were positioned for eternal life believed”. However, I recognize that this would be to take a very specific view of the passage, and might not be appropriate for the NIV. So, remembering that BDAG places the instance of tasso in Acts 13:48 not under the meaning of appointment but under the meaning of being placed in position, and that Friberg’s lexicon notes “disposed” as a possible meaning, I would suggest a more neutral translation: “as many as were set for eternal life believed”. This can readily be understood either of these Gentiles having gotten set in position for eternal life (by whatever means or agent[s] one infers from the context) or having been set (by absolute and effectual appointment) for eternal life by God. Thus this translation preserves the ambiguity of the Greek. I would then suggest adding a footnote along these lines: “or appointed or disposed”. This would probably be ideal for the reader to feel the sense of the Greek and know the two main ways it could be taken. If the committee is reluctant to change the present NIV translation, then I would urge that at least a footnote be added to the verse mentioning that it could be translated “as many as were disposed to eternal life”.
-----------------------------
It does not appear that his letter had any effect on the CBT, as the NNIV reads the same.

Castellio on Calvin as a common despot

"Your words and your weapons are only those common to every despot; and they can give you but a temporal, not a spiritual, dominance--a dominance based on coercion, and not upon the love of God. Nor do I envy you your power or your weapons. I have other powers and other weapons--an imperturbable conviction of innocence, and a trust in Him who will help me and give me grace.

"Even if, for a season, truth is suppressed by the blind 'justice' of this world, no one can permanently coerce truth. Let us cease to heed the judgment of a world which slew Christ; let us ignore an assize before which only the cause of violence proves victorious. The Kingdom of God is not of this world."


--Sebastian Castellio to John Calvin, after Calvin used his authority to block publication of Castellio's book exposing Calvin's role in the brutal execution of Servetus (translated from the quotation in Castellio gegen Calvin oder Ein Gewissen gegen die Gewalt, by Stefan Zweig, 1936)

Calvinism is not quite a Cult

In an earlier post, I addressed the question as to whether or not Calvinism was a cult. The comments I received tended rather strongly toward the negative, with Ruth A. Tucker declaring,

"Calvin certainly had an authoritarian way about him, but he wasn't a one man show as most cult leaders are."

It is true that Calvin shared much of his secular power with Farrel and the Geneva Council. But in matters of theology, Calvin, through the publication of his Institutes of the Christian Religion, stood alone. It is not for nothing that followers of Reformed Theology are called Calvinists to this day. There are no Farrelites, there is no Genevan Reformed Church. Pastors do not stock their libraries with The Complete Works of William Farrel, or, for that matter, the Complete Works of Jacobus Arminius--whose writings were eclipsed by those of a much later and more prolific theologian, John Wesley.

In his own lifetime, Calvin's theological writings attained the very status of holy writ, if not as infallible inspiration, at least as infallible interpretation. And this has not changed; rather than going out of print, Calvin's Institutes has generated its own line of translations, versions, commentaries, and reader's guides--just as has the Bible itself. And this is a classic sign of a cult--elevating their guru's teachings to the level of Scripture.

Another sign of a cult is elevating the guru himself to the very apex of the ecclesiastical hierarchy--a man without equals. This is especially easy to do if the leader is dead, and doesn't have to fit a particular spot in the pecking order. Notice how Doug Phillips personifies the biblical and materialistic world views as a battle between--not Jesus--but Calvin and Darwin. Apparently Calvin was the Last of the Prophets, with no one having arisen since him who could take on the Giant of Galapagos.

Dr. Tucker is right, to a point; Calvinism doesn't quite fit the sociological description of a cult, as there never really has been any position at the top of its hierarchy. But in theological matters, one man still rules supreme, though from the grave. There's no question in Doug Phillips' mind: John Calvin, "Weighing in at five hundred years," is still a one-man show.

Singing heresy

It is a curious characteristic of the ordinary Christian that he is able to lift his voice to God in song using the words of someone with whom he is at theological enmity. Thus Calvinists can ring out in the words of Wesley, "Jesus, Lover of my soul, let me to Thy Bosom fly," while anti-Calvinists can just as wholeheartedly repeat the words of Wesley's theological opponent Toplady, "Rock of Ages, cleft for me, let me hide myself in Thee;" and indeed, the two messages sound forth as one--at least in their opening lines.

Yet will the Calvinist still be singing when he reaches the words, "Leave, ah, leave me not alone," though his doctrine allows for no such eventuality. Likewise will the anti-Calvinist keep up the volume when arriving at "Thou must save, and Thou alone--" although he thinks of himself as playing some role in the receipt of that salvation.

Indeed, although every hymnbook probably contains at least one song that would be perceived as objectionable if sung in many of the churches whose pew racks contain it, few are the premillennialists who will seal their lips during the chorus of "We've a story to tell to the nations," for were they to fail to sing out the heresies of Postmillennialism, they must needs keep silent for the duration of at least three of the four stanzas.

Yet there are unmistakably some songs that a Calvinist will never be able to bring himself to sing--even some written by the beloved Wesley himself. At the very least he will seek respite in the subterfuge of Jean Fritz, who found herself, as the child of expatriate Americans, attending a British school in China. Loathe to sing "God Save the King" at the beginning of class each day, she discovered to her delight that "My country, 'tis of thee" could be vigorously mouthed to the identical tune, which became her undetected practice for the duration of her education there.

And yet, I'm thinking that my example above shows that Calvinists and anti-Calvinists are not yet at such a level of enmity. This brings me to my question: are there any songs of such rank Calvinist nature that no anti-Calvinist could sing them aloud? I suspect that songs from neither extreme of this musicological spectrum would ever find popular acceptance in either camp, but I welcome my readers to prove me wrong.

Is Calvinism a Religion?

In the previous post we explored the allegation that Calvinism is a cult, and found wanting sufficient evidence that it does now, or ever has, fit into that definition. I don't consider the question yet closed, however, just because historian Ruth A. Tucker has weighed in on the negative side of the question. Although Church History is her specialty, and there's no reason to doubt her sincerity, there are a couple factors bringing down the weight of her testimony, as so far presented:

1) She apparently lacks an adequate proficiency in Latin, so some of the earliest history of Calvinism is probably a closed book to her;
2) She's a Calvinist of some standing (however tenuous) in the Christian Reformed Church, so it's in her best interests not to dig up anything that may turn out to be embarrassing.

So, we leave it to the side in affirmation of the question to make the next move, and proceed to the next question, in which long-forgotten history does not play a crucial role: Is Calvinism a Religion?

A Religion can be defined as a broad system of belief that makes exclusive claims. Religions by nature are quite diverse within themselves, containing a wide variety of denominations. For example, within the Muslim religion we find the main trunks of Sunnism and Shi`aism, and within these the branches respectively called Salafists, Wahabists, Barelwists, and Deobandists; the Imamis, Isma'ilis, Alawites, and Zaidists; along with the Kharijite and Sufic side trunks with their various minor branches. Some of these various denominations would just as soon kill each other as greet each other, but stick any mix of them together in a mosque at prayer time and they will all bow toward Mecca and intone on cue that Mohammad is the prophet of God. They all belong to the same religion, and all recognize each other as fellow Muslims. Should any branch wander so far from the center as to refuse to do so, it is in danger of losing its identity as a Muslim sect and being branded an infidel religion, as happened to the Druze and Baha'i religions, which started out as syncretistic sects of Shi`a Islam.

Initially, Calvinism started out as a sect of the Protestant movement away from Catholicism. As such it had much in common with Lutheranism, which held sway in the Teutonic nations, and Anglicanism, which ruled England. Ironically, it was the only one of the three main branches of Protestantism that didn't result in a denomination named after its founding theology. The Calvinist churches took names such as Reformed and Presbyterian, with much Calvinist influence also being found in Free and Baptist churches. But this influence all worked one way; members of Reformed or Presbyterian churches who found themselves at odds with Calvinism were put out of the church, either by expulsion (as in Castellio) or execution (as in Servetus). Calvin himself supported this practice, even going so far as to say that anyone who did not join with him in denouncing a non-Calvinist as a heretic was a heretic himself.

Calvin's disciples today would not hold to so strict a view as to condemn their opponents to the flames, but their basic belief system, being the same as Calvin's, requires them to admit that anyone who disagrees with them is a heretic and not a true believer in actual Christianity. This can be traced from the very earliest days, when the Geneva Council declared Calvin's Institutes to be "holy doctrine which no man might speak against," down to the present day, when his disciples label their own sectarian doctrines as, not "The Five Points of Calvinism," but "The Five Doctrines of Grace." And everywhere in between, we see the same. In "A History of the New School, and the Questions Involved in the Disruption of the Presbyterian Church in 1838," Calvinist historian Samuel J. Baird contends that “the doctrines, all of them, of the connected system set forth in the [Westminster] Confession, are the very and infallible truth of God, and gospel of salvation.” In other words, the Westminster Confession, that unchangeable and infallible Manifesto of Calvinism, is equated with the truth of the Gospel, which no one can question without being condemned as a heretic. The Bible itself must bow to this supreme authority, or not speak at all.

Such is the conclusion to which any disciple of John Calvin is eventually driven. In their minds, Calvinism is identical with Christian Orthodoxy, and many go so far as to say that no one who rejects their doctrines can be truly saved. By their exclusive claim to truth, and condemnation of all competing views of Scripture and those who hold to them, the disciples of Calvin themselves have defined Calvinism as not just a, but the, only true Religion.

Is Calvinism a Cult?

nicht kliken hehr
I realize that most people reading this article are already considering the possibility of a link between Calvinism and cults. So to save them some time, I'll give the short answer right now: No.

There. So if you're a Calvinist, you can hit the 'back' button right now and resume your search. Because you're not going to like the long answer, which we will get to anon, save yourself some frustration and keep your sub-collar temperature down by reading no further.

Cults are a topic I've studied from time to time over the past several decades. I clearly remember the morning I heard over the radio that hundreds of members of a cult in Guyana had been discovered dead, victims of an apparent mass suicide. I remember being approached by a Hare Krishna devotee at an airport, who asked me to donate to a fund that would help young people get off drugs. And I remember the following the long, drawn-out siege of David Koresh's Mount Carmel commune. Deception and death--along with, it will turn out, divorce--seem to sooner or later characterize all cultic movements.

But the question of cults has really hit home to me in recent years as I have watched a cult forming before my very eyes--perhaps several of them; they are all still in such early stages that it isn't yet possible to definitively describe them as such, but they share with other movements the seeds that generally develop into cultic behavior. So it has become important to me not only to identify the marks of a full-blown cult, but those of one in its infancy.

As a result of my studies, I've identified some stages in the Life Cycle of a Cult. Inherent to these stages are the labels which I've assigned to them, which are as follows:

Small Cult
Big Cult
Evolved Cult
Expired Cult

Every cult starts out small, focused on a single individual who brings his followers a never-ending stream of fresh messages directly from God. The lure of new revelation is a temptation to so many that Small Cults, in the normal progression of things, always grow rapidly. At this point the Leader needs to decide whether to keep his flock small enough to manage, or to share some of his authority with deputies who will hopefully carry on his vision. Should he choose the first option, his cult will eventually expire, but usually not until long after he is removed from the scene. Should he choose the second, his cult will go on to evolve into something so far removed from the original structure that even the word 'cult' will no longer adequately describe it as a sociological phenomenon. It will have become a religion.

This latter scenario turned out to be more of the case with the cult allegedly founded by Jean Chauvin. . .

Before closing out this post, I was surprised to find several websites already exist calling Calvinism a cult. So I see I will have to defend my opinions rather carefully.

[added on 11/24] This subject is really deserving of a full thesis, something of a far different nature than a blog post. The tremendous volume this post has generated--second only to my Obama chronology--drives me to finish it. But caution holds me back. I will continue to develop the theme as I have ample material to work with. . .

[added on 12/2] A reader has requested that we define our terms carefully. Very well; I call forth as witness noted Calvinist historian Ruth A. Tucker, in her book Another Gospel:
"A 'cult' is a religious group that has a 'prophet-founder' called of God to give a special message not found in the Bible itself, often apocalyptic in nature and often set forth in 'inspired' writings. . . . the style of leadership is authoritarian and there is frequently an exclusivistic outlook, supported by a legalistic lifestyle and persecution mentality."

See Dr. Tucker's response in the comment section below.

UPDATE MARCH 2012
Here's a rather useful dictionary definition, culled from another blog:

Cult n.

1. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
2. The followers of such a religion or sect.
3. A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
4. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual.
5. A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.
6. 1. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
   2. The object of such devotion.
   3. An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest.

Changing a light bulb, according to the latest principles of textual criticism

The White Man rarely changes a light bulb anymore, unless the compact fluorescent came loose from its housing. And that isn't actually changing a bulb, but replacing it.

Yet the concept of changing a light bulb is forever enshrined in the humor element of the White Man's culture, and that is never likely to change. Some day a child may look blankly at his father and ask, "Daddy, what's a light bulb?" But until that day, the joke will remain funny.

Typing in "How many turkey vultures does it take to change a light bulb" at ask.com resulted in no answers, but over a thousand hits. Removing 'turkey vultures' from the equation led to a hundred times that many. Here are just two exemplars of the logion, 'How many __________ (members of a particular Christian denomination) does it take to change a light bulb?'

**********************************

Cyberscript A:


Charismatic: Only one. Hands already in the air.

Pentecostals: Ten. One to change the bulb, and nine to pray against the spirit of darkness.

Presbyterians: None. Lights will go on and off at predestined times.

Roman Catholic: None. Candles only.

Baptists: At least 15. One to change the light bulb, and three committees to approve the change and decide who brings the potato salad.

Episcopalians: Three. One to call the electrician, one to mix the drinks and one to talk about how much better the old bulb was.

Mormons: Five. One man to change the bulb, and four wives to tell him how to do it.

Unitarians: We choose not to make a statement either in favor of or against the need for a light bulb. However, if in your own journey you have found that light bulbs work for you, that is fine. You are invited to write a poem or compose a modern dance about your light bulb for the next Sunday service, in which we will explore a number of light bulb traditions including incandescent, fluorescent, three-way, long-life and tinted, all of which are equally valid paths to luminescence.

Methodists: Undetermined. Whether your light is bright, dull, or completely out, you are loved. You can be a light bulb, turnip bulb, or tulip bulb. Church-wide lighting service is planned for Sunday. Bring bulb of your choice and a covered dish.

Nazarene: Six. One woman to replace the bulb while five men review church lighting policy.

Lutherans: None. Lutherans don't believe in change.

Amish: What's a light bulb?



**************************

Cyberscript B:


Q:
How many charismatics does it take to change a light bulb?
A:
One, since his/her hands are in the air anyway.

Q:
How many Calvinists does it take to change a lightbulb?
A:
None. God has predestined when the lights will be on. (Calvinists do not change light bulbs. They simply read the instructions and pray the light bulb will be one that has been chosen to be changed.)

Q:
How many liberals does it take to change a light bulb?
A:
At least ten, as they need to hold a debate into whether or not the light bulb exists. Even if they can agree upon the existence of the light bulb, they may not go ahead and change it for fear of alienating those who use fluorescent tubes.

Q:
How many Charismatics does it take to change a light bulb?
A:
One to change the bulb and nine to pray against the spirit of darkness.

Q:
How many neo-orthodox does it take to change a bulb?
A:
No one knows. They can't tell the difference between light and darkness.

Q:
How many independent fundamentalists does it take to change a light bulb?
A:
Only one, because any more might result in too much cooperation.

Q:
How many Amish does it take to change a light bulb?
A:
"What's a light bulb?"

Q:
How many youth pastors does it take to change a light bulb?
A:
Youth pastors aren't around long enough for a light bulb to burn out.


Q:
How many members of an established Bible teaching church that is over 20 years old does it take to change a light bulb?
A:
One to actually change the bulb, and nine to say how much they liked the old one.

Q:
How many Anglo-Catholics does it take to change a light bulb?
A:
None. They always use candles instead.

Q:
How many Evangelicals does it take to change a light bulb?
A:
Evangelicals do not change light bulbs. They simply read out the instructions and hope the light bulb will decide to change itself.

Q:
How many Atheists does it take to change a light bulb?
A:
One. But they are still in darkness.

Q:
How many Brethren does it take to change a light bulb?
A:
Change?????

Q:
How many Pentecostals does it take to change a light bulb?
A:
10, one to change it and 9 others to pray against the spirit of darkness.

Q:
How many TV evangelists does it take to change a light bulb?
A:
One. But for the message of hope to continue to go forth, send in your donation today.

Q:
How many campfire worship leaders does it take to change a light bulb?
A:
One. But soon all those around can warm up to its glowing.

Q:
How many baptist's does it take to change a light bulb?
A:
The whole congregation needs to vote on it!

Q:
How many charismatics does it take to change a light bulb?
A:
Three, one to cast it out and two to catch it when it falls!

Q:
How many charismatics does it take to change a light bulb?
A:
Twenty one, one to change it, and twenty to share the experience!

Q:
How many conservative Anglicans does it take to change a light bulb?
A:
Three. One to change it and two to storm out in protest if the person changing it is a woman!

Q:
How many Calvinists does it take to change a light bulb?
A:
None. If God wants the light bulb changed He will do it Himself!

Q:
How many missionaries does it take to change a light bulb?
A:
10. Five to determine how many can be changed by the year 2000, four to raise the necessary funds, one to go find a national to do the job!

Q:
How many United Methodists does it take to change a light bulb?
A:
This statement was issued: "We choose not to make a statement either in favor of or against the need for a light bulb. However, if in your own journey you have found that a light bulb works for you, that is fine. You are invited to write a poem or compose a modern dance about your personal relationship with your light bulb (or light source, or non-dark resource), and present it next month at our annual light bulb Sunday service, in which we will explore a number of light bulb traditions, including incandescent, fluorescent, three-way, long-life, and tinted--all of which are equally valid paths to luminescence."

Q:
How many Southern Baptists does it take to change a light bulb?
A:
109. Seven on the Light Bulb Task Force Sub-committee, who report to the 12 on the Light Bulb Task Force, appointed by the 15 on the Trustee Board. Their recommendation is reviewed by the Finance Executive Committee of 5, who place it on the agenda of the 18 member Finance Committee. If they approve, they bring a motion to the 27 Member church Board, who appoint another 12 member review committee. If they recommend that the Church Board proceed, a resolution is brought to the Congregational Business Meeting. They appoint another 8 member review committee. If their report to the next Congregational Business Meeting supports the changing of a light bulb, and the Congregation votes in favor, the responsibility to carry out the light bulb change is passed on to the Trustee Board, who in turn appoint a 7-member committee to find the best price in new light bulbs. Their recommendation of which hardware is the best buy must then be reviewed by the 23 member Ethics Committee to make certain that this hardware store has no connection to Disneyland. They report back to the Trustee Board who then commissions the Trustee in charge of the Janitor to ask him to make the change. By then the janitor discovers that one more light bulb has burned out.

Q:
How many Nazarenes does it take to change a light bulb?
A:
4 ladies. One to carefully unscrew the bulb. One to wrap it carefully and another to package it. The fourth to mail it to the mission field.

******************************

Without constructing a detailed critical apparatus, we can quickly realize the Webex B has undergone correction by scribes of several different denominations. We would therefore date it rather late in the stream. Note the dittographs in relation to Baptists, Evangelicals, and Charismatics. We would expect this script to undergo subsequent editing by a redactor seeking to minimize harmonizations, but this is a good example of a wild transitional text.

Webex A, on the other hand, is concise and well organized. The question is whether it should be considered earlier than B (in which the numerous scribes who corrected the exemplars of B corrupted its text), or a later orthodox correction of B.

Is there really any way of telling? And does it matter? Whether earlier or later than B, A is just simply a better Webex to use. B is too sloppily compiled to lend any credence to the originality of ANY of its readings. I wouldn't use B to correct anything in A. And to get back to the question, I'd need to collate a whole lot more cyberscripts before I could answer it. Right now, that hardly seems worth my bother. Let those who argue for the originality of B do the work, and prove their point.

I'm listening.


By the way, how many textual critics does it take to change a light bulb?

The answer, according to the latest principles of textual criticism:

"Phrasing the question this way shows your ignorance of how textual criticism works. Textual critics are to be weighed, not counted."

This is especially important, I suppose, when the ladder being used only holds 200 pounds.

A Review of The Christian at War by Peter Hammond (Newlands, SA: Frontline Fellowship, 1994 [2nd ed.]) Part One

PART ONE: THE MYTH OF "CIVIL" WARFARE
Peter Hammond is a unique breed of missionary. Frontline Fellowship, the organisation he founded and heads, specialises in Christian ministry near, on, and behind the front lines of battlefields in the South and East of Africa. A former military commando, he now serves as a missionary commando, armed not with weapons of physical warfare but with the Word of God. It has been my privilege over the years to support this ministry spiritually, financially, and physically.

Although I have not yet gotten to know Peter personally, we have, over the past 20 years, communicated with each other on numerous occasions by phone, through email, or in person. I respect him as a valiant warrior for his cause and a brother in Christ, but in our discussions we have come to differing conclusions on the subject of biblical non-violence, and for this reason I have set out to review his book on the topic, comparing his conception of reality to what I believe the situation actually to be.

I should add that Peter writes this book from his own Calvinist theological position, and I will admit that the conclusions he comes to are fully in conformance to his theological worldview. That they don't fit the facts of history or current reality is no more a condemnation of the man himself than his theological outlook in general.

Peter begins his book by setting the scene of modern warfare. He says, for example, that “For centuries a code of honour precluded the endangering of innocent lives. Soldiers fought openly–in uniform– against armed and uniformed foes. Non-combatants were respected. Women and children were protected. . . . In modern times, however, warfare has deteriorated dramatically. More and more civilians have been caught in the crossfire as mobile total warfare has devastated whole towns and villages.”

This scenario is simplistic if not outrageously false. At the best of times, in the best of situations, a soldier may strive for this sort of ideal, but face it–war has never been nice. Dr. Hammond grants that modern warfare is replete with atrocities, but he somehow finds important to his point that warfare used to be more civilized. Unable to find a single modern example of warring factions treating each other's civilians with honor and respect, he turns back the clock to a kinder, gentler time that, I am sad to say, exists largely in his own imagination.

Total warfare, devastating whole towns and villages? We have to go no farther than the First Book of Samuel to see so nice a guy as David, the beloved author of Psalm 23, doing just that. Leaving no survivors? This was Joshua’s stated policy when he conquered Canaan. Planting land mines in civilian areas? How about stopping up wells, cutting down orchards, and sowing fields with salt? The concept of terrorizing the civilian population of an enemy nation is unprecedented neither in historical antiquity, nor in biblical practice, a point Dr. Hammond is loathe to concede.

“Lust, liquor, and loot are a soldier’s pay” is a maxim as old as warfare, and the sources of this pay have always been predominately civilian. So Peter starts off his book by perpetuating a myth: a new, modern kind of warfare, unprecedented in history, that draws in the civilian population. On the contrary: In the Western World where most of Peter's readers live, being part of a nation at war has less of an effect on the everyday life of the civilian that ever before. Here in the United States, we are involved in a war that is costing us over 340 million dollars a day; a war that has dragged on longer than our involvement in World War Two; a war in which never a week goes by without our troops killing and being killed. But we have no draft, no ration cards, no black market, no closed borders, no war bonds, no nationalized industry. We are so far removed from the horrors or even the rigours of war that we are reluctant to end the commitment of our forces even to a vague mission on the other side of the world. And as much as we may oppose the war, we still support our troops. With all the opposition to the immorality of the war itself, no one is proposing that our soldiers are therefore murderers and should be executed. Civilized warfare may still be an elusive goal, but the myth of the civil solider lives on.

And perpetuating that myth is central to Peter Hammond's contention that "A Christian at War" is not a paradoxical expression.

-To be continued in next blogpost-