Three Witnesses in Earth

Rock of Ages, cleft for me,
let me hide myself in thee;
let the water and the blood,
from thy wounded side which flowed,
be of sin the double cure;
save from wrath and make me pure.

Not the labours of my hands
can fulfill thy law's demands;
could my zeal no respite know,
could my tears forever flow,
all for sin could not atone;
thou must save, and thou alone.

Nothing in my hand I bring,
simply to the cross I cling;
naked, come to thee for dress;
helpless, look to thee for grace;
foul, I to the fountain fly;
wash me, Saviour, or I die.

While I draw this fleeting breath,
when mine eyes shall close in death,
when I soar to worlds unknown,
see thee on thy judgment throne,
Rock of Ages, cleft for me,
let me hide myself in thee.

- Augustus Toplady, who understood pretty well what he was writing about!

I think I should add that Toplady's allusion to the water and the blood as a pledge of the effects of salvation is the signification given to these in Scripture (cf. I John 5:8, and Calvin's helpful commentary on it and verse 6, for example). In Scripture the water and the blood from Christ's side are highlighted specifically as witnesses (or signs), and this alludes to their use as agents of atonement and cleansing in the Old Testament rites. That these agents should flow from the crucified Christ is identified by John as a testimony that all our salvation is to be sought from Christ, the fountain of these saving agents, blood which purges guilt, and water which cleanses pollution.

John adds a third witness, which is particular to born-again Christians, the Spirit, which he speaks at length about in his whole epistle, as distinguishing true Christians from false professors (even lawless antichrists) not only by the inner testimony of the Spirit which cultivates and informs our faith as we hear the word, but also from the loving character of the Spirit as holy, so that fellowship with God is a holy fellowship of love, enjoyed in the way of walking in holiness and love (which John calls "light" as opposed to the blindness of impenitence or even apostasy, a darkness in which we do not see God in Christ through faith but which interrupts or prevents faith), such that those who live in hatred, and are careless regarding the law really do not have this Spirit. They can see the witness of the water and blood, but they can only see the witness of the Spirit in the lives of others who are genuine Christians walking in continuing, persevering repentance.

John also refers to three witnesses in heaven, a verse cited by our Belgic Confession in support of the Trinity, a verse also cited by various church fathers throughout history, even if evidential support is lacking in the more mainstream Greek manuscript traditions. There are a lot of very poor arguments made on both sides of this controversy, but if you are interested, here is a helpful treatment of evidence for and against (I also highly recommend the simple treatment of internal evidence which Matthew Henry's commentary provides). He does argue some points for the Comma Johanneum, far more strenuously than I would be prepared to, since I think I do not attach so much importance to it compared to other much clearer passages which prove the Trinity and the Deity of Christ. As far as explanation for its omission goes, if I have to speculate, I'd agree with an accidental omission due to the similar beginning and ending of verses 7 and 8 (relatively common haplography), and that omission perhaps being subsequently reinforced rather than corrected due to prevailing Arian bias in the eastern (Greek-speaking) church. As a standalone proof-text for the Trinity, it is only supporting evidence at best, weak compared to the much clearer and stronger arguments, such as showing how Scripture distinguishes the Father, Son, and Spirit as distinct Persons, and showing how the divine names, attributes, works, and worship are attributed to all three.

Perhaps this explains why it was not quoted as often as some would like to imagine in the Arian controversy, especially since the Arians would have no problem saying that these are three witnesses in heaven which agree in one (though admittedly, and significantly perhaps, the little preposition "in" is omitted from verse 7 regarding the witnesses in heaven), in the same sense that the blood, water, and Spirit are three witnesses which agree in one. As a standalone proof-text it does not so strongly emphasize the deity of the three Persons, or the essential unity of the Three. Of course, this verse not being present in many Greek manuscripts would also explain why it was not quoted so often.

But the idea of three witnesses, or "two or three witnesses" is another allusion to the Mosaic law, in which every word in judgement was to be established by two or three witnesses. John is very concerned with this concept of witness and the trustworthiness of a witness, in his Gospel account as in this epistle. Three witnesses is doubly more sure than the agreement of two witnesses, so John adds the third witness in earth. And if we ought to receive such witnesses in earth, how much more the witnesses in heaven? John makes exactly this argument in verse 9 (which incidentally does not make as much sense with the Comma Johanneum omitted). John records the witness of John the Baptist to God's witness at Christ's baptism, though he does not record the baptism itself, as the three other (synoptic) Gospel accounts do. He also records this when Christ recognizes that the time of his crucifixion and the salvation of the Gentiles is at hand:

Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again. The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him. Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes. Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. This he said, signifying what death he should die. (John 12:27-33)

Further he records Christ's own answer to the Pharisees who objected to His witness and refused it on unreasonable grounds. Christ's answer makes the same argument that John makes in his epistle (his entire epistle is a little echo and underscoring of his Gospel account), that He has witnesses in earth, he has the testimony of John the Baptist, but the Author of Truth cannot be attested to by mere sinful men, though they are holy prophets, though unbelievers readily and regularly receive the witness of sinful men who bear witness of themselves. Instead, and incomparably greater, He has the witness of God, both in the works for which His Father sent Him, and the voice of His Father, which they had not heard or received though God spoke clearly at His baptism, as well as from Mount Sinai and at other times. The unbelieving heart cannot receive this witness, instead they absurdly claim, "It thundered." The unbeliever may search the Scriptures, but in blindness not seeing that the Father has borne witness of the incarnate Son throughout.

So, although John attaches great importance to the signs of the water and blood, and the testimony of the one who saw it and bear record of it, ultimately we have a greater witness, that we may believe:

Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe. (John 19:32-35)

By the witness of the Spirit in our own hearts, we have that three-fold testimony from heaven, not only the witnesses on earth that agree in one. We have the witness of God in our own selves. So we can consider the book-ends of John's epistle which describes the life with God that we now have and know and enjoy in Christ through the Spirit.

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. (1 John 1:1-3)

If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. (1 John 5:9-11)

The one who has this witness in himself, is one who has fellowship with God, and the only kind of fellowship with God is one in which we are doing God's will:

If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. (John 7:17)

In contrast to this, the one who claims to know God and have fellowship with God, to be super spiritual, even far above others, perhaps claiming to know the abounding of God's grace because of the depths of his sinful walk even far more than others, while walking in hatred, does in fact not know God, but is necessarily blinded in his impenitence, just as much as the one who outright rejects the testimony of Christ:

He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now. (1 John 2:9)

The record of the Spirit, is in agreement with the water and the blood. The one who has the witness of the Spirit, is the one who truly knows and enjoys the life of love and fellowship with God, the one who is both cleansed by the water, and reconciled by the blood. All supposed spiritual knowledge which is separated from a life of love and holiness is not the true light in which we enjoy fellowship with God. That's the significance of the sign of the water and the blood in their agreement with the witness of the Spirit.

Real reasons why the KJV is superior to modern translations

This was said to a friend and brother of mine recently who was criticising the NIV:

"All translations are corrupt. KJV is messed up, especially in 1 Jn according to proper cannon. Discernment is the key. Don't go throwing away your NIV's. A good expositor can weed this stuff out."

But not everyone in the church knows Greek and Hebrew, that's why we need a trustworthy translation from the right textual sources.

The KJV is not perfect, but it is based on the right manuscript tradition, using biblical methods of textual criticism understanding God's sovereign providence and the preservation of His Word for His church in all ages (rather than what is popular with scholars, i.e. antiquity = best), and it is translated using a biblical translation approach (literal rather than interpretive thought-for-thought, since then we have only a commentary rather than the Bible), and it is in readable, understandable English. It was translated by trustworthy men who were also excellent scholars. It is the mature fruit of the Reformation's Bible translation work. It has served the English-speaking churches for 400 years across denominational boundaries, tried and tested.

It is still the best English translation.

Modern translations cannot hold a candle to it on all these counts. Instead of bringing more consistency or clarity or certainty they cause endless debate and confusion and uncertainty. The great proliferation of modern translation in our modern age is a terrible evil, more stimulated by the love of money than the love of God's truth and His people.

Still the best after 400 years

As it happens to be the 400th anniversary of the KJV, I suppose it would be appropriate to explain some of my thoughts on what is perhaps going to be a controversial anniversary. I use the KJV, because it's the version I read and study, and that my church uses, and that English-speaking churches whose heritage is found in the Reformation have used for the last 400 years. There are certainly deeper underlying reasons, which are far more significant.

First of all, I'm not a "KJV-Only-ist" in the sense that I don't believe it is as good as it could be, or entirely perfect, or on par with the text in the original languages (I say this for theological reasons, and because I know a little, but enough generally about the grammatical differences between languages, not because I know anything specifically about Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic). Also because I'm not against other versions in principle if they are faithful translations of the true Scriptures, but the problem with almost all the recent versions which have been released in the number of years is:

1) The biblical and Reformed doctrine of the Preservation of Scripture. They are based upon a couple of manuscripts which differ vastly from the overwhelming majority of other manuscripts, (which the Reformers deliberately rejected as corrupt). One bunch was preserved in a library in the Vatican, and the other lost in a waste-basket in a city that was notorious for the propagation of heresy. If God's word is preserved for the sake of His people, then how could these manuscripts which dwelt in obscurity away from God's people for so long, really be God's word? Especially when they contradict the other manuscripts in so many places?

So, the text which has been preserved and received by God's people throughout the ages is what we should receive, just as Christ received the Scriptures of His day, trusting that God had preserved them. It is not insignificant that the modern-day Arian heretics, who inappropriately call themselves "Jehovah's Witnesses," are strong proponents of these deviant manuscripts.

2) The biblical and Reformed doctrine of the plenary (full) and verbal (each word) Inspiration of Scripture. The more recent translations are mostly based upon a "dynamic equivalence" philosophy of translation. This means that the translators interpret what they think the original meaning of the phrases and sentences were, and then they paraphrase this perceived meaning in a different language. So, then we are not reading God's words, but the words of the interpretation of the translators.

Now the translators of the KJV, were a very godly bunch of men, at the height of the strength of the Reformation, of the calibre (both intellectually, and in understanding of the original languages, and spiritually) that can hardly be found anywhere in these present dark days. But what of, for example, the translators of the NIV? At least one was a lesbian (Dr. Virginia Mollenkott). But also, the translation philosophy used by the KJV translators was "formal equivalence", which means that with as little interpretation as possible, and as little paraphrasing as possible (only enough to retain the original sense taking into account the differences in grammatical structure and word order in different languages), they translated the words of the Bible, and when they had to insert extra words to give the original sense, they put these extra words in italics to show that they were not present in the original (the more recent translations add words willy-nilly with no indications whatsoever). The result was "Biblical English".

It was a peculiar style even then, as much as it is now, being so similar in structure and style to the original Greek and Hebrew phraseology - yet it remains easily understood (if you doubt this, read it, and consider how many foreign mission fields have successfully used the KJV when English was not even the first language). Not only that but they compensated for certain deficiencies and ambiguities in the English language which were not problems in the original languages - such as the use of "thou" and "thee" for "you, singular" and "you" and "ye" for "you, plural". There has not yet been a translation anywhere near as good as the KJV for these reasons, in terms of its precision and accuracy. And it's all because the translators feared God, and took seriously His warnings not to add or take away from His word, and that every word of the Bible is God's word and may not be trifled with.

You may examine these two simple claims yourselves, and make your own judgments.

Sam W.

P.S. More reading materials on this subject can be found here:
http://limerickreformed.com/index.php?option=com_sectionex&view=category&id=6&Itemid=35#catid52
http://www.cprf.co.uk/pamphlets.htm#bible
http://www.cprf.co.uk/scriptureresources.htm

The most significant issue (regarding which texts are valid), is not controversial for the Old Testament (the Masoretic text), but concerns the Greek New Testament. This article from the Trinitarian Bible Society deals with this subject comprehensively, and definitively: http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/grktxt.html

Cosmology and Biblical Creation: God stretched out the heavens!

I have a book by Dr. John Hartnett called "Starlight, Time, and New Physics" which I had not quite finished reading yet (it was so exciting, I had to lend it to someone else). But I would nevertheless like to quote some info about it from this article: http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6184

But this is only the beginning of the exciting implications of this
revolutionary book. Hartnett refers to recent observational data that
overwhelmingly leads to the conclusion that the universe must have a centre, with our galaxy somewhere near it. By plugging this ‘galactocentric’ universe into Carmeli’s equations, and then adding the biblical ‘stretching out of the heavens’ by God at creation (big bangers can scarcely disagree, as they call something like that ‘inflation’), what ‘falls out’ is an astonishing by-product. Namely, that there are built-in gravitational time-dilating effects such that:

a) Adam would have seen light from most of the same stars we see today
when he looked up on the sixth day and
b) light from even the most distant quasar, billions of light-years away from Earth, would reach us now within the six or so thousand years since creation.

Note that this is not the product of wishful thinking, or mathematics designed to give that outcome—just a straightforward chain of scientific reasoning:

a) Carmelian cosmology fits the observational data overwhelmingly, data which has been so puzzling that mysterious (and now unnecessary) fudge factors have been invented.
b) Observations also indicate that we are in a galactocentric universe.
c) Combining a) and b) mathematically shows that it is inevitable that an initial rapid ‘stretching out’ completely eliminates the so-called light-travel time problem for biblical creation.

I highly recommend reading the short article for more info on how to appropriately respond to the common attacks on God's Word from this area, even without Hartnett's book, and how to follow 2Co 10:3-5 in tearing down the fallacies of modern "big-bang theory" foolishness. I also highly recommend the book (although I cannot as yet give it a proper review).

- Sam W.

Discernment of the Spirit - not of man!

Spiritual discernment is not by subjective and easily mistaken gut feelings. Spiritual discernment is from careful study of God's word and applying it to every sphere of life. We discern the spirit of truth from the spirit of error by matching it against the Bible's teaching. The Apostle John explains that God's people listen to the Apostolic teaching, and therefore, all of the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16). Jesus also taught this, that His sheep hear His voice and follow Him (John 10:27), and all of the Bible is Jesus' voice. 1 John 4:5-6 says this:

"They are of the world, therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby we know the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error."

So for a Christian who is humble before the Scriptures, this issue of spiritual discerment is a simple one although it requires diligence and attention. God has given us the Scriptures so that we can discern what is correct and what is not. It is not by airy fairy gut feelings and "super-spiritual" emotionalism that we discern correctly.

The next question for us is, what should we question as Christians? What should be tested?

1 Thessalonians 5:19-24
“Quench not the Spirit. Despise not prophesyings. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Abstain from all appearance of evil. And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Faithful is He that calleth you, who also will do it.”

The Apostle tells us not to quench the Spirit and then explains how to not do this: by not despising “prophesyings” and proving all things (not just some things) and holding fast to what is good and abstaining from evil. Prophesyings refers to any form of teaching purporting to being from God. Therefore, teaching should not be disregarded off-hand, but proven. If proven it must be held fast to. If it cannot be proven or if it is disproven, then it must be rejected (Proverbs 30:6). We must test everything. Notice who this command is for! It is not simply for certain “special” people or only pastors, but for all of us! And we are to help each other (Proverbs 27:17). The noble Bereans are a good example to us of how to test, as they tested even the Apostolic teaching against the Old Testament, because God's word cannot contradict itself according to human reasoning:

Acts 17:10-11
“And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were of more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so.”

They knew the principle given in Isaiah 8:20 and used this principle and were commended for doing so:

“To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.”

Tell me then, how we may fulfill this biblical command:

1 John 4:1
“Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.”

The verse makes it absolutely undeniable that anyone who is telling you not to question them or to question their teaching is telling you to ignore this biblical command. I have heard people threaten curses upon people who would question them. If we ask why they would do this in the light of these verses, it is clear that they do not want questioned because they cannot stand under the test of Scripture. Even the Apostles' teaching was to be tested against Scripture. Any who refuse to be questioned are both claiming to be greater than the Apostles and superceding the Word of God.


Paul's life after he became a Christian was one full of challenges and hardships everywhere he went. He suffered and was treated shamefully, but he said this:

Philippians 3:1-21
(1) Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you, to me indeed is not grievous, but for you it is safe.
(2) Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.
(3) For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
(4) Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
(5) Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
(6) Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
(7) But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
(8) Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,
(9) And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
(10) That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;
(11) If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.
(12) Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.
(13) Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,
(14) I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.
(15) Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.
(16) Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing.
(17) Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample.
(18) (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ:
(19) Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.)
(20) For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:
(21) Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

Paul, in other places felt compelled to name some of these enemies of the cross by name, as a warning so that there would be no mistakes made:

2Ti 1:12-15
(12) For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.
(13) Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
(14) That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us.
(15) This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.

And also:

1Ti 1:18-20
(18) This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare;
(19) Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck:
(20) Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.

Note that these false teachers were in the church (!!) – they claimed to be Christians and even looked and acted like Christians for the most part. Jesus Himself warned us of this:

Matthew 7:15
“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.”

As did the Apostle Paul and Jude:

Acts 20:29-30
“For I know this, that after my departure grievous wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.”

Jude 3-4
“Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.”

All faithful pastors and believers are called to this same responsibility: To warn against false teachers by name. May God raise up more pastors with the spine to actually do this.

"For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind." 2 Timothy 1:7

Why should we defend the historical truth of the Bible?

I've been realising that many of the most devious attacks against the Gospel come from attacking an issue which seems at first to be secondary. But the Gospel is built upon the real space-time historical events recorded in the Bible; so undermining the historical accuracy and clarity of the Bible is then quite simply an undercover attack on the Gospel itself.

In particular the early chapters of Genesis which lay down the real historical events that give the foundation for all the major Christian doctrines, such as the nature of God, the nature of man, the nature of sin, the consequences of sin, the origin of death, the need for a saviour and more. Once the foundation of these doctrines is removed, the fundamentals doctrines that lay the foundation of the Gospel are removed.

But there is a lot of encouragement to be found, as many have not laid bare their foundations:

See: http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5774/

R. C. Sproul says: "According to the Reformation hermeneutic, the first option is to follow the plain sense of the text. One must do a great deal of hermeneutical gymnastics to escape the plain meaning of Genesis 1–2."

The more that this age progresses with all its apostasy and lies and deceptions and even false signs and wonders, the more we will need to cling to the Bible and let go of everything else which claims to have any authority on truth.

It is vital that we fervently believe that Scripture itself is the only authority by which to interpret Scripture.

Otherwise we will be caught headlong in the snare of Satan’s lies, the evil of compromise, the malady of the world’s wisdom and the degeneration of doctrine, the death of certainty, the ignorance of the truth, and the defilement of the church.

Yet we have the precious promises of Christ; His Church will endure, His bride will know the truth and the truth will set her free.

J. I. Packer stands for the Gospel

The Lord builds His church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I recently read a biography of J. I. Packer, along with a biography of Martyn Lloyd Jones and I saw all the terrible things that J. I. Packer put up with within the Anglican denomination. I finished reading about him and I was longing for him to follow the Bible's clear command not to associate with those teach a different doctrine and those who preach a different Gospel and those who are unbelievers.

Come out from them! Purify yourselves and be separate, you who bear the vessels of the Lord!

And then I read this story recently of how the Lord has finally brought J. I. Packer out of the midst of those who are compromising and perverting the glorious Gospel of our Lord. Read it and be glad, the Lord does not forsake His servants.

---

Famed Theologian Quits Anglican Church of Canada

J.I. Packer, one of the world's most renowned evangelical theologians, left the Anglican Church of Canada, citing 'poisonous liberalism' in the church body.

Mon, Apr. 28, 2008 Posted: 11:38:02 AM EST

J.I. Packer, one of the world's most renowned evangelical theologians, left the Anglican Church of Canada, citing "poisonous liberalism" in the church body.

Packer, 81, who was named one of the 25 most influential evangelicals in the world by Time magazine in 2005, quit the Canadian arm of the global Anglican Communion with 10 other B.C. Anglican clergy last week, he said, according to The Vancouver Sun. They joined the more conservative and orthodox Province of the Southern Cone in South America.

The Oxford-trained theologian said he can no longer serve under Vancouver-area Bishop Michael Ingham, arguing that he "appears heretical." Ingham had sanctioned in 2002 same-sex blessings in the British Columbia diocese of New Westminster, sparking international uproar.

In recent years, 28 parishes have voted to split from the Anglican Church of Canada, citing the denomination's departure from Christian orthodox values and Anglican tradition. They have realigned with overseas Anglican provinces.

St. John's Shaughnessy Anglican Church in Vancouver, which Packer is a long-time member of, left the denomination in February, placing itself under the authority of the Southern Cone province.

John Stackhouse, a professor of theology and culture at Regent College in Vancouver, sees two different bodes forming in Canada with the continual departure of parishes.

"Frankly, we have not seen this sort of thing in Canadian history, and I'm not sure we've seen it in Anglican history," he said, according to The Canadian Press.

"With the significant size of these dissenting groups, and the international support for them ... we may see two different bodies in one geographical territory," he said, noting that Anglican churches traditionally have been determined through geographic, and not ideological, boundaries.

While the controversy has focused on homosexuality, Stackhouse says the issue is about more than sex.

"This is about the fundamental question of how we derive any kind of Christian truth," he said, according to The Canadian Press.

Packer, who has outlined a conservative Christian theology in his 1973 bestseller Knowing God, described the Bible as "absolute" authority on divine truth and that it clearly describes homosexuality as a grave sin, as reported by The Vancouver Sun.

The Rev. Kevin Dixon, priest at St. Mary's Anglican Church in Kerrisdale, meanwhile believes Packer is adopting a "literalistic" reading of the Bible.

"It's important for people to understand that the holy scriptures is a very nuanced document. I think we need to allow people room to come to a new understanding," said Dixon, the local newspaper reported.

"I have not always held the view that same-sex relationships are consistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ, but now I do."

Packer argued that top leaders of the Anglican Church of Canada have changed their interpretation of Christianity while he and other conservative Anglicans have remained committed to traditional Anglicanism.

"I'm simply being an old-fashioned mainstream Anglican," Packer said.

As conservative Anglicans believe the core beliefs of Christianity are being called into question by the Anglican Church of Canada, the small group of parishes that have left may just the first wave, some predict.

"Every diocese in which this (approval of same-sex blessings) has happened – or something like it has happened – churches have split off," said Stackhouse. "This [issue] is very much in play now; this is not the end game at all."

Over the weekend the Anglican Network in Canada, a splinter group comprised of parishes now under the authority of the Province of the Southern Cone in South America, held a conference where they welcomed Archbishop Gregory Venables, leader of that southern province. His arrival at the conference stirred controversy as the Anglican Church of Canada told him not to intervene in the country's affairs. He refused, however, saying the conservative group of Anglicans wanted him there.

Lillian Kwon
Christian Post Reporter

---

I am glad that Packer made it clear that the "same-sex issue" is not the main issue here. The main issue is where that comes from and how that could ever possibly be allowed with the bride of Christ. Christ will not allow it because is washing His bride clean and will cleanse her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendour, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish (Ephesians 5:26-27)

Notice that the washing is by the word. And this is possibly one of the biggest attacks on the church. Many Evangelical denomations now firmly take a stand on the inerrancy of the Scripture, and without that, liberalism and poison and apostasy and idolatry can certainly take root. But even further, what is necessary now is holding firmly to the sufficiency of the Scripture. Without this, it matters little whether a church holds to the inerrancy of Scripture.

Further, without this stand for the sufficiency of a grammatical-historical interpretation of the Scripture, whereby it is sufficient in itself to interpret itself, everyone when confronted with the word of God will simply cry "Interpretation!" instead of trembling at His word. God only looks to those who tremble at His word (Isaiah 66:2).

The clearest illustration of the inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture is in 2 Timothy 3:16-17. Here the sufficiency of the word of God is repeated in various comprehensive words to remove any doubt from the humble and to remove any excuse from the proud.

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

And the clearest passage I can think of that teaches the importance of the recognising the sufficiency of Scripture in interpreting itself is the temptation of Jesus (Matthew 4, Mark 1, Luke 4). Satan twisted the Scripture to tempt Jesus, but Jesus resisted the temptation with Scripture. Peter says that there are those who interpret scripture wrongly, but he also explains why they do. It is a result of not humbly trembling at the word of God, and not accepting that Scripture interprets Scripture.

There are some things in them [the letters of Paul] that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do in the other Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen (2 Peter 3:16-18).

Don't fall into their error. Tremble at God's word. Trust in the inerrancy and sufficiency of the Scripture, and trust that it is sufficient to interpret itself, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells within you. The word of God is the sword of the Spirit, it is living and active, sharper than any double edged sword. Our sanctification and cleansing is by the word of God. How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord, is laid for your faith in His excellent word. Hold it fast.

Scripture interprets Scripture. Praise God that J. I. Packer is holding firm to the word. Liberalism is a poison, a bitter root, which defiles those around it. Be wary then to make sure that root of bitterness does not grow up among you (Hebrews 12:15).

May God be glorified in His church. Amen.