Truth Magazine

By Ferrell Jenkins

Imagine the time, money, and effort that must be expended in order to produce a completely new translation of the Bible. The New International Version (NIV) “involved more than a hundred scholars working in excess of 200,000 man-hours over a period of twenty-five years at a cost of more than two million dollars” (Youngblood 239).

In the early 1950’s evangelical Bible scholars began talking and writing about the need for another translation of the Bible. Some recognized that the language of the King James Version (KJV) was difficult for modern readers. Some felt the Revised Standard Version (RSV) to be too liberal. After the publication of the New American Standard Bible.- New Testament (NASB) in the 1960’s, one scholar concluded that it showed little improvement over the American Standard Version of 1901. By the mid 1960’s meetings began to be held to make plans for what eventually would become the N%~w International Version. For those who are interested in an overview of the translation project in conception and implementation, we recommend the article by Youngblood.

The New Testament of the NIV was published in 1973 and the complete Bible was issued in the fall of 1978 with advance sales of more than one million copies. The most complete evaluation of the format, notes, text, changing editions, and features of the NIV that I have seen is that by Jack P. Lewis (Lewis, The English Bible 293-328). Brother Lewis had what he called a “minor” role in the translation of three Old Testament books. His account of some of the discussions that went on within the committee makes interesting reading and gives one an insight into some of the difficulties faced by translations (Lewis, “The New International Version”).

The Text

There are many ways to evaluate the NIV. One might evaluate the underlying text from which it was translated. In this case it follows the same basic approach as the English Revised Version (American Standard Version), the Revised Standard Version, and the New American Standard Version. These versions are translated from a text which is considered by textual critics to be based on the best and oldest manuscripts.(1)

It differs from the “majority text” approach taken by the King James Version and the New King James Version.(2) In light of this, we find it strange that some suggest that the KJV, ASV, or NKJV are the “safe” translations.(3) Many of the criticisms of the NIV which I have seen compare its wording with that of the KJV or ASV without any recourse to the Hebrew and Greek texts from which the translations were made. Let us add that there is no textual problem regarding the term under consideration in this article.

The Language

Another way to evaluate a translation is on the basis of the modern language into which it is translated. Trial portions of the NIV were read and criticized by a wide variety of people (both in and out of the churches) prior to its publication (Youngblood 246). One reviewer said that the NIV used both contemporary English and international English (free of “Americanisms” and “Britishisms” (Craigie 251). A research study was conducted by an educator to test the readability of the KJV, NASB, and the NIV among students in the middle grades. Another study was conducted among high school students. As a general rule it was demonstrated that students scored higher when using the NIV (Chappell). This is good. From somewhere I recall that when Martin Luther was criticized for translating the Bible into German so that more could read it he said, “Perhaps there will be more Christians.”

The Theology of the NIV

One might choose to evaluate the NIV on the basis of the theology of its translators. If we compared it with the RSV we would say that it was conservative. In fact, this is one of the motivating factors behind the new translation (Harris 1242). Every translator was asked to subscribe to the following affirmation: “The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written, and is therefore inerrant in the autographs” (Youngblood 245). This we find commendable.

But another theological stance to be considered is that in the widest sense of the word all of the translators were evangelicals and that the majority of the translators were adherents to the doctrines of Calvinism. Edwin H. Palmer, author of The Five Points of Calvinism, was the Executive Secretary of the NIV’s Committee on Bible Translation during its production. Don Jackson has recently published an article in which he seeks to show “the NIV to be free from any thoroughgoing theological bias that sacrifices its goal of accuracy in translation” (Jackson 210). Jackson deals with the areas of Theological Terminology, Christology, and Soteriology. It is to this last area, the doctrine of salvation, that this article takes us.

The Translation of Sarx

Most of the translators of the NIV shared a Calvinist doctrine of salvation. One of the hallmarks of Calvinism is the doctrine of original sin, or hereditary total depravity. Several writers have seen the NIV’s handling of the Greek word sarx

to be a reflection of the Calvinistic views of the translators. Notice some of the criticisms that have been offered:

The eighth chapter of Romans is the epitome of the false doctrine of original sin insinuated promiscuously into Paul’s epistles of the New International Version. It is shyly ensconced within the sinister phrase “our sinful nature,” which nowhere occurs in the New Testament but inserted nine times in Romans 8, in the New International. It is the denominational dogma of hereditary total depravity. . . (Wallace 700).

But, now with the NIV rendering of Rom. 8:3,4,5,8,9,12,13 as “sinful nature” instead of “flesh,” they (Calvinists) have a ‘,Bible” from which to teach their doctrine (Rader 9).

To translate “flesh” as “sinful nature” favors the Calvinistic view of depravity of man in his total nature (Baird 185).

Romans 7:18; 13:14; Galatians 5:13 and other passages in the NIV render the Greek word sarx “sinful nature.” The ASV renders the Greek word “flesh.” “Sinful nature” in the NIV is the old Calvinism of original sin. Besides that, in Romans 8:6 the NIV is inconsistent because there they render the same Greek word “sinful man.” They should have rendered the Greek word sarx “flesh” and left the explanation to others (Merideth 86).

Dr. David Scaer, a Lutheran professor at Concordia Theological Seminary, Ft. Wayne, Indiana, says the NIV “in many places adjusts passages to fit a Calvinist, and sometimes Fundamentalist, bias” (“NIV Often Adjusts. . . ” 1).

The word sarx is used no less than 151 times in the New Testament. The KJV translates it flesh (147 times), carnal (2 times), carnally minded (I time), and fleshly (I time) (Smith, 318). According to Bauer the Greek word has at least eight different meanings: (1) “the material that covers the bones of a human or animal body”; (2) “the body”; (3) “a man of flesh and blood”; (4) “human or mortal nature, earthly descent”; (5) “corporeality, physical limitation(s), life here on earth”; (6) “the external or outward side of life”; (7) “In Paul’s thought especially, the flesh is the willing instrument of sin, and is subject to sin to such a degree that wherever flesh is, all forms of sin are likewise present, and no good thing can live in the sarx Rom. 7:18. . . “; (8) “The sarx is the source of the sexual urge, without any suggestion of sinfulness connected with it (Jn. 1: 13)” (Bauer 743-744).

It is Bauer’s meaning number seven with which we are concerned. What does the word sarx mean in this connection’? We have indicated above that many see the NIV translation of sarx as proof that the NIV translators were attempting to validate their doctrine of total depravity. But some, who presumably do not share the Calvinistic doctrine, argue that such is not the case:

The NIV’s descriptive terminology is in keeping with the teaching of the passages in question. Whether that ‘sinful nature’ is an inherited Original Sin or a description of that part of man that leads to sin is determined by the expositor and exegete. The basic doctrinal problem lies not with the interpretation of the translation but the interpretation of the original. Should one be inclined to find the doctrine of Original Sin, he will do so whether the translation is “flesh,” “sinful nature,” or sarx. The doctrine of Original Sin is not necessarily inherit in the translation “sinful nature” (Jackson 219).

Even non-Calvinistic students have long struggled with the nature of man and his relationship to sin. Jackson mentions sarx as “that part of man that leads to sin.” Wallace says that man “becomes a sinner,” and that “Adam acquired the propensity of sin” (Wallace 701). My own struggle to find the correct Word to describe the meaning of sarx in the passages under consideration is found in my Flesh and Spirit: A Word Study (6-10). I believe it to be an acquired condition; that man becomes a sinner by sinning.(4)

The NIV and Sarx

A careful study shows that the NIV has been most inconsistent in its translation of sarx. In certain passages the translators have used the phrase “sinful nature” for sarx. For example, the word sarx is used 10 times in Ephesians, and the NIV has rendered it “sinful nature” only in Ephesians 2:3. This seems to me to be a theologically motivated translation. Of course, Calvinistic commentators were making use of this verse before the publication of the NIV. Hendriksen, for example, says “The flesh or depraved human nature, accordingly, produces evil desires” (New Testament Commentary: Ephesians 115).

In Colossians the term sarx is used 9 times. It has been rendered “sinful nature” only in 2:11 and 2:13. Note the way sarx is translated throughout Colossians in the NIV.

Col. 1:22 – physical body (The reference is to Christ. Why did not they translate it “sinful nature”?)

Col. 1:24 -flesh (The reference is to Paul’s physical body.)

Col. 2:1 – met me personally (for “seen my face in the flesh”)

Col. 2:5 – body

Col. 2:11 – sinful nature

Col. 2:13 – sinful nature

Col. 2:18 – unspiritual

Col. 2:23 – sensual

Col. 3:22 – – (Here the NIV omits any translation for the phrase kata sarka, “according to the flesh.”)

It is granted that sarx does not have the same meaning in every occurrence, and many of the renderings of the NIV are quite good. The problem is that the NIV has used “sinful nature” only when it seems to bolster the theological view of hereditary total depravity. The use of so many different words and phrases by which to render sarx obliterates the actual usage of sarx. The practice of using many English words to translate a single Greek word has brought much criticism of the KJV.

In Romans 1:3 where sarx is used of Christ it is translated “human nature.” When sarx is used of man in Romans 7:5,18, and 25 it is rendered “sinful nature.” In Romans 8:3, where sarx is used 3 times, the NIV has it “sinful nature” in the first instance where it refers to man. But when it refers to Christ coming in the “likeness of sinful flesh” (the Greek is sarkos harmatias, flesh of sin), they have used “sinful man.” Such haphazard rendering can only be for the purpose of advancing the theological view of total depravity.

Please remember that the translators responsible for the phrase “sinful nature” sincerely believed that man does have an inherited depraved nature; their translation is simply a reflection of their theological self-understanding. Also keep in mind that many of the passages translated as “sinful nature” were already being used by Calvinists as proof-texts for their doctrine. Our task really hasn’t changed all that much. Still we must urge people to look to the sum of God’s word on this and every subject.

Our Task

All of my preaching life I have been explaining to inquiring minds that English words like “baptism,” and “church,” mean different things to various people. Our approach has been to return to the definition of these words in Koine Greek and to the contexts in which they are used in the New Testament to determine what they meant to the first readers and what they should mean to us. I think we will have to go on doing this regarding sarx and a host of other words.

Nearly 120 years ago J.W. McGarvey was pointing out translations of Acts in the common version (KJV) which failed to convey correctly the idea of the Greek. Some of the verses seemed to favor Calvinistic teaching (Acts 2:47; 3:19; 13:48; McGarvey 50, 54-59, 169-171). Alexander Campbell had already, in 1858, corrected these verses in his American Bible Union translation of Acts (Campbell).

Of the making of many books there is no end, and of the making of new translations there doesn’t seem to be an end. Likewise, I suppose that there will be no end to the need for explaining what Bible words mean, what the context says, and what harmonizes with other Scriptures.(5)

Endnotes

1. The ERV and the ASV translators relied heavily on the WestcottHort edition of the Greek New Testament. The NASB, NIV, NEB, and RSV translators worked from the type of text represented by the United Bible Societies The Greek New Testament. By consulting Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, one may learn why any particular reading was placed in the text or assigned to the footnote (critical apparatus). For a discussion of this approach the reader is directed to the following works: Ewert, David. From Ancient Tablets to Modern Translation. Grand Rapids: Zondervan 1983; Greenlee, J.H. Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964; Harrison, Wahke, Guthrie, Fee. Biblical Criticism: Historical, Literary and Textual. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978; Metzger, B.M. The Text of the New Testament, Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. New York: Oxford University Press, 1968. The article by Lewis, “The Text of the New Testament,” points up some of the issues involved in the debate regarding which Greek text should be used.

2. The KJV and the NKJV are based on the, Textus Receptus. This term was applied to the second edition of a Greek text published by two Elzevir brothers in 1633. Their text was taken mainly from Theodore Beza’s text of 1595. Beza was a successor of John Calvin. The type of manuscripts from which Beza made his text are known as the Byzantine text. “The majority of the late manuscripts have this text. . . ” (Ewert 151).

3. Some cite criticisms of the versions from John William Burgon. One should remember that his criticism was aimed primarily at the ERV (which became the ASV).

4. For my reply to the Calvinistic doctrines relating to the nature of man and conversion see The Finger of God (14-16).

5. I have other problems with the NIV but they do not fall within the scope of this article.

Selected List of Works Consulted

Baird, James O. “Unfortunate Renderings In The NIV.” Gospel Advocate. March 22, 1979: 181-185.

Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 2nd ed. Translation and adaptation William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, Frederick W. Danker. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1979.

Campbell, Alexander. Acts of the Apostles. Austin: Firm Foundation. Reprint of 1858 edition.

Chappell, Dwight. A Readability Report on the New International Version. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, n.d.

Craigie, Peter C. “The New International Version: A Review Article. ” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 21 (1978): 251-254.

Harris, R. Laird. “Do Evangelicals Need A New Bible Translation?” Christianity Today 12 (September 27, 1978): 1242,1244-1246.

Jackson, Don. “The Theology of the NIV.” Restoration Quarterly 27 (1984): 208-220.

Jenkins, Ferrell. Flesh and Spirit: A Word Study. Fairmount, IN: Guardian of Truth Foundation, 1981.

Lewis, Jack P. The English Bible From KJV to NIV. A History and Evaluation. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981.

___________. “The New International Version.” Restoration Quarterly (198 1): 1 -11.

___________. “The Text of the New Testament.” Restoration Quarterly 27 (1984): 65-74.

McGarvey, J.W. A Commentary on Acts of Apostles. Cincinnati: Wrightson & Co., 1868. This work is not to be confused with the more popular New Commentary on Acts of Apostles, 1882.

Merideth, J. Noel. “New International Version.” Gospel Advocate. February 5, 1976: 86-87.

Motyer, J.A. “Flesh.” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Ed. Walter A. Elwell. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984.

“NIV Often Adjusts Passages to Fit Calvinist-Fundamentalist Bias.” The Christian News. 12 Sept. 1983: 1,16. As source this article cites Concordia Theological Quarterly, April, 1983.

Radar, Dorris V., and Rader, Donnie V. “The New International Version (or Pseudo-Version).” Searching the Scriptures. August, 1984: 174-183.

Smith, J.D. Greek-English Concordance to the New Testament. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1955.

Wallace, Foy E., Jr. A Review of the New Versions. Fort Worth: Foy E. Wallace, Jr. Publications, 1976.

Youngblood, Carolyn Johnson. “The New International Version Translation Project: Its Conception and Implementation.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 21 (1978): 239-249.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 1, pp. 26-28
January 1, 1987

By James R. Cope

“Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 10:32). This is the language of Jesus. In it is couched the secret to eternal life. There are many ways in which one may confess Jesus Christ and because we do not here discuss all of these ways it is not to be understood that the importance of any confession the Bible reveals is to be underestimated. Our present study, however, deals with baptism. Perhaps baptism as taught by Christ and the apostles is seldom thought of as a confession, but such we believe it to be. In fact, there is no phase of baptism that is not a confession. In one instance may be seen the person who confesses. From another view is seen the object of the confession Jesus Christ.

1. Baptism is a confession of faith. He who is baptized confesses not only his personal conviction concerning the person and identity of his Lord but he acknowledges his faith in the system of faith revealed in and by Jesus. “Go – preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16:15,17). Confidence in the gospel as the means by which saving faith is validated is here set forth as a necessity for him who is subject to the gospel. Since baptism is a condition the gospel demands the sinner to meet in order to be saved by the gospel, when the sinner is baptized he thereby acknowledges his faith in the gospel and in Him who is its author.

2. Baptism is a confession of one’s faith in the death of Jesus. It is a declaration not only of a belief that Jesus actually lived upon this earth but that He died and that His death was for the purpose revealed in the Scriptures. It is a testimony to His dying “for our sins” (1 Cor. 15:3) and the apostle’s reference to it in Romans 6:3 so declares: “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?” Since they had not been and could not be baptized into the literal death of Christ, the evident meaning is that they were baptized into the benefits procured by His literal death on the cross. Thus when they were baptized they recognized in the death of Jesus the payment for sin which was not possible by any other man or any animal. So does any sinner when he is baptized.

3. Baptism is a confession of faith in the burial of Jesus. It is a denial of any humanly devised plan for the faking of His resurrection. The proofs of His resurrection are made strong by the emphasis placed upon the nature and absolute certainty of His burial in a new tomb, hewn out of solid rock, sealed with a Roman seal, and secured by a Roman watch. From the human viewpoint the Lord’s absolute entombment was the climax of the schemes of the Jewish leaders to ascertain the certainty that His cause was forever doomed and His purposes forever thwarted. The baptism of the believer declares his faith in the fact of the Lord’s burial and witnesses to his confidence that his own old man of sin has been destroyed by the power exercised by Christ while His body was in the tomb and His spirit in Hades.

4. Baptism is a confession of the disciples faith in the resurrection of Jesus. His emergence from the watery grave bears witness to his confidence that the body of sin has been left in the tomb and that through the power by which Jesus rose from the dead he also is raised as a new creature in Christ. “Like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. . . For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise reckon also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 6:4-11). Apart from the resurrection of Jesus, baptism has no meaning whatever. The believer’s willingness to come forth from the waters of baptism is a living witness to his faith in the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

5. Baptism is a confession of the believer’s faith in the operation of God. “Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead” (Col. 2:12). He who understands the Bible’s teaching on what God does in baptism comprehends that a divine operation is performed in it. It is the circumcision of the heart. There is a “putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Jesus Christ” (Col. 2:11). Baptism is the act in which this operation is performed, and he who is scripturally baptized believes that God performs this operation in baptism; thus he confesses it when he is baptized.

6. Baptism is a confession of the authority of Jesus Christ. The deity of Jesus is declared by His resurrection from the dead (Rom. 1:4), and His authority grows out of His deity and is established by it. If Christ has been raised to die no more, there is more than humanity in Him for men by nature even raised from the dead again saw corruption. Not so with Jesus, and hence His resurrection declares Him to be of God in a sense different from any other man’s being of God. He was and is God. Being God, therefore, He possesses the right to all authority. It was in connection with His declaration concerning this authority in heaven and on earth that He commanded baptism (Matt. 28:18-20). Apart from the authority He has baptism is nonsense. A recognition of the authority of Jesus Christ makes sense out of baptism to the believer though it may appear foolishness to the unbeliever. Baptism, then, stands as an open avowal of one’s confidence in the authority of Jesus Christ.

7. Baptism is a confession of Christ as Savior. Instead of men looking to the water they look to Jesus when they are baptized. This is evidenced by the instruction Ananias gave Saul of Tarsus: “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). If Saul followed the direction of Ananias he called on the name of the Lord. He looked to Jesus to save him, not to the water. Yet by virtue of the very authority which commanded him to be baptized he could not expect the washing away of sins without doing what the authority of Christ commanded. His calling upon the name of the Lord in baptism reveals his confession of faith in Christ to save him; hence baptism is a confession of Christ as Savior.

8. Baptism is a confession that man is a sinner. The design of baptism as stated by Jesus in Mark 16:16 and by Peter in Acts 2:38 forever settles this point. That apostle declared, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” As certainly as repentance in this passage declares man a sinner and in need of repentance so it declares man a sinner in need of baptism for the same reason. “Remission of sins” is an absurdity if there are no sins to be remitted. Both the apostles and the Jews on Pentecost understood the subjects of baptism to be sinners and therefore the inquiry “What shall we do?” was answered by Peter and his command was gladly received by the murderers of Jesus.

9. Baptism is a confession Of the sinner that he cannot save himself. In Galatians 3 the apostle shows the purpose of the law of Moses, i.e., to bring the Jews to Christ that they might be justified by the faith (gospel): “Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:25-26). The faith in verse 26 evidently refers to the system of faith, the gospel, revealed in Christ. Then the Holy Spirit declares how this faith is made effectual to the sinner: “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:27). This passage not only locates salvation in Christ; it also shows the sinner’s helplessness without Him. Outside Christ the sinner was hopeless. Galatians 4:1-5 declares this with reference to the Jew, and Romans 1:16 shows the Gentile in the same condition. Only by being Abraham’s seed could either Jews or Gentiles be heirs according to the promise and this was possible only in Christ (Gal. 3:28,29). But since salvation is in Christ (2 Tim. 2: 10) and is by the grace of God without the works of man’s making (Eph. 2:8,9), and since the sinner is baptized into Christ and, therefore, into salvation, it follows that his submission to baptism denies his ability to save himself. Baptism then is a confession by the sinner of his own inability to save himself.

10. Baptism is a confession that the kingdom of God exists. To Nicodemus Jesus said, said, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (Jn. 3:5). As certain as the “water” of this passage refers to baptism, that certain it is that the kingdom exists for baptism puts one into the kingdom. It stands between the alien and the citizen. It is the last step in the “naturalization process.” Unless baptism is a reality, citizenship in the kingdom is a farce. But since it exists in fact and stands as the door into the kingdom, the kingdom exists and can be entered. Destroy baptism and the kingdom is removed for the kingdom is composed of citizens and citizens are those “born of water and of the Spirit.” Baptism then, is a confession that the kingdom of God exists.

11. Baptism is a confession that the church of Christ is the one body. “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body” (1 Cor. 12:13). The one body is the church of which Christ is head (Eph. 1:23). To be baptized is to enter the one body, the church. Since there is “one body” (Eph. 4:4) and “but one body” (1 Cor. 12:20), there is one church of the Lord and but one church. But baptism puts one into the one body, therefore, it declares there is but one church belonging to Him who is the Head of the body, even Christ.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 2, pp. 41, 50
January 15, 1987

By Ron Halbrook

Our love for others may cost us much pain. Do not confuse the pain of love with the pain of unbridled lust. Immorality is often glorified in our culture but the painful price of such living is also recounted in songs which tell of “the day after,” the loneliness, the emptiness of it all. One who commits fornication goes like an ox “to the slaughter” or a bird “to the snare” – “he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul” (Prov. 7:22-23; 6:32). Truly, “the way of transgressors is hard” (13:15). But, the wounds and sorrows we get from sinning is not the point of this study.

We should love others enough to make sacrifices and to suffer pain for their good. Such pain increases when a person whom we try to help does not realize what he needs and does not understand or appreciate what we are doing for him, As parents we see our children in tears at different stages of life because of decisions we make or our disciplinary action. Perhaps matches had to be taken away and little hands spanked. Maybe it was time for the child to give up the bottle or to quit sucking the thumb. Loving our children brings pain to both them and ourselves.

Genuine love is never cheap. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (Jn. 3:16). Imagine God’s agony when He saw the way the world treated His beloved Son. “He came unto his own, and his own received him not” (Jn. 1:11). This means that after many centuries of preparing the Jews to receive His Son, many of them rejected Him. Loving us cost Jesus Christ the glories of heaven. As Deity He was originally “in the form of God,” but He willingly “took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” (Phil. 2:6-8).

True love requires teaching men the truth, which can be painful. It must be done if we love the lost, no matter how much pain it brings. Jesus said, “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (Jn. 8:32). But those He taught did not want to hear about their sins. It was not easy for Jesus to tell them, “Ye are of your father the devil,” and not easy for them to hear it (v. 44). Men must be convicted of sin before they can be saved. Jesus told His Apostles to preach the gospel, including this: “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16:16). It is not easy for Christians to preach or for sinners to hear that all men are lost until they are immersed in water upon faith in Christ, but we must speak “the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15).

Paul regretted having to point out the sins of Christians in Corinth, but then he rejoiced to see them correct their lives (2 Cor. 7:8-11). It is never easy to deal with sin in the camp (Josh. 7). When Christians refuse to repent, the Holy Spirit commanded the church “that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly” (2 Thess. 3:6). The purpose is to cause him to repent that he may again be saved (1 Cor. 5:4-5).

Christian parents make hard decisions as their children approach teen-age. The family will miss ball games to attend worship rather than vice versa (Heb. 10:25). Young ladies are taught to quit wearing the shorts and other brief attire of childhood (I Pet. 3:4). While their worldly friends go to dances, proms, mixed swimming parties, and “beer busts,” teen-agers in Christian homes learn to ask, “What would Christ do?” He must be our example at all times and not our worldly friends (2:21). We are sad to see our children sad at times, but we endure the pain of love in order to “bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4).

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 2, pp. 43, 56
January 15, 1987

By Mike Willis

Psalm 51 is generally admitted to have been written by David as an appeal to God for forgiveness of his sins associated with his immorality with Bathsheba. In a recent defense of the “continuous cleansing” position, Psalm 51 was used to defend the position that a Christian can sin, repent of his sins, and never be alienated from God. A careful study of this text demonstrates that sin brings one into a state of guilt and condemnation which is not removed until the sinner repents and confesses his sin to God.

Calvinist Arguments

Through the years, Baptist debaters who have defended the doctrine of “once in grace, always in grace” have appealed to Psalm 51 to justify their position. John R. Rice, former editor of Sword of the Lord (an independent Baptist publication), wrote,

David committed sins of murder and adultery. We must condemn his sins. They were bad. But David’s sins were under the blood of Christ, and in the fifty-first Psalm, the prayer of David shows that he had not lost his salvation, but the joy of salvation. Psalm 51:11,12 says:

“Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me. Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit. “

David does not ask for the restoration of salvation, but he does ask that God will restore the joy of salvation. He prays that God will not break the fellowship, will not cast him away from God’s presence, will not take away the communion of the Holy Spirit. A backslider like David ought to pray for the joy of salvation to be restored, but he should not believe that God has cast away His child. David sinned, but he did not become a lost sinner again. So David praised God, under divine inspiration: “Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity” (Psa. 32:1,2). The Scripture shows why David did not lose his salvation and why a saved man cannot be lost (Can A Saved Person Ever Be Lost?, p. 16).

Commenting on Psalm 51:11, John Calvin wrote,

“Take not thy Holy Spirit from me. ” The words of this verse imply that the Spirit had not altogether been taken away from him, however much his gifts had been temporarily obscured . . . . Upon one point he had fallen into a deadly lethargy, but he was not “given over to a reprobate mind”; and it is scarcely conceivable that the rebuke of Nathan the prophet should have operated so easily and suddenly in arousing him had there been no latent spark of godliness remaining. . . . The truth on which we are now insisting is an important one, as many learned men have been inconsiderately drawn into the opinion that the elect, by falling into mortal sin, may lose the Spirit altogether, and be alienated from God. The contrary is clearly declared by Peter, who tells us that the word by which we are born again is an incorruptible seed (1 Pet. 1:23) (John Calvin as quoted in Treasury of David, Vol. II, p. 470).

In the Camp-Hafley Debate on “once saved, always saved,” the Baptist Wayne Camp argued as follows:

I’ll tell you David was one who had some experience with this matter we’re dealing with. You know he sinned, he committed adultery; he committed murder. Had it committed, ordered it committed. I think that my honorable opponent would agree that that was just as bad. One day he got under conviction about it. Old Nathan came to him and said, preached to him and said, “You are the man.” Without going into all the details, you know the situation. David prayed and David said, “Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation, and take not thy Holy Spirit from me.” Oh, my friend, listen. He had committed murder. He had committed adultery, But he prayed, “Take not thy Holy Spirit from me.” Why? It must have still been there. It must have still been there (pp. 147-148).

The well known Baptist debater, Ben M. Bogard argued 44once in grace, always in grace” in the same manner.

He asks, “Is it possible for a child of God to get drunk and commit murder?” Yes sir, David committed murder and he was a child of God, but he did not lose the Holy Spirit, either, for he said in his penitent prayer, “Take not Thy Spirit from me” (Porter-Bogard Debate, pp. 78-79).

W.E. Sherrill used Psalm 51:11-12 to defend “once in grace, always in grace” in his debate with brother A.C. Grider. He said,

In Psa. 51:12, David did some pretty bad things. What did David do? He lost the joy of his salvation. I will read it to you over here in Psa. 51:12, “Restore unto me the joy of my salvation.” He never asked God for salvation at all after he got it. He lost the joys of it and ask(ed) God to restore the joys of salvation, that he might teach the transgressor God’s ways and they would be converted. David did pretty bad. He had a man killed and took his wife. That’s what David did . . . (Grider-Sherrill Debate, p. 149).

In recent months, similar arguments have been made by those defending continous cleansing. Consequently, let us carefully examine Psalm 51.

The Historical Situation

Perhaps it will help us to be reminded of what the historical situation of Psalm 51 was. David coveted his neighbor’s wife and committed adultery with her. After some time passed, Bathsheba realized that she was with child. Instead of repenting of his sin and facing its consequences as a penitent sinner when Bathsheba announced that she was with child, with premeditation David sought to cover his sin by bringing Uriah home from the battle front, expecting that he would enjoy the pleasures of his wife and think the child was his own. When Uriah refused to go to his wife, David arranged a situation in which he became drunk, hoping that in his drunken state he would do what he refused to do when sober. When this failed, David committed premeditated murder, arranging to have Uriah killed in battle. Some months passed and the illegitimate child was born before Nathan rebuked David and he repented.

If one is disposed to argue that Psalm 51:11 indicates that David was yet in the presence of God and not separated from him by his sin, let him remember these facts are known about David:

(1) David violated three of the Ten Commandments: coveting his neighbor’s wife, adultery, and murder. Nathan said that David “despised the commandment of the Lord” in doing this evil (2 Sam. 12:9).

(2) He committed his murder premeditately. This was a high-handed act of rebellion, not of ignorance or weakness.

(3) He stayed in his impenitent state for a minimum period of nine months (the child was born).

Consequently, should one use this passage to prove that a child of God can sin and displease God, then repent of and forsake that sin without being cast from God’s presence, then the following conclusions are true:

(1) One is not separated from God by an act of willful sin. All of the comments about “kinds” of sin, to distinguish sins of weakness and ignorance from high-handed rebellion are worthless. David’s sin was premeditated and willful. Yet, we are assured, based on Psalm 51:11, that David was not separated from God thereby.

(2) One is still not separated from God months after his sin. David was in his sin and impenitent at least for nine months.

(3) The sins for which one has “continual cleansing” are moral as well as doctrinal and include everything from lust to fornication to murder.

(4) 1 John 3:15 is not true. John said, “Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.” But Psalm 51:11 has been explained to mean that David still had the presence of the Holy Spirit and was not lost but only in the process of being lost. If so, 1 John 3:15 is not true!

An Examination of the Text

Any view that is taken of Psalm 5 1:11 must take into consideration the entire Psalm. Notice these observations from the text:

v. 1 – David’s transgressions needed to be blotted out

v. 2 – He needed to be washed from his iniquities and cleansed from his sin

v. 3 – His sins were ever before him

v. 4 – He had sinned against God

v. 7 – He needed to be purged and washed

v. 9 – He begged God not to hide His face and to blot out his sins

v. 11 – He asked God not to cast him away and not to take his Holy Spirit from him

v. 12 – He asked God to restore the joy of his salvation

v. 14 – He needed to be delivered from blood guiltiness

No one could read Psalm 51 without concluding that its author stands as a condemned sinner petitioning God for salvation through the forgiveness of sins. The author did not consider himself in a state of acceptance before God; he recognized that he was lost and sought God’s salvation through grace. This conclusion seems indisputable.

What did David mean when he wrote these lines?

Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy Holy Spirit from me.

Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit (vv. 11-12).

The petition “cast me not away from thy presence” could be an allusion to Genesis 3, where Adam and Eve were driven from the Garden of Eden and the presence of God (also cf. Gen. 4:14 where Cain was driven out). Others have suggested that this refers to an exclusion from Temple worship as was the fate of the leper (cf. Lev. 13:46). The phrase is used in 2 Kings 13:23; 17:20; 24:20; Jeremiah 7:15 to refer to God’s rejection of Israel as a nation when He sent them into captivity. David is petitioning the Lord not to treat him as one who had totally rejected the appeals of God’s grace. In Romans 1, “God gave up” on men who refused to have God in their knowledge (1:24,26,28). The phrase does not indicate that David was saved at the moment but fearful that God would reject him at any moment of time. Instead, it is the recognition by a sinner that he has committed sin and been so wicked that God may quit working to bring him to repentance, and is an appeal for God not to quit.

The prayer “take not thy Holy Spirit from me” was interpreted in the quotations mentioned above to mean that David was yet in possession of the Holy Spirit and, therefore, not in a state of damnation. Granting for the sake of argument that David still had the Holy Spirit, his possession of the Holy Spirit is no more proof of his salvation in his impenitent condition than Cornelius’ having the Spirit in Acts 10 is proof of his salvation before and without water baptism.

The withdrawal of the Spirit of God is placed in synonymous parallelism with being cast away from God’s presence. The two phrases are expressing the same thought – that of being totally separated from the influence of God’s grace to bring one to repentance. David was vividly aware of what became of Saul when “the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him” (I Sam. 16:14). He did not want that to befall him.

“Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation” has sometimes been given the meaning that “David had his salvation but did not have the joy of his salvation.” One cannot have his salvation without its attendant joy. David is not affirming that he maintained his salvation in spite of his sin; instead, he recognizes that he lost it as asks that it be restored to him (v. 12).

Conclusion

The “continuous cleansing” position cannot be defended on the basis of Psalm 5 1:11. Indeed, the very arguments used on this verse to defend the “continuous cleansing” position are used by Calvinists to defend “once in grace, always in grace.”

Any position which states that a man can lust after his neighbor’s wife, commit adultery, induce another to drunkenness, and commit premeditated murder without “being cast from God’s presence” contradicts the plain and simple teaching of God’s word. So does the claim that a man can commit these sins and linger in them a minimum of nine months and still be only “in the process of falling from God’s presence.” If one can maintain the fellowship of God for nearly a year, while committing these outrageous sins, surely we must concede that “once a man is in grace, he is always in grace.” For, if these sins do not separate a man from God, none will.

The truth is that some of our brethren are drifting into the denominational concept that it is not sin itself which separates man from God but some nebulous attitude factor which accompanies the sin. In other words, murder, homosexuality, or digression in worship can separate a man from God only if he has a bad attitude (insincerity, highhanded rebellion, etc.) but not if he has a good one (sincere, pious, etc.). Actually, all sin reveals some weakness or flaw in the attitude of our heart (Matt. 15:18-10). All sin is an affront to God and a blot upon man, separating him from God, and requires pardon upon the terms and conditions of the gospel. The Bible does not teach that one single sin puts a person into a state of hardened apostasy from which there is no hope of repentance or pardon. But the blot is removed only when we turn from sin, not while we continue in it.

To those who might have some sympathies toward the continuous cleansing position, I would like to make this appeal. Consider carefully where these arguments are headed. Who would have thought that a gospel preacher would have made the arguments on Psalm 51 which we have reviewed? Yet, they were and are being made by those who teach continuous cleansing.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 2, pp. 42, 47-48
January 15, 1987