Video By Charles e Whisnant, First Peter


Video sermon by Charles e Whisnant


Charles e Whisnant, Charity Mucha Whisnant, Bob Temple, Robert Temple Sr.

Bob Temple and Charles and Charity Whisnant

Charles e Whisnant, Office Library

Truth of the Bible

The early Reformers were pioneers in fighting for the Christian fundamentals. The five solas of the Reformation represented the fundamental Christian doctrines that they saw as non-negotiable.

Following the Dark Ages, the early Reformers took up the mantle of fighting for the Christian fundamentals.

The five solas of the Reformation represented the fundamental doctrines that they saw as non-negotiable.
Sola gratia declares that salvation is by God’s grace alone in defiance of the Catholic belief in grace plus works.
Sola fide and sola Christus assert that salvation is appropriated by faith alone in Christ alone and apart from any human works (rejecting Mary as a co-redemptrix).
Soli deo gloria reminds us that everything we do should be done to the glory of God alone. Those four solas roar with exclusivity and are pillars that uphold the structure of sound doctrine. But the fifth sola is the foundation of them all.

Sola Scriptura affirms that Scripture is the exclusive authoritative source of truth. It was the Reformers’ chief battle cry against the presumptuous and artificial authority of the Roman Catholic Church. Scripture is the only revelation from God to man. It does not share its authority with the church, nor is it subject to the authority of the church.

God’s Word is the inerrant revelation of all fundamental Christian truth. But does the Bible itself identify which doctrines are fundamental? In his book Reckless Faith, John MacArthur answers with an emphatic yes: "The strongest words of condemnation in all the New Testament are aimed at false teachers who corrupt the gospel."[1] Paul pronounced damnation on anyone who rewrote the message of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ:
But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so say I again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you have received, he is to be accursed! (Galatians 1:8–9).
According to John MacArthur, the implication of Paul’s condemnation is clear: "Therefore the gospel message itself must be acknowledged as a primary point of fundamental doctrine."[2] That, in turn, helps us understand a key characteristic of all fundamental doctrines. As John explains:
If a doctrine is truly fundamental, it must have its origin in Scripture, not tradition, papal decrees, or some other source of authority. Paul reminded Timothy that the Scriptures are "able to make thee wise unto salvation" (2 Timothy 3:15, KJV). In other words, if a doctrine is essential for salvation, we can learn it from the Bible. The written Word of God therefore must contain all doctrine that is truly fundamental. It is able to make us "adequate, equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:17). If there were necessary doctrines not revealed in Scripture, those promises would ring empty.
The psalmist wrote, "The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul" (Psalm 19:7). That means Scripture is sufficient. Apart from the truths revealed to us in Scripture, there is no essential spiritual truth, no fundamental doctrine, nothing essential to soul-restoration. We do not need to look beyond the written Word of God for any essential doctrines. There is nothing necessary beyond what is recorded in God’s Word.[3]

That encapsulates sola Scriptura. Any doctrine that is antithetical or supplementary to Scripture violates the exclusivity of God’s Word. And that is the realm in which the Roman Catholic Church has operated for centuries:
The Roman Catholic Church . . . commonly threatens eternal damnation for anyone who questions the decrees of the Pope or the dogma of Church Councils. For example, Canon 1 of the seventh session of the Council of Trent pronounces anathema on anyone who says that there are more or less than the seven Sacraments established by the Council. That means if any Catholic questions the sacraments of Confirmation, Penance, or Extreme Unction—mentioned nowhere in Scripture—that person is subject to excommunication and in the Church’s eyes is worthy of eternal damnation. The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent are larded with similar anathemas—in effect making all the Council’s dictums fundamental doctrines. In Francis Turretin’s words, they "are impudent enough often to declare as fundamental their own hay and stubble and whatever the Romish church teaches."
But according to the Bible itself, no supposed spiritual authority outside "the sacred writings" of Scripture can give us wisdom that leads to salvation. No papal decrees, no oral tradition, no latter-day prophecy can contain truth apart from Scripture that is genuinely fundamental.[4]

In a world full of subjective opinions and claims of truth, the Bible objectively declares God’s truth. Why build our lives on false religions when God has provided a foundation of fundamental doctrine? Sola Scriptura establishes the source of all fundamental Christian truth.

Now that we know the exclusive source of truth, it raises a critical question: Is the extraction of fundamental biblical truth the exclusive domain of Bible scholars? Or has God spoken with enough clarity for the layman as well? That’s the issue we’ll address next time.

First Peter

First Peter 3:18 The Triumphant of Jesus Christ as a Sin-Bearing Savior

Charles e Whisnant, Pastor/Teacher

Four areas in which He triumphed, Victory in the midst of difficulty.
It was a triumphant sin-bearing,
It is a triumphant sermon,
It is a triumphant salvation and
It is a triumphant supremacy.
if we are to grasp the triumph of Christ's sufferings, not only for their sake, that is the sake that we might know those great triumphant realities, but for our sake that we also may understand our triumph in Him.

1A Point One: A triumphant sin-bearing, Verse 18, "For Christ also died for sins, once for all, the just for the unjust in order that He might bring us to God."
1B Several factors of the sin bearing of Christ. it was ultimate.
The suffering of Christ was ultimate. It says this, "For Christ also died." Note that word "also." What is its implication? That Christ suffered to the point that He died. He suffered ultimately.
Its implication is this, the "also" means in addition to somebody else. Who else is he talking about? He's talking about believers. He's been talking about the fact that you will suffer for doing what is right, but keep this in mind, Christ also suffered.
In fact, the writer of Hebrews 12:4 They hadn't suffered yet unto blood.
2B His suffering was related to sins, not His own. First Peter 2:22 says, "He committed no sin." Romans 8:3, it is so used in Hebrews 10:6 and 8.
3B His triumphant sin bearing, not only did He die, not only did He die for sins, it was, thirdly, He died in a unique way. What do I mean by unique? Once.
Hebrews 7:26, Hebrews 9:24 . 25 and 28
4A The suffering of Christ was comprehensive, it covered the ground completely.
The sacrifice of Christ for sin was not limited like the Old Testament. In fact, Old Testament sacrifices were limited to a certain person, a certain family, a certain nation, a certain time. Not so the sacrifice of Christ. He wrought satisfaction to God for all who would come to Him.
In John 6:37 "All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me and the ones who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out,
5B The death of Christ was vicarious, This phrase, "the just for the unjust," really sums it up.
The righteous for the unrighteous, the sinless for the sinful, that's what he's saying. Jesus Christ, without sin, took the place of sinners. Go back to First Peter 2:24 and remember what we studied there. He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, the sinless one in the place of the sinful. In 2 Corinthians 5:21 it says, "He made Him" that is God made Christ "who knew no sin sin," that's what the Greek says. He made the one who knew no sin sin. "He made Him sin on our behalf that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."
Hebrews 9:28 it says, "He was come and offered once to bear the sins of many."
Acts 3:14 But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you;
6B The suffering of Christ was purposeful. It was purposeful.
It's a purpose clause and the verb "to bring us" is a technical word often used to denote introducing someone, or providing access for someone, or bringing someone into a relationship. That's what the word indicates.
It was Jesus Christ who came, He said, to show us the Father, to lead us to the presence of God. He's the only way. He's the only source of introduction.
You say, "Well how do you come to Christ to have Him introduce you to God?"
Well, you have to come with a sense of your sin, a deep desire to be forgiven and a longing to have relationship with God. That's the gospel message. The gospel message is that you're a sinner and I'm a sinner. And if we will turn from sin and come with a heart that desires to know and be reconciled to a holy God, then Jesus Christ will introduce us to God. That's His sin-bearing triumph.


Frist Peter Series

First Peter Three Eighteen Exposition Part One

Charles e Whisnant, October 28 2015

A New Slant on Suffering, Survival and Suffering, The Suffering of Christ, After the Crucifixion, The Days of Noah, Strengthened to Suffer, The Mission of Our Savior, Remembrance of our Lord's Atonement Help to Persecuted, Crucified Savior Quickened in Spirit Preaching to the Spirits, How Should we Respond to Personal Intimidation?
18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: 22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

First Peter 3:18 FOR CHRIST ALSO DIED 3968 (suffered) FOR SINS 266 ONCE FOR ALL:
Isa 53:4-6; Romans 5:6-8; 8:3; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 1:4; 3:13; Titus 2:14; Hebrews 9:26,28)

For (3754) (hoti) means because, since. For shows us that Peter is beginning to explain why it is sometimes God's will for us to suffer for doing what is right as he has just discussed. He wants to remind them not to be surprised nor discouraged by suffering. Peter offers encouragement to his suffering readers because any suffering they might endure for Christ pales in comparison to His glorious suffering in our place, which is similar to what the writer of Hebrews said to his suffering Jewish audience...You have not yet resisted to the point of shedding blood in your striving against sin Hebrews 12:4

Died (3958) (pascho) describes in its essence what one experiences or undergoes and virtually always refers to a bad sense.

For (peri) sins - Literally reads concerning sins (see similar use in Hebrews 5:3) because the preposition peri means with regard to, with reference to, in relation to.

Sins (266) (hamartia) originally conveyed the idea of missing the mark as when hunting with a bow and arrow then missing or falling short of any goal, standard, or purpose.

Once for all (530) (hapax compare ephapax) means of perpetual validity, not requiring repetition.
Christ suffered for doing what is right. He is our example (1Peter 2:21) and we are to follow closely in His steps. Peter emphasizes Christ's example, because Peter learned (denying Him 3x when faced with the possibility of suffering for His Name's sake) that keeping a good conscience (1Peter 3:16) and suffering even though one does what is right (1Peter 3:17 is not something which frail, sinful flesh can accomplish in its own strength but can only be accomplished in Christ's strength (filled with, controlled by, empowered by His Spirit, see Acts 1:8, 2:2ff, Ephesians 5:18).


Zechariah 9:9; Matthew 27:19,24; Acts 3:14; 22:14; James 5:6; 1John 1:9 Ephesians 2:16-18
Just (1342)(dikaios from dike = right, just) defines that which is in accordance with high standards of rectitude. It is that which is in right relation to another and so in reference to persons defines the one who is morally and ethically righteous, upright or just
Unjust (94) (adikos compare adikia from a = without + díke = justice) means falling short of the righteousness required by divine laws.
In order that (2443) (hina) introduces the purpose for which the perfect Righteous One suffered and died for unrighteous sinners.
Bring us to (4317) (prosago from pros = toward, facing + ago = to go) is used of a person who brings another into the presence of a third party. describes someone’s being introduced or given access to another.
In classical Greek the noun form prosagoge refers to the one making the introduction. In ancient courts certain officials controlled access to the king. They verified someone’s right to see him and then introduced that person to the monarch. Christ now performs that function for believers. He opened the way of access to God.
・E Luke 9:41 ・EActs 16:20 ・EActs 27:27 ・E1 Peter 3:18
The meaning here is the aim of Christ's work to bring about man's reconciliation with God so that the cleansed sinner can be brought into the presence of the King by Christ, our Redeemer.

To bring us to God was Christ's mission

(Mark 10:45). (John 4:34). (John 17:4) (Matthew 27:51) Hebrews 10:19-21 Ephesians 3:12

In summary, 1 Peter 3:18 is one of the riches summaries in the Scriptures of the meaning of the Cross of Christ.

HAVING BEEN PUT TO DEATH IN THE FLESH: thanatotheis (APPMSN) men sarki: (1Peter 4:1; Daniel 9:26; Romans 4:25; 2 Corinthians 1:24; 13:4; Colossians 1:21,22)

Put to death (2289) (thanatoo) means to kill or cause to be put to death and leaves no doubt that on the Cross Jesus’ physical life ceased. The passive voice (speaks of action that comes to the subject from an outside source) indicates the total culpability of His executioners and stresses what man did to Him.
Flesh (4561) (sarx) refers to Jesus' physical body, His "flesh and blood" body.

BUT MADE ALIVE IN THE SPIRIT: : (Romans 1:4; 8:11)

Made alive (2227) (zoopoieo from zoos = alive + poieo = to make) literally means to make alive. This verb is in the passive voice which indicates that there is operation of power from an outside source, the Spirit of...
In the spirit (4151) (pneuma) is a reference to Jesus’ eternal inner person. Christ's eternal spirit has always been alive, although His earthly body was then dead; but three days later His body was resurrected in a transformed and eternal state.

John MacArthur writes that... The phrase made alive in the spirit refers to the life of Jesus' spirit--not to the Holy Spirit. There's no article in the Greek text indicates that Peter was referring to the Holy Spirit. Rather, he seems to be contrasting what happened to the flesh (or body) of Jesus with what happened to His spirit. His spirit was alive but His flesh was dead.
a third security in a hostile world, let’s call it "a place for Christ."

1 Peter 3:15 but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; (NASB: Lockman)

Sanctify (37)(hagiazo from hagios [see word study] = holy, set apart) means to set apart for God, to sanctify, to make a person or thing (in the OT altars, days, priests, etc were set apart) the opposite of koinos, which means profane or common. Sanctify is translated "Hallowed," with reference to the Name of God the Father in the Lord’s Prayer...

Hallowed (hagiazo) be Thy Name (Mt 8:9-)

Christ (5547) (Christos from chrio = to rub or anoint, consecrate to an office) refers to the Anointed One and thus is a title of the Messiah, the divine One (fully God) the Jews were looking for and of Whom the OT bore prophetic witness.

In the Gospels "the Christ" is not a personal name but an official designation for the expected Messiah (Mt 2:4, Lk 3:15). As by faith the human Jesus was recognized and accepted as the personal Messiah, the definite article ("the") was dropped and the designation "Christ" came to be used as a personal name. The name "Christ" speaks of His Messianic dignity and emphasizes that He is the fulfillment of the Old Testament promises concerning the coming Messiah.

Lord (kurios from kúros = might, power in turn from kuróo = give authority, confirm) describes One who has absolute ownership. Kurios describes the One who has sovereign power and authority. Kurios also conveys the idea of master. Thus, the second Person of the Trinity was to be Lord and Master of their lives. He was to be their resource and defender when persecution came.

In you heart - Not just in your head (although you do indeed need to read and intellectually "imbibe" the truth that Jesus is Lord), but also in the "control center", the center of your being, your heart.

Heart (2588) (kardia) does not refer to the physical organ but is always used figuratively in Scripture to refer to the seat and center of human life. The heart is the center of the personality, and it controls the intellect, emotions, and will.

MacArthur commenting on kardia writes that..."While we often relate heart to the emotions (e.g., "He has a broken heart"), the Bible relates it primarily to the intellect (e.g., "Out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders," Matt 15:19). That’s why you must "watch over your heart with all diligence" (Pr 4:23).

Now, let me sum up my exposition. The fruits of the sanctified life are to be found in the tender graces and in commanding virtues, in compassion, sensitive and humbleminded (1Pe 3:8), and in moral and spiritual enthusiasm which is perfectly devoid of fear. Now, do you not think that where these soft compassions flow and these sterner virtues dwell—river and rock—a man will be able to "give answer to every man that asketh a reason concerning the hope that is in him"? [1Peter 3:15]

ALWAYS...READY: hetoimoi aei (always) pros apologian panti to aitounti (PAP) humas logon peri tes en humin elpidos: (Ps 119:46; Jer 26:12, 13, 14, 15, 16; Da 3:16, 17, 18; Am 7:14, 15, 16, 17; Mt 10:18, 19, 20; Lk 21:14,15; Acts 4:8, 9, 10, 11, 12; 5:29, 30, 31; 21:39,40; 22:1,2, 3, 4, 5; Col 4:6; 2Ti 2:25)

Always...ready (2092) (hetoimos) means in a state of preparedness or readiness. It means to be prepared mentally or physically for some experience or action. You should know what you believe, why you believe it, and you should be ready, willing and able to explain what you believe to someone else. You are to be ready at a moment’s notice to explain what you believe.

Sanctify the Lord In Your Heart

Charles preaching 06 03 15

1 Peter 3:15  but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;  (NASB: Lockman)

Greek: kurion d ton Christon hagiasate (2PAAM) en tais kardiais humon hetoimoi aei pros apologian panti to aitounti (PAPMSD) humas logon peri tes en humin elpidos, alla meta prautetos kai phobou,

Amplified: But in your hearts set Christ apart as holy [and acknowledge Him] as Lord. Always be ready to give a logical defense to anyone who asks you to account for the hope that is in you, but do it courteously and respectfully. )

KJV: But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

NLT:  Instead, you must worship Christ as Lord of your life. And if you are asked about your Christian hope, always be ready to explain it.

Phillips: simply concentrate on being completely devoted to Christ in your hearts. Be ready at any time to give a quiet and reverent answer to any man who wants a reason for the hope that you have within you. 

Young's Literal: and the Lord God sanctify in your hearts. And be ready always for defence to every one who is asking of you an account concerning the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear;

similar phrase "sanctify My Name" is used prophetically to describe the future day (Ro 11:25-27) when Israel  will have the veil lifted and by grace through faith will recognize her Messiah as her Lord...

Therefore thus says the LORD, Who redeemed Abraham, concerning the house of Jacob ("Israel"): "Jacob shall not now be ashamed (in the future when the remnant of Israel is saved), nor shall his face now turn pale; 23 BUT WHEN (Not "if") he sees his children, the work of My hands, in his midst, they (the saved remnant of Jacob) will sanctify My Name. Indeed, they will sanctify the Holy One of Israel (The Lord Jesus Christ). (Isaiah 29:22-23)

Notice that Jehovah's promise is to literal Jacob ("Israel") and not to the church, which did not even exist at the time of this prophecy. To "replace Israel" with the NT church is to impugn (attack with words, dispute the truth of) the prophetic Word of Prophecy (2Pe 1:19) Jehovah gave specifically to Jacob (the nation of Israel). (See related article on What is replacement theology? from Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry)

But is a term of contrast, which begs the question of what is Peter contrasting? Here he is saying that instead of fearing and being stirred up and agitated because of possible suffering for righteousness' sake, the solution is to set apart Christ as your Lord. If He is in your heart, He is ruling over the control center of your being. Don't fear man. ''Fear'' (reverentially) the Lord! When the center of one's life is rightly related to the Lord Jesus, that person is able to respond properly to the vicissitudes of life.

But sanctify - As A T Robertson says "This instead of being afraid." Sanctify Christ as Lord instead of worrying or being afraid.

Peter lifts the quotation "sanctify the...Lord" from the Greek translation (Septuagint - LXX) of Isaiah 8:13 which reads

Peter was exhorting the readers to set apart the Messiah, the Lord Jesus, as Jehovah, Very God, in their hearts, giving first place to Him in obedience of life. To sanctify Christ has the sense of to recognize, to worship, and to honor Him as the only Lord.

Sanctify (37)(hagiazo from hagios [see word study] = holy, set apart)  means to set apart for God, to sanctify, to make a person or thing (in the OT altars, days, priests, etc were set apart) the opposite of koinos, which means profane or common. Sanctify is translated “Hallowed,” with reference to the Name of God the Father in the Lord’s Prayer...

Hallowed (hagiazo) be Thy Name (Mt 8:9-)
There are 28 uses of hagiazo in the NT - Matt. 6:9; 23:17, 19; Lk. 11:2; Jn. 10:36; 17:17, 19; Acts 20:32; 26:18; Rom. 15:16; 1 Co. 1:2; 6:11; 7:14; Eph. 5:26; 1 Thess. 5:23; 1 Tim. 4:5; 2 Tim. 2:21; Heb. 2:11; 9:13; 10:10, 14, 29; 13:12; 1 Pet. 3:15; Rev. 22:11

Here in 1Peter 3:15, hagiazo is in the aorist imperative which means do it now. Do it effectively!  The aorist imperative can even convey a sense of urgency.

This is a moral imperative that holds priority over all other decisions -- This foundational choice begets and controls all subsequent choices. Is He really the Lord of my life?

Submit to Christ as Kurios, the One Who is to in control. Remember the context is potential persecution/suffering. No matter what looms on the horizon we are to live in submissive communion with our Lord and Master Christ Jesus and the result will be that we have nothing to fear. The writer of Proverbs declares...The fear of man brings a snare, But he who trusts in the LORD will be exalted. (Proverbs 29:25)

How do we “sanctify Christ as Lord” in our hearts? We turn everything over to Him, and live only to please Him and glorify Him. It means we fear displeasing Him rather than fear what men might say about us as His disciples or what they might do to us. And one evidence that Christ is Lord in our lives is the readiness with which we tell others about Him.

Christ (5547) (Christos from chrio = to rub or anoint, consecrate to an office) refers to the Anointed One and thus is a title of the Messiah, the divine One (fully God) the Jews were looking for and of Whom the OT bore prophetic witness.

In the Gospels "the Christ" is not a personal name but an official designation for the expected Messiah (Mt 2:4, Lk 3:15). As by faith the human Jesus was recognized and accepted as the personal Messiah, the definite article ("the") was dropped and the designation "Christ" came to be used as a personal name. The name "Christ" speaks of His Messianic dignity and emphasizes that He is the fulfillment of the Old Testament promises concerning the coming Messiah.

Lord (kurios from kúros = might, power in turn from kuróo = give authority, confirm) describes One who has absolute ownership. Kurios describes the One who has sovereign power and authority.  Kurios also conveys the idea of master. Thus, the second Person of the Trinity was to be Lord and Master of their lives. He was to be their resource and defender when persecution came.

Jesus is referred to some ten times as Savior and some 700 times as Lord. Supreme in Authority. Kurios translates Jehovah (LORD in OT) in Septuagint (LXX) 7000 times.  When the two titles are mentioned together, Lord always precedes Savior. Is He your kurios, your Lord, your Master, your Owner, your Possessor?

In summary, kurios signifies sovereign power and absolute authority. The primary idea is Jesus is the One in possession of all power and authority over those who are truly His possession. Paul in his description of genuine believers asks the saints at Corinth...

Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit Who is in you, Whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.  (1Co 6:19,20)

Which Bible is the Word of God?

Is The Bible You Hold in Your Hand  is the Word of God?

The Logo of many Preachers use.  I am An Independent Fundamental Baptist. They mean they are a select kind of Baptist.  Not just any kind of Baptist, all other Baptist are not the real Baptist.  And if you use any other Bible other than the KJV you are not a real Bible Baptist at all.

I am not one of those kind of Pastor.

KJV logo Ba[tost

From a number of resource.

Having been raised on the KJV and was led to believe it was the only “Word of God” that I was not allowed to believe there were any other Bible other than Scofield Bible KJV.


Yes this is my 1960 well used and read Scofield Bible KJVCharles Bible Scofield

So for a number of years I would only read the KJV,  until I learned the facts.

I still read the KJV and it is a good translation, but I have come to believe (1983) that there are a few other good translation.

Timothy and Maura had been married only three weeks when the persecution of Emperor Diocletian reached Mauritania in Northern Africa. In A.D. 303 Diocletian had ordered that all Scripture be destroyed. Some Christians complied with the emperor’s order and as a result, a new word entered into the vocabulary - traitors (traditores - those who delivered).

As a deacon, one of Timothy’s jobs was to keep the Scriptures and knowing this, the authorities had him arrested. When Timothy refused to turn over the Scriptures, he was blinded with red hot irons so that "The books shall at least be useless to you."(1) When, after further torture, Timothy continued his refusal to surrender the scriptures, he and his new bride were crucified.

Down through the years many Christians, like Timothy, have given their lives for the Word of God. The Bible is the foundation for our beliefs and doctrines. The dissemination and teachings of the Bible are some of the main jobs of the Church. In order to make the Bible more accessible, it has been translated, in whole or in part, into more than 1,000 languages.(2)

Until recently, the Authorized Version (AV) (which is more commonly referred to as the King James Version (KJV)) was considered to be the English translation of the Bible. In fact for many it was not even seen as a translation, it simply was "the Bible." While the KJV is a good translation, two factors have pushed for newer translations.

Why A New Translation?
The most important factor for a new translation is that, over the nearly four hundred years since the KJV was translated, the English language has changed to the point where many people have trouble understanding it. For example, few people today would know what "and anon with joy receiveth" (Matt 13:20) or "I trow not" (Luke 17:9) means unless they were raised reading the KJV.

The other factor pushing for newer translations was of concern mainly to scholars. Since the translation of the KJV in 1611, our understanding of ancient languages, and the number of early manuscripts on which to base a translation has increased tremendously.

As a result, over the last 100 years there has been a flood of new translations, with an alphabet soup of initials. Some of the more notable ones are

The English Revised Version (RV - 1885),

The American Standard Version (ASV - 1901),

The Revised Standard Version (RSV - 1952),

The New American Standard Bible (NASB - 1967)

The New English Bible (NEB - 1970),

The New International Version (NIV - 1978),

The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV - 1990).

Translation Controversy?

Yet all of this effort to make the Bible more understandable has not been without controversy. Some simply prefer the KJV as the version they grew up with (either literally, or in the faith, or both). Others, however, take a much more divisive stance. They claim that these new translations are not just updating, but changing the Word of God. These proponents have "defended the KJV and its text and unashamedly call for their re-instatement as the Bible for the English-speaking world."(3)

Still others take a more extreme position of KJV-only and outright condemn these modern translations. G. A. Riplinger, for example, recently charged that there exists "an alliance between the new versions of the Bible (NIV, NASB, Living Bible and others) and the chief conspirators in the New Age movement’s push for a One World Religion."(4) Are these charges true? Is the KJV the only true word of God?

One of the factors that makes this debate so difficult for most people is that much of the discussion does not center on the translations themselves, but on the underlying Greek text on which the translations are based. For example, in 1 Tim 3:16 the KJV reads: "God was manifested in the flesh" while the NASB reads "He who was revealed in the flesh." The difference is not in the translation but in the fact that the Greek text used to translated the KJV reads "God" (theos) while the text used to translate the NASB reads "He who" (hos). As such, the problem is not really a question of the translation, but is a textual issue - a question about the Greek text itself. In order to simplify the discussion, this article will concern itself solely with the New Testament.
The Text of the New Testament

Currently we have over 5,000 early Greek manuscript portions and over 20,000 early translations of the New Testament. While most of the time these manuscripts agree, there are some places where they differ. When they do, a decision must be made as to which reading is most likely the original reading. This process is called Textual Criticism. Generally, there is little difficulty in determining the original reading, but sometimes scholars are not completely sure. This is why you sometimes will see a footnote on a verse indicating there is a variation in the Greek texts at that point.

The early Greek manuscripts of the Bible can be categorized into three groups depending on their readings: Western, Alexandrian, and Byzantine. The Alexandrian texts centered around Alexandria, Egypt. Because of the dry climate of Egypt, these texts tend to be the oldest. The Byzantine texts centered in the Byzantine Empire. Since the West church switched to Latin, and Alexandria fell to the Arabs, the Byzantine texts tend to be the most numerous.

Textus Receptus: Inspired?
Neither side of this debate question the inspiration of the apostles and prophets who wrote the Bible. But in addition to this, most supporters of the KJV-only position also claim that the Greek text used to translate the KJV, the Textus Receptus (TR), was either protected by God, or that those who assembled the TR were also inspired. Some even go as far as to claim that the translators of the KJV were inspired.(5)

Because of this, KJV-only supporters see any variation from the readings found in the TR (and thus the KJV) as a change in God’s Word. As such, the real question in this whole debate is: Does the TR hold some special status above all other Greek texts of the NT?
The origin of the TR can be traced to a Dutch scholar, Erasmus who in 1516 published the first Greek New Testament using the newly invented printing press. (6) Erasmus was not able to find a single Greek manuscript that contained all of the New Testament. As such, he had to combine the few manuscripts he had in order to make one complete text.

Erasmus had only one copy of the book of Revelation, from which the last page was missing. To get around this problem, he translated the missing six verses from the Latin. Erasmus published five editions of his Greek New Testament which became the basis for the text used to translate the KJV.

From its origin it is hard to see how the TR can lay claim to being the only true Word of God. Since Erasmus combined several manuscripts and translated some portions from the Latin, the resulting text was in many ways unique. An identical text had never existed before. Thus if the TR is the only true word of God, the true word of God did not exist until the 16th century!

Of course one could argue that Erasmus was inspired by God to recreate the original Greek New Testament, and as such his translations from the Latin only restored the original. But this raises the question, what claim had Erasmus to being a prophet? Also, if Erasmus were inspired by God, which of his five versions should be considered inspired since they all have minor differences between them?
KJV: A Perfect Translation?

Perhaps the clearest example of an error made by the translators of the KJV is in 1 John 5:7-8. Actually, as we will see, it was not the translators who made the error, but Erasmus, when he printed the Greek text that was later used by the translators. In the KJV this verse reads:

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. (Italics added to mark disputed portion)

The same verses in the NIV reads:

For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

It is quite apparent that some of the words in the KJV (referred to as either the Comma Johanneum, or the Heavenly Witness passage) do not appear in the NIV. The question is: were these words part of the original text written by John, or were they added by someone else later? (6)

To date, this passage has been found in only four Greek manuscripts (manuscripts are designated by number)

Manuscript Date
61 - 1520 A.D.
2318 - 1592 A.D.
629 - 14th -16th century A.D.
918 - 16th century A.D.

In addition it has been found written in the margins of four other Greek manuscripts
Manuscript Date
221 - 10th century A.D.
635 - 11th century A.D.
88 - 12th century A.D.
429 - 14th century A.D.

The first time we hear of the passage quoted as being from John is in a fourth century Latin work Liber Apologeticus written by the Spanish heretic Priscillian, or one of his followers. After that, the passage is quoted by some of the Latin fathers, and from the sixth century forward it begins appearing in Latin manuscripts of the Bible. The passage was not quoted by any of the Greek fathers, which would be most unlikely when one considers the controversy concerning the Trinity. Furthermore, as Bruce Metzger has pointed out "The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin."(7)

Thus it would seem clear that the passage was added to the Latin versions of the Bible. (Perhaps an early scribe wrote it in the margins as a note, and a later scribe copying the manuscript thought it was a correction and included it in the text). If as it appears, the Heavenly Witness passage was an addition to 1 John, then Erasmus could not have been inspired when he assembled his Greek text, nor can we consider the translators of the KJV to have been inspired when they translated the KJV.

Doctrinal Problems?

Allen Roberts and Another charge that is often leveled against the modern translations is that they corrupt the doctrines of the Bible.
P. A. Hall concluded that "Our comparison of the various English translations shows a weakening of the major doctrines." (8) Riplinger charges that those in the New Age movement are "gradually changing the bible to conform to its One World Religion." (9)

There is a major problem with the approach taken by some of the KJV-only supporters.
They make doctrine more important than the Word of God. In other words, they are judging the Bible by doctrines instead of judging doctrines by the Bible. One cannot have it both ways. If we are to judge our translations by how they conform to a set of doctrines, we could easily end up with a Bible like that of the Jehovah Witnesses’ New World Translation (NWT) in which all difficult passages are written in such a way as to eliminate any difficulty.

Deity of Christ: Weakened?

While we do not have space here to examine all of the doctrines, we will look at one of the most important, the deity of Christ. Do modern versions weaken Jesus’ claim to be God? To show that they do, supporters of KJV-only cite verses which support the deity of Christ in the KJV but have been changed in modern translations. There are two problems with such an approach.

One is that, by selecting different verses, the argument could be turned completely around. Consider John 1:18

KJV - No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (Italics added)

NIV - No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known. (Italics added)

Here the NIV refers to Jesus as God, while the KJV refers to him as the Son. If we were to follow the logic of the KJV-only supporters we would have to conclude that the translators of the KJV were trying to weaken the doctrine of the deity of Christ.

Difference or Contradiction

The second major problem with the approach of the KJV-only supporters is that a change in one verse does not necessarily affect the overall teaching of the Bible. Changing 1 Tim 3:16 from "God was manifest in the flesh"(KJV) to "He who was revealed in the flesh" (NASB), does not affect the teaching of the Bible on the deity of Jesus, for there are many other verses (such as John 1:1) which do support this doctrine and which have not been changed. Roberts and Hall base their criticism on a belief that "a change in one verse renders the concept at least contradictory to other verses," (10) but this is simply not the case.

The NASB version of 1 Tim 3:16 does not say that Jesus is not God, or even that God was not manifest in the flesh, it simply says "he" was manifest in the flesh. If we ask who this "he" was, we will find that the NASB version of John 1:14 still says "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us," and the NASB version of John 1:1 tells us that "the Word was God." Thus the NASB still teaches that it was God who was manifest in the flesh. We may have to do a little more studying to discover this (which may account for the addition of the word "God" in 1 Tim 3:16), but the doctrine is identical.

You Can Trust the Bible

The bottom line is that it really does not make much difference which of the major Bible translations you use. It is true that, because of the vast increase in our understanding of ancient languages and the number of manuscripts upon which to base translation, there are some differences between the KJV and the modern translations. For the most part, these differences are minor.

In fact, the important point that so often goes overlooked in such discussions is that with over 5,000 early Greek manuscripts, there really is very little variation. Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks noted, "There are less than 40 places in the New Testament where we are really not certain which reading is original, but not one of these has any effect on a central doctrine of the faith. Note: the problem is not that we don’t know what the text is, but that we are not certain which text has the right reading. We have 100 percent of the New Testament and we are sure about 99.5 percent of it."(11)

The KJV is a good translation, but so are the NIV, NASB, NRSV, etc. All of the major translations have their good points. All major translations, including the KJV, have their problems.

When choosing a translation, as long as you are considering a major translation, you do not have to worry if it really is the Word of God. The only real concern is whether or not this is a Bible you will read and study. For if you don’t bother to read and study the Bible, then the accuracy of the translation is of little importance.

1 Fox’s Book of Martyrs ( Grand Rapids, Zondervan) p. 29
2 Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict (San Bernardino, CA: Here’s Life, 1979) p. 19
3 Allen S. Roberts and P. A. Hall, Take Heed Unto Doctrine: The Degrading of Doctrine in Modern Bible Translations (Warburton, Victoria, Australia: Good News Literature Centre, 1987) p. 83
4 G. A. Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions (Munroe Falls, Ohio: AV Publications, 1993) p. 1
5 Riplinger, New p. 510
6 The often heard story of Erasmus including this passage based on a challenge has been called into question by recent scholarship and cannot be considered reliable.
7 Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament (United Bible Societies, 1975) p. 716
8 Roberts, Take p. 36
9 Riplinger, New, p. 1
10 Roberts, Take, p. xi
11 Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks, When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences (Wheaton, ILL: Victor Books, 1989)

Doris Morton Passed Away

Charles and Charity Whisnant, had the joy and privilege of being in the First Baptist Church in Altoona, Kansas for 16 years. We had the joy of ministering to a great group of believers. One of those dear folks was Doris Morton, along with her husband Bernard. ( I had the service when he passed away in 1991.) Doris and Bernard always sat on the back seat of the church, to my right as I preached each week. They were always the first to arrive and the first to leave, I might add. I had to run to shake their hands if I could catch them!

Doris was one of our good and faithful friends. She was always at church and loved working in the nursery with Donna Cornwell and Michele Nunnenkamp. She was so good with the babies, and each new addition to our nursery and church family was a special gift just for Doris. My how she loved those little ones and they all seemed to love her too.

We had the joy of seeing her in May 2015 and that was good. We have a lot of memories of her and Bernard and their daughter Donna. I could tell stories for sure, but I will let Charity tell you some stories about Doris and the blessing she was to our family personally:

When our son Chad was born on July 12, 1980, we had a new baby brother for Eric and Becki and a new Tuesday addition to our family. Each Tuesday morning Doris would knock on our door and then just come on in. At first we didn't quite know each other and she really just came to hold the baby, but gradually she just started helping me do whatever I was doing (usually laundry!). As a stay at home mom, I also kept other children whose moms were working, and Tracie Edwards summed it all up: "It's Tuesday! Doris is here and we're going to have potato soup for lunch!" Doris was such a blessing to us, and never asked anything except a short nap and a break to watch Days of Our Lives! After that she would start another load of clothes or fold the ones fresh from the dryer. We baked a lot of cookies on Tuesday, too. After Kyle was born Doris had another baby to love!

One year Toni Barnhart had another great idea! We decided to do something special for each lady on her birthday....when July came around we had a birthday party on our new deck to celebrate Doris's birthday. We were all so touched when Doris thanked us and said she had never had a birthday party before.

Another special memory I have is of Doris telling me how she didn't know what to do after Bernard died. She said she cried and prayed and kept singing over and over...."My Lord knows the way through the wilderness....all I have to do is follow." How often I sing that and think of Doris when the way does not seem clear...

Many times I tell about Doris, the amazing gift from God to our family. Just last Friday I was sharing with a girl who works at the bakery the story of Doris and her dependability. Doris loved babies and loved to help their moms. She used her talents and spiritual gift of service faithfullly to honor her Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Thank you Doris for all you have taught us.

Calvinist Calvinism Explain and Links

Most of the Fundamentalist, Premillennialist, Hell-Fire, Legalist, Arminianist, KJV onlyist preachers are so good at making blank statements that express just what they believe is truth as if they were the pope.

Most are not Calvinist, they may be a one pointer,  or not any way like the Reformed guys, what is monergism they don’t know, and could not tell you what the five solas of the Protestant Reformation are because they are Baptist.

The Five Solas of the Reformation

The Five Solas of the Protestant Reformation, while not unique to Calvinism, are integral to a Calvinist theological perspective and therefore bear restating here:


Calvinism is the theological system associated with the Reformer John Calvin that emphasizes the rule of God over all things as reflected in its understanding of Scripture, God, humanity, salvation, and the church. In popular vernacular, Calvinism often refers to the Five Points of Calvinistic doctrine regarding salvation, which make up the acrostic TULIP. In its broader sense, Calvinism is associated with Reformed theology.




Calvinism is named after 16th century Reformer, John Calvin whose overall theology is contained in his Institutes of the Christian Religion (1559). Sometimes Calvinism is referred to by other names such as "Augustinianism" because Calvin followed Augustine (A.D. 354–430) in many areas of predestination and the sovereignty of God.

In a broad sense, Calvinism can be virtually synonymous with "Reformed Protestantism" or Reformed theology, encompassing the whole body of doctrine taught by Reformed churches and represented in various Reformed Confessions such as the Belgic Confession of Faith (1561) and the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647).


The principle of Calvin's system can be expressed by the term Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone). This principle of the Reformation demonstrates the conviction that the Bible is the Word of God and therefore the final authority in belief and practice. A common mistake is made when Sola Scriptura is understood as the Bible "alone." Calvin and the Reformers, believed strongly in church tradition, e.g. Calvin consistently and often cites the early church fathers. However, Scripture had the final authority and tradition was given a subordinate role. The authority of Scripture was not through rational argumentation or proofs, but through the witness of the Holy Spirit. [1]

See main page: Scripture alone, Authority of the Bible


Calvinism affirms and confesses the historic doctrine of the Trinity: God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God is perfect in all his attributes, and is self-sufficient. Therefore, God is not subject to time or other beings, nor is he reducible to matter or spatial categories available to human reasoning or examination.[2] God is also mysterious, or hidden, except as he chooses to reveal himself to men, which He has done in the Scriptures.

Salvation (Five Points of Calvinism)

The Calvinist doctrine of salvation is summarized in what is commonly called the Five Points of Calvinism, or the Doctrines of Grace, known by the acronym TULIP. These five points are a summary of the Canons of Dort which in turn was the judgment of the Synod of Dort (1618–1619) against related Arminian teaching. These five points are not intended to be a comprehensive summary of Calvinism or Reformed doctrine, but an exposition of the sovereignty of God in salvation -- arranged to address the particular points in dispute raised by the Arminians of that day.

Note: The summary wording below is adapted from the Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics

Total depravity

Calvinism teaches that humanity is totally depraved. Due to the Fall, the original relationship that Adam and Eve enjoyed with God was severed by sin. This affected the entire human race, corrupting the heart, mind, and will of every person born. Thus, people's natural actions and affections, whether viewed by man as bad or good, are never pleasing to God. The Calvinist understanding of total depravity does not mean that people are as evil as they possibly could be. People still make good choices (from a human perspective), but no matter how good they may be, they never gain favor with God. While total depravity is commonly associated with John Calvin, this theological viewpoint is based on the theology of Augustine (b. 354).

Unconditional election

Unconditional election is the doctrine which states that God chose those whom he was pleased to bring to a knowledge of himself, not based upon any merit shown by the object of his grace and not based upon foreseen faith (especially a mere decisional faith). God has elected, based solely upon the counsel of his own will, some for glory and others for damnation (Romans 9:15, 21). He has done this act before the foundations of the world (Ephesians 1:4–8).

Limited atonement

Limited atonement (also known as "definite atonement") is a doctrine offered in answer to the question, "for whose sins did Christ atone?" The Bible teaches that Christ died for those whom God gave him to save (John 17:9). Christ died, indeed, for many people, but not all (Matthew 26:28). Specifically, Christ died for the invisible Church -- the sum total of all those who would ever rightly bear the name "Christian" (Ephesians 5:25).

See main page: Definite atonement See also Atonement of Christ and Penal substitutionary atonement

Irresistible grace

The result of God's irresistible grace is the certain response by the elect to the inward call of the Holy Spirit, when the outward call is given by the evangelist or minister of the Word of God. Christ, himself, teaches that all whom God has elected will come to a knowledge of him (John 6:37). Men come to Christ in salvation when the Father calls them (John 6:44), and the very Spirit of God leads God's beloved to repentance (Romans 8:14). What a comfort it is to know that the gospel of Christ will penetrate our hard, sinful hearts and wondrously save us through the gracious inward call of the Holy Spirit (1 Peter 5:10)!

Perseverance of the saints

Those called and justified will certainly be glorified (Romans 8:28–39). The work of sanctification which God has brought about in his elect will continue until it reaches its fulfillment in eternal life (Phil. 1:6). Christ assures the elect that he will not lose them and that they will be glorified at the "last day" (John 6:39). The Calvinist stands upon the Word of God and trusts in Christ's promise that he will perfectly fulfill the will of the Father in saving all the elect.

The Church

Theology of the sacraments

Calvinists regard the sacraments as gracious gifts from Christ to his church, the substance of the sacraments being Christ and their benefits being appropriated by faith. They are memorial and symbolic in nature, but not simply memorial and symbolic, as Jesus is faithful to his promise. Thus, if a thing is signified by a sacrament, he will certainly bestow the thing so signified on a faithful participant, and indeed he himself will accompany the sign. Consistent with Protestantism in general, Calvinism acknowledges the two sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper as being specifically instituted by Christ for the church.

The Five Solas of the Reformation

The Five Solas of the Protestant Reformation, while not unique to Calvinism, are integral to a Calvinist theological perspective and therefore bear restating here:


  1. Cf. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, book 1, section 7, chapter
    1. See also book 1, section 8, chapters 1-13.
  2. W. S. Reid, "Calvinism", p. 202 in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Walter A. Elwell, ed. 2nd ed. (Baker, 2001)

See also

Further Reading


External links