… Listen to Paul’s words: “And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations (true revelation, not just the racy esoteric gnosticism that titillates and enthralls so many in our time), there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure” (2Cor 12:7). Look at that! “Above measure” is Paul’s choice of words, as if to say that he was aware that the messenger from Satan did not fully accomplish the complete eradication of this intractable propensity, for if it did, the buffeter could be finally removed. But if only to keep this thing in check enough for Paul’s ministry to continue required this radical divine measure. That’s very sobering! But the answer is never a studied avoidance of ‘knowledge’ of truth, but a trembling concerning the pernicious evil of pride and reliance on natural aptitude. …
I Pray Not For The World
… your question raises many others. But this much seems clear: Regardless of a person’s view of things like election or predestination, unless someone is a Universalist, it is agreed by all that it has never been the Father’s purpose to save other than those that believe out of the world. The provision of the predestined Lamb is restricted to the “whosoever will” of faith. Only these are definitely given to the Son for the saving and the keeping. “I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine … those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost” (Jn 17:9, 12), also, “And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day” (Jn 6:39). …
We Have This Treasure in Earthen Vessels
… It is a rule in the personal life as in prophecy that the kingdom of God and the life of the resurrection always follows the exposure of the ‘man of sin’. Why? Because the removal of ‘the veil of mere human morality’ exposes the concealed root of depravity. This is the meaning of ‘apocalyptic’, to unveil what is otherwise hidden, and why the word suggests a kind of violence. It speaks of death to the thing that withholds, that holds back and restrains the inbreaking of the kingdom. …
The Root of Error
… The root problem is, of course, the knowledge of God. It is a matter of revelation, as you said ‘encounter’. It is the want of being radically apprehended. But why not? I see that many have utterly thrown themselves without conscious reserve upon the Lord for resurrection and life. Still, they often come up without final resolution, and for long years pass through a process that seems impossible to hurry, and even some of these fail of the coveted prize (full sanctification). Why? How?
I find three reasons…
The Inerrancy of Scripture
[…] Translation is not merely an academic task. It is context sensitive, and decisions of translation are often a very spiritual matter. Within limits, a subjective bias can influence decisions between close options. If the stakes are high spiritually, and if there’s a close choice, such as in Zech 12:10, the orthodox Jew will, of course, avoid the translation that implies a meaning that favors the Christian interpretation, but NOT because his knowledge of Hebrew is superior. So even the translator’s task must be governed by the Spirit, or else a subjective bias can compromise a close decision between reasonable possibilities. …
But on the larger questions of the inerrancy of scripture, the classic article that provides THE definitive defense of this subject in the last century was written by Benjamin Breckenridge Warfield. He was a magnificent apologist for the evangelical faith in many areas, but played an especially key role in checking the flood of German higher criticism that was sweeping our academic institutions by storm with its wholesale assault on the authority of scripture. I would go as far as to say that except for men like Warfield, Vos, Machen, and a handful of others, America would not have its “Bible belts” today, and we’d be in even worse shape than we are now. But he’s your man on the doctrine of inerrancy. […]
