“TUHAN Allah berfirman: Tidak baik, kalau manusia itu seorang diri saja. Aku akan menjadikan penolong baginya, yang sepadan dengan dia” (Kejadian 2:18).
Seorang penyair Inggris, John Milton berkata, “Kesepian adalah hal pertama yang dalam pemandangan Tuhan disebut tidak baik.” Banyak penulis modern berbicara tentang wabah kesepian di dunia hari ini. H. G. Wells, penulis dari The Time Machine dan The Outline of History, berkata, “Sekarang saya berumur enam puluh lima tahun, dan saya selalu kesepian dan tidak pernah menumukan damai.” Seorang novelis yang memenangkan The Pulitzer Prize, Ernest Hemingway berkata, “Saya hidup dalam suatu ruang hampa sesepi tabung radio ketika semua batereinya telah mati dan tidak digantikan dengan beterei yang baru lagi.” Dalam dramanya, Long Day’s Journey Into Night, Eugene O’Neill berkata, “Hidup hanya untuk mati.” Tema drama itu menceritakan tentang kesepian seseorang secara eksistensial. J. D. Salinger menggeluti karirnya di bidang menulis kisah-kisah dan novel-novel tentang keterasingan (alienation) dan kesepian (loneliness) dari kawula muda dalam budaya kita.
H. G. Wells meninggal sebagai orang tua yang kesepian dan tanpa pengharapan. Ernest Hemingway memutuskan untuk bunuh diri dengan menembak kepalanya sendiri dengan senapan. Tokoh utama dalam drama O’Neill adalah seorang pecandu yang tidak memiliki pengharapan, yang sedang berusaha untuk menghilangkan kesepiannya dengan mabuk-mabukan. J. D. Salinger menjadi begitu terobsesi dengan kesepian kawula muda sehingga ia menjadi seorang pertapa, dan menghidupi hidup bertapa hampir selama lima puluh tahun.
Kesepian adalah masalah utama bagi kawula muda hari ini. Anda bahkan dapat merasa kesepian ketika Anda sedang berada di tengah kerumunan orang banyak. Satu website menjelaskan kepada kita bahwa “Kesepian adalah perasaan hampa atau kosong di dalam diri Anda. Anda merasa terisolasi atau terpisah dari dunia ini, terpisah dari orang-orang yang Anda ingin bersamanya” (www.counsel.ufl.edu/brochure.asp? include=brochures/how_to_deal_with_loneliness.brochure). Tuhan menjelaskan itu dengan pernyataan yang sangat sederhana ketika Ia berkata:
“Tidak baik, kalau manusia itu seorang diri saja”
(Kejadian 2:18).
Namun banyak anak muda yang masih duduk di SMU atau mahasiswa perguruan tinggi yang merasa kesepian di zaman kita ini. Itulah sebabnya mengapa saya mau memberikan tiga hal pada pagi ini, untuk membantu Anda mempelajari bagaimana mengatasi masalah kesepian.
I. Pertama, ada berbagai jenis kesepian yang berbeda.
Website tersebut menjelaskan kepada kita,
Ada berbagai jenis kesepian yang berbeda dan tingkat kesepian yang berbeda. Anda mungkin pernah mengalami kesepian secara samar-samar yang sebenarnya tidak begitu, semacam sedikit hampa. Atau Anda mungkin pernah merasa kesepian yang luar biasa dan sungguh menyiksa. Satu type dari kesepian mungkin disebabkan oleh karena kehilangan orang-orang yang sangat dikasihi yang meninggal dunia atau karena mereka berada ditempat yang sangat jauh. Type yang lain mungkin melibatkan perasaan itu sendiri dan hilangnya kontak dengan orang lain karena secara fisik Anda benar-benar terpisah dengan teman-teman Anda, yang mana itu terjadi oleh karena Anda bekerja sendirian pada shift malam atau bekerja sendirian di gedung yang terpisah jauh dari teman-teman Anda dan di suatu bangunan di mana jarang sekali orang pergi ke tempat itu. Anda mungkin pernah merasa terisolasi [dan merasa kesepian] secara emosional ketika Anda dikelilingi oleh banyak orang namun Anda memiliki kesulitan untuk bergaul dengan mereka (ibid.).
Menurut beberapa penelitian psikolog, para mahasiswa perguruan tinggi biasanya adalah yang paling banyak diserang kesepian. Kampus tidak nampak menarik orang-orang untuk masuk bersama ke dalam hubungan atau persekutuan yang permanen. Kawula muda yang sedang kuliah di universitas ataupun sekolah tinggi sering merasa seperti seluruh dunia ini telah meninggalkan mereka, dan tak seorangpun yang memahami mereka atau peduli tentang mereka. Mereka tidak memiliki seseorang untuk berbagi.
Sungguh ironis bahwa peradapan yang telah memproduksi mobil, pesawat terbang, televisi, dan kesempatan untuk melancong tidak menyediakan sesuatu untuk menghindarkan Anda dari kesepian! Orang-orang tua Anda pulang dari kerja sudah lelah dan duduk di depan TV. Mereka tidak memiliki waktu berbicara dengan Anda, atau mendengarkan Anda. Banyak dari Anda datang dari keluarga yang berantakan (broken home). Anak-anak korban perceraian bertumbuh melalui neraka kesepian. Namun hampir setiap anak muda yang kepada mereka saya berbicara, mereka merasa bahwa memang seperti itulah keadaanya.
Seorang anak gadis pernah berkata, “Saya pernah mengalami kesepian yang luar biasa. Tetangga-tetangga saya tidak pernah berbicara dengan saya.” Seorang pemuda pernah berkata, “Sepertinya saya tidak pernah mampu menjalin persahabatan, karena nampaknya cepat atau lambat mereka yang nampak menjadi teman akan meninggalkan saya.” Pernahkah Anda merasakan itu? Tuhan berfirman,
“Tidak baik, kalau manusia itu seorang diri saja”
(Kejadian 2:18).
Namun jutaan kawula muda sedang kesepian. Saya percaya bahwa kesepian adalah salah satu alasan utama sehinga banyak anak muda melakukan bunuh diri pada hari ini. Apakah Anda tahu bahwa bunuh diri adalah penyebab kematian terbesar ketiga di antara anak-anak muda antara umur 15 sampai 24 tahun? Kecelakaan adalah penyebab terbesar pertama sebagai penyebab kematian. Pembunuhan adalah penyebab terbesar kedua. Dan bunuh diri adalah penyebab nomer tiga! Satu anak muda melakukan bunuh diri setiap dua jam enam menit, siang dan malam, di Amerika Serikat – kira-kira 84 per minggu, 340 per bulan, 4,000 per tahun. Dan para psikolog menjelaskan kepada kita bahwa alasan utama mereka bunuh diri adalah karena kesepian. Tuhan benar ketika Ia berkata,
“Tidak baik, kalau manusia itu seorang diri saja”
(Kejadian 2:18).
II. Kedua, Anda dapat berkontribusi terhadap kesepian Anda sendiri.
Itu benar, Anda mungkin menjadi seorang yang paling bertanggung jawab yang menyebabkan kesepian Anda sendiri. Website itu menjelaskan masalah kesepian dengan benar ketika berkata,
Kesepian adalah keadaan pasif. Itu disebabkan oleh karena kepasifan kita membiarkannya terus berlanjut dan tidak melakukan apapun untuk mengubahnya. Kita berharap itu secepatnya pergi menjauh, [namun] kita tidak melakukan apapun tetapi justru membiarkannya terus menyelimuti kita. Sungguh aneh, ada kalanya kita malah mempertahankan perasaan itu. Namun, mempertahankan kesepian dan membiarkan diri masuk ke dalam perasaan itu secara terus menerus akan memimpin kepada perasaan depresi dan tak berdaya, yang mana, pada giliranya, bahkan memimpin kepada keadaan yang lebih pasif dan lebih depresi [dan kesepian yang lebih besar] (ibid.).
“Kesepian adalah keadaan pasif. Itu disebabkan oleh karena kepasifan kita membiarkannya terus berlanjut.” Itu sungguh benar. Itu berarti bahwa Anda akan merasa kesepian kecuali Anda melakukan sesuatu untuk mengubah situasi itu!
Suatu Minggu pagi saya pernah mengkhotbahkan khotbah saya tentang kesepian Yakub dari Kejadian 32:24. Di pertengahan khotbah itu ada seorang muda melompat dan lari keluar gereja. Hal terakhir yang ia dengar dari saya adalah apa yang saya katakan ketika ia lari keluar dari kebaktian yaitu, “Silahkan Anda lari keluar dari gereja ini, namun Anda akan selalu kesepian.” Anda tidak dapat lari kemanapun tanpa merasa kesepian. Itulah sebabnya mengapa Kain mengalaminya. Tuhan pernah berkata kepadanya,
“Engkau menjadi seorang pelarian dan pengembara di bumi” (Kejadian 4:12).
Orang-orang yang lari dari gereja menjadi pengembara, anak-anak muda yang kesepian, persis sama seperti Kain! Dan Alkitab berkata,
“Celakalah mereka, karena mereka mengikuti jalan yang ditempuh Kain” (Yudas 11).
Itu adalah hal yang mengerikan mengembara sendirian seumur hidup, seperti yang dilakukan oleh Kain – seperti yang juga dilakukan oleh banyak anak muda hari ini!
Itulah alasannya mengapa kami berkata, “Mengapa membiarkan diri kesepian? Pulanglah – ke gereja! Mengapa membiarkan diri terhilang? Pulanglah – kepada Yesus!” Tuhan berfirman,
“Tidak baik, kalau manusia itu seorang diri saja”
(Kejadian 2:18).
Itulah sebabnya mengapa Tuhan memberikan seorang istri kepada Adam. Dan menurut The Scofield Study Bible istri Adam adalah gambaran dari jemaat. Berikut ini adalah catatannya untuk Kejadian 2:23 yang mengatakan,
Hawa, type dari Jemaat sebagai mempelai Kristus
(catatan untuk Kejadian 2:23).
Ini berarti bahwa istri Adam adalah suatu ilustrasi, atau gambaran, dari jemaat lokal. Tuhan berfirman,
“Tidak baik, kalau manusia itu seorang diri saja. Aku akan menjadikan penolong baginya, yang sepadan dengan dia” (Kejadian 2:18).
Dan Tuhan memberikan seorang penolong yang sepadan kepada Adam. Dan ia adalah suatu gambaran, suatu ilustrasi, suatu “type” dari jemaat lokal. Tuhan memberikan Hawa kepada Adam untuk menyembuhkan kesepiannya, dan Tuhan menempatkan gereja ini di sini untuk menolong menyembuhkan kesepian Anda! Gereja ini ada di sini untuk menolong menyembuhkan kesepian Anda!
“Tidak baik, kalau manusia itu seorang diri saja. Aku akan menjadikan penolong baginya, yang sepadan dengan dia” (Kejadian 2:18).
Dan “penolong yang sepadan” yang Tuhan telah berikan untuk menyembuhkan kesepian Anda adalah gereja ini! Kita ada di sini untuk membantu Anda mengatasi kesepian Anda!
Jangan berkontribusi terhadap kesepian Anda sendiri dengan hidup jauh dari gereja! Kembalilah nanti malam. Datanglah kembali Minggu depan! Datanglah kembali Sabtu malam! Kami memiliki sesuatu bagi kawula muda beberapa malam dalam seminggu. Sembuhkanlah kesepian Anda sendiri! Pulanglah ke gereja!
III. Namun, ketiga, Anda memiliki kesepian yang lebih dalam.
Itu adalah kesepian yang Hemingway pernah katakan ketika ia berkata,
Saya hidup dalam suatu ruang hampa sesepi tabung radio ketika semua batereinya telah mati dan tidak digantikan dengan beterei yang baru lagi.
Salah satu dari orang muda pernah berkata kepada saya bahwa ia pernah membaca suatu kisah tentang Hemingway untuk tugas mata kuliah yang ia ambil di perguruan tinggi. Itu berjudul, “A Clean, Well Lighted Place.” Itu adalah tentang kesepian seseorang secara eksistensial. Hemingway telah mengenal semua itu. Ia berbicara tentang kesepian kosmik yang sedang menggerogoti Tuhan. Ia tidak pernah mengatasinya. Beberapa tahun kemudian ia bunuh diri. Seorang filsuf yang bernama Friedrich Nietzsche berkata, “Allah telah mati.” Ia menjadi seorang atheis. Beberapa tahun kemudian ia menjadi gila. Ia tidak dapat hidup tanpa Tuhan, tanpa tujuan, tanpa pengampunan atau pengharapan.
Anda lihat, masuk ke gereja ini, dan datang kemari setiap minggu, itu akan menyembuhkan kesepian Anda karena ada banyak teman di sini. Namun apakah kesepian Anda disebabkan oleh karena terpisah dari Tuhan? Salah satu tragedi terbesar dari abad dua puluh satu ini adalah bahwa banyak anak muda tidak sungguh-sungguh mengenal Tuhan. Dan tanpa Tuhan tidak akan ada pengharapan!
Ya, saya ingin Anda kembali ke sini ke gereja ini dan menjalin persahabatan – namun saya juga ingin Anda menemukan Tuhan.
“Tidak baik, kalau manusia itu seorang diri saja”
(Kejadian 2:18).
Anda membutuhkan Tuhan! Augustine berkata, “Hati kami resah sampai ia menemukan peristirahatan di dalam Engkau.” Seorang filsuf Francis Blaise Pascal berkata bahwa ada “ruang kosong untuk Tuhan” di dalam hati kita. Ia memaksudkan bahwa ada ruang kosong dalam setiap hati manusia yang hanya dapat diisi oleh Tuhan.
Namun Alkitab mengajarkan bahwa Anda terpisah dari Tuhan oleh karena dosa-dosa Anda. Alkitab berkata,
“Tetapi yang merupakan pemisah antara kamu dan Allahmu ialah segala kejahatanmu, dan yang membuat Dia menyembunyikan diri terhadap kamu, sehingga Ia tidak mendengar, ialah segala dosamu” (Yesaya 59:2).
Ada suatu keterpisahan antara Anda dan Tuhan yang disebabkan oleh dosa. Adam dan Hawa diusir dari Taman Eden oleh karena mereka berdosa. Dosa mereka telah memisahkan mereka dari Tuhan.
Alkitab mengajar bahwa Tuhan murka dengan Anda karena dosa-dosa Anda. Namun, pada saat yang sama, Ia mengasihi Anda. Itulah sebabnya mengapa Yesus Kristus, Anak Allah, mati di kayu Salib. Ia mati di kayu Salib untuk mendamaikan Tuhan dengan Anda. Tuhan tidak mengabaikan dosa Anda. Ia mengutus Yesus Kristus untuk membayar penghukuman atas dosa-dosa Anda di kayu Salib, “supaya nyata, bahwa Ia benar dan juga membenarkan orang yang percaya kepada Yesus” (Roma 3:26). Allah yang murka hanya dapat diperdamaikan dengan pengorbanan Kristus di kayu Salib!
Yesus Kristus pergi ke kayu Salib untuk menanggung dosa-dosa Anda di dalam tubuh-Nya sendiri (band. I Petrus 2:24). Ketika Ia mati di kayu Salib pada saat itu terjadi gempa bumi yang dahsyat yang menyebabkan bumi bergetar. Tirai tebal yang menutupi ruang maha kudus dalam Bait Suci terbelah menjadi dua. Kematian Kristus di kayu Salib membuat mungkin Allah yang murka “mengabaikan” dosa-dosa Anda dan mengijinkan Anda masuk ke dalam hadirat-Nya yang suci. Alkitab berkata,
“Jadi, saudara-saudara, oleh darah Yesus kita sekarang penuh keberanian dapat masuk ke dalam tempat kudus” (Ibrani 10:19).
Anda hanya dapat datang kepada Tuhan bila dosa-dosa Anda telah disucikan dengan Darah Kristus Anak-Nya. Anda hanya dapat diperdamaikan dengan Tuhan bila dosa-dosa Anda telah disucikan dengan Darah Kristus.
“Akan tetapi Allah menunjukkan kasih-Nya kepada kita, oleh karena Kristus telah mati untuk kita, ketika kita masih berdosa. Lebih-lebih, karena kita sekarang telah dibenarkan oleh darah-Nya, kita pasti akan diselamatkan dari murka Allah.”
(Roma 5:8-9).
Alkitab benar.
“Tidak baik, kalau manusia itu seorang diri saja”
(Kejadian 2:18).
Itulah sebabnya mengapa Tuhan menetapkan jemaat lokal ini, yang di-type-kan oleh Hawa. Jemaat ini ada di sini untuk menolong Anda dengan berbagai cara. Kami di sini untuk membantu menyembuhkan kesepian fisikal Anda. Kami ada di sini untuk membawa Anda kepada Yesus dan membantu Anda untuk dipertobatkan, untuk memperbaiki kerenggangan hubungan Anda dari Tuhan. Itulah alasan mengapa kami berkata, “Mengapa membiarkan diri kesepian? Pulanglah – ke gereja! Mengapa membiarkan diri terhilang? Pulanglah – kepada Yesus, Anak Allah!”
Minggu, 02 Agustus 2009
Rabu, 22 Juli 2009
The Textus Receptus
Contents: Introduction * The Origin of the Textus Receptus * The History of the Textus Receptus * The Text of the Textus Receptus * Addendum I: The King James Version * Addendum II: The "New TR"
Introduction
Textus Receptus, or "Received Text," (abbreviated TR) is the name we use for the first published Greek text of the New Testament. For many centuries, it was the standard text of the Greek Bible. The name arose from the work of the kinsmen Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir, who said of their 1633 edition, "Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum" -- "So [the reader] has the text which all now receive."
The irony is that the Received Text is not actually a single edition, but a sort of text-type of its own consisting of hundreds of extremely similar but not identical editions. Nor do any of its various flavours agree exactly with any extant text-type or manuscript. Thus the need, when referring to the Received Text, to specify which received text we refer to.
If this all sounds complicated, it is because of the complicated history of the Textus Receptus. Let's take it from the beginning.
The Origin of the Textus Receptus
Although printing with movable type was in use no later than 1456, it was many years before a Greek New Testament was printed. This is not as surprising as it sounds; the Greek minuscule hand of the late fifteenth century was extremely complicated, with many diverse ligatures and custom symbols. Cutting a Greek typeface required the creation of hundreds of symbols -- far more than a Latin typeface. Printers probably did not relish the idea. (It is worth noting that the Complutensian Polyglot invented a new type of Greek print for its edition.)
It was not until the early sixteenth century that Cardinal Ximenes decided to embark on a Greek and Latin edition of the New Testament -- the famous Complutensian Polyglot. The New Testament volume of this work was printed in 1514 -- but it was not published until after 1520. This left a real opportunity for an enterprising printer who could get out an edition quickly.
Such a printer was John Froben of Basle. Apparently having heard of the Complutension edition, he was determined to beat it into print. Fortunately, he had the contacts to pull this off.
Froben decided to approach Desiderius Erasmus, one of the most notable (if rather humanistic) scholars of his generation. The proposal appears to have been transmitted on April 17, 1515. Work began in the fall of that year, and the work was pushed through the press in February of 1516.
For a project that had taken fifty years to get started, the success of Erasmus's edition (which contained his Greek text in parallel with his own Latin version) was astonishing. The first printing soon sold out, and by 1519 a new edition was required. Three more would follow, each somewhat improved over the last.
It is sad to report that such a noble undertaking was so badly handled (all the more so since it became the basis of Luther's German translation, and later -- with some slight modifications -- of the English King James Version). The speed with which the book went through the press meant that it contained literally thousands of typographical errors. What is more, the text was hastily and badly edited from a few late manuscripts (see below, The Text of the Textus Receptus).
A part of page 336 of Erasmus's Greek Testament, the first "Textus Receptus."
Shown is a portion of John 18.
The History of the Textus Receptus
Erasmus's first edition was a great success; some 3300 copies of his first two editions were sold. (If that sounds like a small number, recall that there were probably fewer than 300 copies of the Mainz Vulgate, and that editions were usually restricted to 1000 copies as late as Elizabethan times and after.) The success of Erasmus's edition soon called forth new Greek testaments, all of them based largely on his. The first of these was published by Aldus Manutius in 1518 -- but although it contained an independent text of the Septuagint (the first such to be printed), its New Testament text was taken almost verbatim from Erasmus, including even the typographical errors. Hence the first truly new publication was Erasmus's own edition of 1519. This featured almost the same text as the 1516 edition, but with the majority (though by no means all!) of the errors of the press corrected. It also features some new readings, believed by Scrivener to come from 3eap (XII; classified by von Soden as e: Kx a: I [K]; c: K).
Erasmus's third edition of 1522 contained one truly unfortunate innovation: The "Three Heavenly Witnesses" in 1 John 5:7-8. These were derived from the recently-written Codex 61, and (as the famous story goes) included by Erasmus "for the sake of his oath." Sadly, they have been found in almost every TR edition since.
There followed a great welter of editions, all slightly different (based on such figures as I have seen, it would appear that editions of the Textus Receptus typically vary at between one hundred and two hundred places, though very few of these differences are more than orthographic). None of these editions were of any particular note (though the 1534 text of Simon Colinæus is sometimes mentioned as significant, since it included some variant readings). It was not until 1550 that the next great edition of the Textus Receptus was published. This was the work of Robert Stephanus (Estienne), whose third edition became one of the two "standard" texts of the TR. (Indeed, it is Stephanus's name that gave rise to the common symbol s for the Textus Receptus.) Stephanus included the variants of over a dozen manuscripts -- including Codices Bezae (D) and Regius (L) -- in the margin. In his fourth edition (1551), he also added the verse numbers which are still used in all modern editions. The Stephanus edition became the standard Textus Receptus of Britain, although of course it was not yet known by that name. (The esteem in which the Textus Receptus was already held, however, is shown by Scrivener's report that there are 119 places where all of Stephanus's manuscripts read against the TR, but Stephanus still chose to print the reading found in previous TR editions.)
Stephanus's editions were followed by those of Theodore de Bèza (1519-1605), the Protestant reformer who succeeded Calvin. These were by no means great advances over what had gone before; although Beza had access to the codex which bears his name, as well as the codex Claromontanus, he seems to have made little if any use of them. A few of his readings have been accused of theological bias; the rest seem largely random. Beza's editions, published between 1565 and 1611, are remembered more for the sake of their editor (and the fact that they were used by the translators of the King James Bible) than for their text.
The next great edition of the Textus Receptus is the Elzevir text already mentioned in the Introduction. First published in 1624, with minor changes for the edition of 1633, it had the usual minor variants from Stephanus (of which Scrivener counted 287), but nothing substantial; the Elzevirs were printers, not critics.
The Elzevir text, which became the primary TR edition on the continent, was the last version to be significant for its text. From this time on, editions were marked more by their marginal material, as scholars such as Mill, Wettstein, and later Griesbach began examining and arranging manuscripts. None of these were able to break away from the TR, but all pointed the way to texts free of its influence.
Only one more TR edition needs mention here -- the 1873 Oxford edition, which forms the basis of many modern collations. This edition is no longer available, of course, though some editions purport to give its readings.
Beginners are reminded once again that not all TR editions are identical; those collating against a TR must state very explicitly which edition is being used.
The Text of the Textus Receptus
Erasmus, having little time to prepare his edition, could only examine manuscripts which came to hand. His haste was so great, in fact, that he did not even write new copies for the printer; rather, he took existing manuscripts, corrected them, and submitted those to the printer. (Erasmus's corrections are still visible in the manuscript 2.)
Nor were the manuscripts which came to hand particularly valuable. For his basic text he chose 2e, 2ap, and 1r. In addition, he was able to consult 1eap, 4ap, and 7p. Of these, only 1eap had a text independent of the Byzantine tradition -- and Erasmus used it relatively little due to the supposed "corruption" of its text. Erasmus also consulted the Vulgate, but only from a few late manuscripts.
Even those who favour the Byzantine text cannot be overly impressed with Erasmus's choice of manuscripts; they are all rather late (see table):
Manuscript Date Von Soden Classification
(in modern terms)
1eap XII e: family 1; ap: Ia3
1r XII Andreas
2e XII/XIII Kx (Wisse reports Kmix/Kx)
2ap XII Ib1
4ap XV
7p XI/XII Op18
Not only is 1r an Andreas manuscript rather than purely Byzantine, but it is written in such a way that Erasmus could not always tell text from commentary and based his reading on the Vulgate. Also, 1r is defective for the last six verses of the Apocalypse. To fill out the text, Erasmus made his own Greek translation from the Latin. He admitted to what he had done, but the result was a Greek text containing readings not found in any Greek manuscript -- but which were faithfully retained through centuries of editions of the Textus Receptus. This included even certain readings which were not even correct Greek (Scrivener offers as an example Rev. 17:4 AKAQARTHTOS).
The result is a text which, although clearly Byzantine, is not a good or pure representative of the form. It is full of erratic readings -- some "Caesarean" (Scrivener attributes Matt. 22:28, 23:25, 27:52, 28:3, 4, 19, 20; Mark 7:18, 19, 26, 10:1, 12:22, 15:46; Luke 1:16, 61, 2:43, 9:1, 15, 11:49; John 1:28, 10:8, 13:20 to the influence of 1eap), some "Western" or Alexandrian (a good example of this is the doxology of Romans, which Erasmus placed after chapter 16 in accordance with the Vulgate, rather than after 14 along with the Byzantine text), some simply wild (as, e.g., the inclusion of 1 John 5:7-8). Daniel B. Wallace counts 1,838 differences between the TR and Hodges & Farstad's Byzantine text (see Wallace's "The Majority Text Theory: History, Methods, and Critique," in Ehrman & Holmes, The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research, Studies & Documents, Eerdmans, 1995. The figure is given in note 28 on page 302.) This, it should be noted, is a larger number than the number of differences between the UBS, Bover, and Merk texts -- even though these three editions are all eclectic and based largely on the Alexandrian text-type, which is much more diverse than the Byzantine text-type.
Thus it will be conceded by all reputable scholars -- even those who favour the Byzantine text -- that the Textus Receptus, in all its various forms, has no textual authority whatsoever. Were it not for the fact that it has been in use for so long as a basis for collations, it could be mercifully forgotten. What a tragedy, then, that it was the Bible of Protestant Christendom for close to four centuries!
Addendum I: The King James Version
Authorized in 1604 and published in 1611, the King James version naturally is based on the TR. When it was created, there was no demand for critical editions. (Though in fact the original KJV contains some textual notes. These, like the preface, are usually suppressed in modern versions, making the version that much worse than it is. In addition, editions of the KJV do not print precisely the same text. But this is another issue.)
Even accepting that the KJV derives from the TR, and has most of its faults, it is reasonable to ask which TR it is based on. The usual simplistic answer is Stephanus's or Beza's. F.H.A. Scrivener, however, who studied the matter in detail, concluded that it was none of these. Rather, it is a mixed text, closest to Beza, with Stephanus in second place, but not clearly affiliated with any edition. (No doubt the influence of the Vulgate, and of early English translations, is also felt here.) Scrivener reconstructed the text of the KJV in 1894, finding some 250 differences from Stephanus. Jay P. Green, however, states that even this edition does not agree entirely with the KJV, listing differences at Matt. 12:24, 27; John 8:21, 10:16 (? -- this may be translational); 1 Cor. 14:10, 16:1; compare also Mark 8:14, 9:42; John 8:6; Acts 1:4; 1 John 3:16, where Scrivener includes words found in the KJV in italics as missing from their primary text.
Since there are people who still, for some benighted reason, use the King James Bible for Bible study, we perhaps need to add a few words about its defects (defects conceded by all legitimate textual critics, plus most people who know anything about translations). This is not to deny that it is a brilliant work of English prose; it is a brilliant work of English prose. But it is not an adequate English Bible.
The first reason is the obvious textual one: It is translated from the Textus Receptus. There was no good alternative at the time, but we know now that it is simply a bad text. This is true event if one accepts the Byzantine text as original; the TR is not a good representative of that text-form, and is even worse if one accepts any other text form, or if one is eclectic.
The Old Testament suffers the same problem -- in some ways, worse. The Hebrew text had hardly been edited at all when the KJV was translated. Today, with more Hebrew manuscripts, the Dead Sea Scrolls, various translations, more ancient commentaries, and a better grasp of textual criticism, we can establish a much better Hebrew text.
The lack of Hebrew scholarship at the time contributed to an even greater problem with the Old Testament: The translators didn't know what it meant. Textual damage caused some of the cruxes; others arose from ignorance of classical Hebrew. The translators often had to turn to the translations in LXX or the Vulgate -- which often were just as messed up as the Hebrew. Today, we have more samples of ancient Hebrew to give us references for words; we have knowledge of cognate languages such as Ugaritic and Akkadian, and we have the tools of linguistics. There are still unsolved problems in the Old Testament -- but they are far fewer.
The same is true, to a lesser extent, of the New Testament. Greek never entirely vanished from the knowledge of scholars, as Hebrew did, but the language evolved. At the time the KJV was translated, classical Greek -- the Greek of Homer and the tragic playwrights -- was considered the standard. Koine Greek -- the Greek of the New Testament -- was forgotten; the Byzantine empire had undergone a sort of Classic Revival. People referred to the Greek of the New Testament as "the Language of the Holy Spirit" -- and then sneered at its uncouth forms. Over the past century and a half, the koine has been rediscovered, and we know that the New Testament was written in a living, active language. This doesn't affect our understanding of the meaning of the New Testament as much as our increased knowledge of Hebrew affects our understanding of the Old -- but it does affect it somewhat.
In addition, there is the translation style. The KJV was created by six separate committees, with relatively little joint effort and a relatively small body of prior work (this was 1604, after all; the committee from Cambridge couldn't just buzz down to Westminster for the afternoon, e.g.). This meant that there wasn't much standardization of vocabulary; a word might be translated two or three or even half a dozen different ways. Sometimes, of course, this was necessary (as, e.g. with ANWQEN, "again," "from above" in John 3:3, 7, 31 -- a case where the KJV translators seem, ironically, to have missed the multivalued meaning). But it is generally agreed that that KJV used various renderings for solely stylistic reasons; their translation was meant to be read aloud. They produced a version that was excellent for these purposes -- but, in consequence, much less suitable for detailed study, especially, e.g., of Synoptic parallels, which can look completely different when the KJV renditions are set side by side.
Plus the committee was under instructions to stay as close as possible to the previous standard, the so-called Bishop's Bible, which in turn had been created based on the Great Bible. And even it was derived largely from Tyndale's work. The Great Bible had been created some 75 years earlier, and Tyndale in the decades before that -- not long in ordinary terms, but this was a time when English was evolving fast. This heritage means that a number of the features -- e.g. the use of you/ye/thou/thee/thy/thine -- was actually incorrect even by the standards of the time, and its influence came to produce a truly curious effect: "Thou," initially the second person singular pronoun, (as opposed to "ye," the plural form, loosely equivalent to the American Southernism "y'all") was briefly a form used to address a social inferior, and then, under the influence of the KJV itself, treated as a form of address to one deserving of high dignity. This is genuinely confusing at best.
Finally, the KJV does not print the text in paragraphs, but rather verse by verse. Readers can see this, but it's one thing to know it and another to really read the text in that light.
To be fair, the translators were aware of most of these problems. The preface, in fact, urges "the Reader... not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily." The Old Testament, according to Alister McGrath, contained 6,637 marginal notes, most of them variant readings (more notes than many modern translations, we should observe). But I have yet to find a recent printing of the KJV which includes its marginal notes, let alone its preface. (I'm told there is one -- or at least a reprint of an allegedly-exact nineteenth century repring -- but it's an expensive edition you won't find in ordinary bookstores.)
And, of course, since the time of publication, the language of the KJV -- already somewhat antiquated in its time, based as it was largely upon Tyndale's translation -- has become entirely archaic.
In an aside, we might note that, at the time of its publication, the KJV was greeted with something less than enthusiasm, and for the first few decades of its life, the Geneva Bible remained the more popular work; the Geneva edition (unlike the other pre-KJV translations) remained in print for more than thirty years after the KJV was published. During the Commonwealth period (1649-1660), there was talk of commissioning another new translation. It wasn't until the KJV became quite venerable that it somehow assumed an aura of special value -- even of independent canonicity.
Quite simply, while the King James Bible was a brilliant work, and a beautiful monument of sixteenth century English, it is not fit to be used as a Bible in today's world.
Addendum II: The "New TR"
The phrase "The New TR" is sometimes applied to editions which threaten to dominate the field of textual criticism. Thus the edition of Westcott & Hort was a sort of "New TR" in the late nineteenth century, and in the twentieth century the name is sometimes applied to the United Bible Societies edition. In terms of number of copies printed this description of the UBS text may be justified -- no complete new edition has been issued since its publication -- but no reputable textual scholar would regard it as the "final word."
Another sort of "New TR" is found in the Majority Text editions of Hodges & Farstad and Robinson & Pierpont. These are attempts to create a true Byzantine text (as an alternative to the TR, which is a very bad Byzantine text), but they have received relatively little critical attention -- less, probably, than they deserve (though few would consider them to contain the original text). Thus they cannot be considered truly "received" text
Introduction
Textus Receptus, or "Received Text," (abbreviated TR) is the name we use for the first published Greek text of the New Testament. For many centuries, it was the standard text of the Greek Bible. The name arose from the work of the kinsmen Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir, who said of their 1633 edition, "Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum" -- "So [the reader] has the text which all now receive."
The irony is that the Received Text is not actually a single edition, but a sort of text-type of its own consisting of hundreds of extremely similar but not identical editions. Nor do any of its various flavours agree exactly with any extant text-type or manuscript. Thus the need, when referring to the Received Text, to specify which received text we refer to.
If this all sounds complicated, it is because of the complicated history of the Textus Receptus. Let's take it from the beginning.
The Origin of the Textus Receptus
Although printing with movable type was in use no later than 1456, it was many years before a Greek New Testament was printed. This is not as surprising as it sounds; the Greek minuscule hand of the late fifteenth century was extremely complicated, with many diverse ligatures and custom symbols. Cutting a Greek typeface required the creation of hundreds of symbols -- far more than a Latin typeface. Printers probably did not relish the idea. (It is worth noting that the Complutensian Polyglot invented a new type of Greek print for its edition.)
It was not until the early sixteenth century that Cardinal Ximenes decided to embark on a Greek and Latin edition of the New Testament -- the famous Complutensian Polyglot. The New Testament volume of this work was printed in 1514 -- but it was not published until after 1520. This left a real opportunity for an enterprising printer who could get out an edition quickly.
Such a printer was John Froben of Basle. Apparently having heard of the Complutension edition, he was determined to beat it into print. Fortunately, he had the contacts to pull this off.
Froben decided to approach Desiderius Erasmus, one of the most notable (if rather humanistic) scholars of his generation. The proposal appears to have been transmitted on April 17, 1515. Work began in the fall of that year, and the work was pushed through the press in February of 1516.
For a project that had taken fifty years to get started, the success of Erasmus's edition (which contained his Greek text in parallel with his own Latin version) was astonishing. The first printing soon sold out, and by 1519 a new edition was required. Three more would follow, each somewhat improved over the last.
It is sad to report that such a noble undertaking was so badly handled (all the more so since it became the basis of Luther's German translation, and later -- with some slight modifications -- of the English King James Version). The speed with which the book went through the press meant that it contained literally thousands of typographical errors. What is more, the text was hastily and badly edited from a few late manuscripts (see below, The Text of the Textus Receptus).
A part of page 336 of Erasmus's Greek Testament, the first "Textus Receptus."
Shown is a portion of John 18.
The History of the Textus Receptus
Erasmus's first edition was a great success; some 3300 copies of his first two editions were sold. (If that sounds like a small number, recall that there were probably fewer than 300 copies of the Mainz Vulgate, and that editions were usually restricted to 1000 copies as late as Elizabethan times and after.) The success of Erasmus's edition soon called forth new Greek testaments, all of them based largely on his. The first of these was published by Aldus Manutius in 1518 -- but although it contained an independent text of the Septuagint (the first such to be printed), its New Testament text was taken almost verbatim from Erasmus, including even the typographical errors. Hence the first truly new publication was Erasmus's own edition of 1519. This featured almost the same text as the 1516 edition, but with the majority (though by no means all!) of the errors of the press corrected. It also features some new readings, believed by Scrivener to come from 3eap (XII; classified by von Soden as e: Kx a: I [K]; c: K).
Erasmus's third edition of 1522 contained one truly unfortunate innovation: The "Three Heavenly Witnesses" in 1 John 5:7-8. These were derived from the recently-written Codex 61, and (as the famous story goes) included by Erasmus "for the sake of his oath." Sadly, they have been found in almost every TR edition since.
There followed a great welter of editions, all slightly different (based on such figures as I have seen, it would appear that editions of the Textus Receptus typically vary at between one hundred and two hundred places, though very few of these differences are more than orthographic). None of these editions were of any particular note (though the 1534 text of Simon Colinæus is sometimes mentioned as significant, since it included some variant readings). It was not until 1550 that the next great edition of the Textus Receptus was published. This was the work of Robert Stephanus (Estienne), whose third edition became one of the two "standard" texts of the TR. (Indeed, it is Stephanus's name that gave rise to the common symbol s for the Textus Receptus.) Stephanus included the variants of over a dozen manuscripts -- including Codices Bezae (D) and Regius (L) -- in the margin. In his fourth edition (1551), he also added the verse numbers which are still used in all modern editions. The Stephanus edition became the standard Textus Receptus of Britain, although of course it was not yet known by that name. (The esteem in which the Textus Receptus was already held, however, is shown by Scrivener's report that there are 119 places where all of Stephanus's manuscripts read against the TR, but Stephanus still chose to print the reading found in previous TR editions.)
Stephanus's editions were followed by those of Theodore de Bèza (1519-1605), the Protestant reformer who succeeded Calvin. These were by no means great advances over what had gone before; although Beza had access to the codex which bears his name, as well as the codex Claromontanus, he seems to have made little if any use of them. A few of his readings have been accused of theological bias; the rest seem largely random. Beza's editions, published between 1565 and 1611, are remembered more for the sake of their editor (and the fact that they were used by the translators of the King James Bible) than for their text.
The next great edition of the Textus Receptus is the Elzevir text already mentioned in the Introduction. First published in 1624, with minor changes for the edition of 1633, it had the usual minor variants from Stephanus (of which Scrivener counted 287), but nothing substantial; the Elzevirs were printers, not critics.
The Elzevir text, which became the primary TR edition on the continent, was the last version to be significant for its text. From this time on, editions were marked more by their marginal material, as scholars such as Mill, Wettstein, and later Griesbach began examining and arranging manuscripts. None of these were able to break away from the TR, but all pointed the way to texts free of its influence.
Only one more TR edition needs mention here -- the 1873 Oxford edition, which forms the basis of many modern collations. This edition is no longer available, of course, though some editions purport to give its readings.
Beginners are reminded once again that not all TR editions are identical; those collating against a TR must state very explicitly which edition is being used.
The Text of the Textus Receptus
Erasmus, having little time to prepare his edition, could only examine manuscripts which came to hand. His haste was so great, in fact, that he did not even write new copies for the printer; rather, he took existing manuscripts, corrected them, and submitted those to the printer. (Erasmus's corrections are still visible in the manuscript 2.)
Nor were the manuscripts which came to hand particularly valuable. For his basic text he chose 2e, 2ap, and 1r. In addition, he was able to consult 1eap, 4ap, and 7p. Of these, only 1eap had a text independent of the Byzantine tradition -- and Erasmus used it relatively little due to the supposed "corruption" of its text. Erasmus also consulted the Vulgate, but only from a few late manuscripts.
Even those who favour the Byzantine text cannot be overly impressed with Erasmus's choice of manuscripts; they are all rather late (see table):
Manuscript Date Von Soden Classification
(in modern terms)
1eap XII e: family 1; ap: Ia3
1r XII Andreas
2e XII/XIII Kx (Wisse reports Kmix/Kx)
2ap XII Ib1
4ap XV
7p XI/XII Op18
Not only is 1r an Andreas manuscript rather than purely Byzantine, but it is written in such a way that Erasmus could not always tell text from commentary and based his reading on the Vulgate. Also, 1r is defective for the last six verses of the Apocalypse. To fill out the text, Erasmus made his own Greek translation from the Latin. He admitted to what he had done, but the result was a Greek text containing readings not found in any Greek manuscript -- but which were faithfully retained through centuries of editions of the Textus Receptus. This included even certain readings which were not even correct Greek (Scrivener offers as an example Rev. 17:4 AKAQARTHTOS).
The result is a text which, although clearly Byzantine, is not a good or pure representative of the form. It is full of erratic readings -- some "Caesarean" (Scrivener attributes Matt. 22:28, 23:25, 27:52, 28:3, 4, 19, 20; Mark 7:18, 19, 26, 10:1, 12:22, 15:46; Luke 1:16, 61, 2:43, 9:1, 15, 11:49; John 1:28, 10:8, 13:20 to the influence of 1eap), some "Western" or Alexandrian (a good example of this is the doxology of Romans, which Erasmus placed after chapter 16 in accordance with the Vulgate, rather than after 14 along with the Byzantine text), some simply wild (as, e.g., the inclusion of 1 John 5:7-8). Daniel B. Wallace counts 1,838 differences between the TR and Hodges & Farstad's Byzantine text (see Wallace's "The Majority Text Theory: History, Methods, and Critique," in Ehrman & Holmes, The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research, Studies & Documents, Eerdmans, 1995. The figure is given in note 28 on page 302.) This, it should be noted, is a larger number than the number of differences between the UBS, Bover, and Merk texts -- even though these three editions are all eclectic and based largely on the Alexandrian text-type, which is much more diverse than the Byzantine text-type.
Thus it will be conceded by all reputable scholars -- even those who favour the Byzantine text -- that the Textus Receptus, in all its various forms, has no textual authority whatsoever. Were it not for the fact that it has been in use for so long as a basis for collations, it could be mercifully forgotten. What a tragedy, then, that it was the Bible of Protestant Christendom for close to four centuries!
Addendum I: The King James Version
Authorized in 1604 and published in 1611, the King James version naturally is based on the TR. When it was created, there was no demand for critical editions. (Though in fact the original KJV contains some textual notes. These, like the preface, are usually suppressed in modern versions, making the version that much worse than it is. In addition, editions of the KJV do not print precisely the same text. But this is another issue.)
Even accepting that the KJV derives from the TR, and has most of its faults, it is reasonable to ask which TR it is based on. The usual simplistic answer is Stephanus's or Beza's. F.H.A. Scrivener, however, who studied the matter in detail, concluded that it was none of these. Rather, it is a mixed text, closest to Beza, with Stephanus in second place, but not clearly affiliated with any edition. (No doubt the influence of the Vulgate, and of early English translations, is also felt here.) Scrivener reconstructed the text of the KJV in 1894, finding some 250 differences from Stephanus. Jay P. Green, however, states that even this edition does not agree entirely with the KJV, listing differences at Matt. 12:24, 27; John 8:21, 10:16 (? -- this may be translational); 1 Cor. 14:10, 16:1; compare also Mark 8:14, 9:42; John 8:6; Acts 1:4; 1 John 3:16, where Scrivener includes words found in the KJV in italics as missing from their primary text.
Since there are people who still, for some benighted reason, use the King James Bible for Bible study, we perhaps need to add a few words about its defects (defects conceded by all legitimate textual critics, plus most people who know anything about translations). This is not to deny that it is a brilliant work of English prose; it is a brilliant work of English prose. But it is not an adequate English Bible.
The first reason is the obvious textual one: It is translated from the Textus Receptus. There was no good alternative at the time, but we know now that it is simply a bad text. This is true event if one accepts the Byzantine text as original; the TR is not a good representative of that text-form, and is even worse if one accepts any other text form, or if one is eclectic.
The Old Testament suffers the same problem -- in some ways, worse. The Hebrew text had hardly been edited at all when the KJV was translated. Today, with more Hebrew manuscripts, the Dead Sea Scrolls, various translations, more ancient commentaries, and a better grasp of textual criticism, we can establish a much better Hebrew text.
The lack of Hebrew scholarship at the time contributed to an even greater problem with the Old Testament: The translators didn't know what it meant. Textual damage caused some of the cruxes; others arose from ignorance of classical Hebrew. The translators often had to turn to the translations in LXX or the Vulgate -- which often were just as messed up as the Hebrew. Today, we have more samples of ancient Hebrew to give us references for words; we have knowledge of cognate languages such as Ugaritic and Akkadian, and we have the tools of linguistics. There are still unsolved problems in the Old Testament -- but they are far fewer.
The same is true, to a lesser extent, of the New Testament. Greek never entirely vanished from the knowledge of scholars, as Hebrew did, but the language evolved. At the time the KJV was translated, classical Greek -- the Greek of Homer and the tragic playwrights -- was considered the standard. Koine Greek -- the Greek of the New Testament -- was forgotten; the Byzantine empire had undergone a sort of Classic Revival. People referred to the Greek of the New Testament as "the Language of the Holy Spirit" -- and then sneered at its uncouth forms. Over the past century and a half, the koine has been rediscovered, and we know that the New Testament was written in a living, active language. This doesn't affect our understanding of the meaning of the New Testament as much as our increased knowledge of Hebrew affects our understanding of the Old -- but it does affect it somewhat.
In addition, there is the translation style. The KJV was created by six separate committees, with relatively little joint effort and a relatively small body of prior work (this was 1604, after all; the committee from Cambridge couldn't just buzz down to Westminster for the afternoon, e.g.). This meant that there wasn't much standardization of vocabulary; a word might be translated two or three or even half a dozen different ways. Sometimes, of course, this was necessary (as, e.g. with ANWQEN, "again," "from above" in John 3:3, 7, 31 -- a case where the KJV translators seem, ironically, to have missed the multivalued meaning). But it is generally agreed that that KJV used various renderings for solely stylistic reasons; their translation was meant to be read aloud. They produced a version that was excellent for these purposes -- but, in consequence, much less suitable for detailed study, especially, e.g., of Synoptic parallels, which can look completely different when the KJV renditions are set side by side.
Plus the committee was under instructions to stay as close as possible to the previous standard, the so-called Bishop's Bible, which in turn had been created based on the Great Bible. And even it was derived largely from Tyndale's work. The Great Bible had been created some 75 years earlier, and Tyndale in the decades before that -- not long in ordinary terms, but this was a time when English was evolving fast. This heritage means that a number of the features -- e.g. the use of you/ye/thou/thee/thy/thine -- was actually incorrect even by the standards of the time, and its influence came to produce a truly curious effect: "Thou," initially the second person singular pronoun, (as opposed to "ye," the plural form, loosely equivalent to the American Southernism "y'all") was briefly a form used to address a social inferior, and then, under the influence of the KJV itself, treated as a form of address to one deserving of high dignity. This is genuinely confusing at best.
Finally, the KJV does not print the text in paragraphs, but rather verse by verse. Readers can see this, but it's one thing to know it and another to really read the text in that light.
To be fair, the translators were aware of most of these problems. The preface, in fact, urges "the Reader... not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily." The Old Testament, according to Alister McGrath, contained 6,637 marginal notes, most of them variant readings (more notes than many modern translations, we should observe). But I have yet to find a recent printing of the KJV which includes its marginal notes, let alone its preface. (I'm told there is one -- or at least a reprint of an allegedly-exact nineteenth century repring -- but it's an expensive edition you won't find in ordinary bookstores.)
And, of course, since the time of publication, the language of the KJV -- already somewhat antiquated in its time, based as it was largely upon Tyndale's translation -- has become entirely archaic.
In an aside, we might note that, at the time of its publication, the KJV was greeted with something less than enthusiasm, and for the first few decades of its life, the Geneva Bible remained the more popular work; the Geneva edition (unlike the other pre-KJV translations) remained in print for more than thirty years after the KJV was published. During the Commonwealth period (1649-1660), there was talk of commissioning another new translation. It wasn't until the KJV became quite venerable that it somehow assumed an aura of special value -- even of independent canonicity.
Quite simply, while the King James Bible was a brilliant work, and a beautiful monument of sixteenth century English, it is not fit to be used as a Bible in today's world.
Addendum II: The "New TR"
The phrase "The New TR" is sometimes applied to editions which threaten to dominate the field of textual criticism. Thus the edition of Westcott & Hort was a sort of "New TR" in the late nineteenth century, and in the twentieth century the name is sometimes applied to the United Bible Societies edition. In terms of number of copies printed this description of the UBS text may be justified -- no complete new edition has been issued since its publication -- but no reputable textual scholar would regard it as the "final word."
Another sort of "New TR" is found in the Majority Text editions of Hodges & Farstad and Robinson & Pierpont. These are attempts to create a true Byzantine text (as an alternative to the TR, which is a very bad Byzantine text), but they have received relatively little critical attention -- less, probably, than they deserve (though few would consider them to contain the original text). Thus they cannot be considered truly "received" text
Kamis, 16 Juli 2009
JESUS SPEAKS TO US ABOUT LONELINESS
Dr. W. A. Criswell
Matthew 27:46; John 16:32
10-27-85 10:50 a.m.
You're a part of the First Baptist Church in Dallas, and this is the pastor bringing the morning message. It is the first in a series of five, and is a new departure as far as your pastor is concerned in a preaching ministry. If you've been here to church any length of time, you know the way I preach is through expounding the Scriptures, book by book, preaching through a book; always, preaching through a book in the Bible.
Sometime ago, not too long ago, there was a vast, extensive survey made among the people of America. It concerned the problems they face in their lives, and out of that vast survey, there were five human problems that surfaced everywhere. One was loneliness, one was hopelessness, one was purposelessness, one was emptiness, and one was fear.
So I have prepared, am preparing, these five messages addressed to the problems of human life. I am doing it under a theme: “Jesus Speaks to Us.” Jesus Speaks to Us About Loneliness; Jesus Speaks to Us About Hopelessness; Jesus Speaks to Us About Purposelessness; Jesus Speaks to Us About Emptiness; and Jesus Speaks to Us About Fear—these five sermons in this series, and the message today, Jesus Speaks to Us About Loneliness.
Our background text is in Matthew 27, verse 46; Matthew 27, verse 46 It is a cry from the cross. “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" Aramaic for, "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?"
In the forty-third verse, those who had Him crucified, mocking and jeering said, "He trusted in God; let Him deliver Him now, if He will have Him: for He said, ‘I am God's Son.’"
Then the cry of our Lord, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?"
It had been just a few hours earlier that the Lord had spoken to His disciples in John 16:32 saying, "Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that you shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave Me alone: and yet I am not alone, because My Father is with Me.” I am not alone. My Father is with Me. Then the cry from the cross, "My God, My God. Why has Thou forsaken Me alone?"
This is the goal and the purpose of Satan from the beginning of the destruction of the world, to separate, to divide, to alienate, even God from His only begotten Son. A fox separated a little lamb from the flock. And the little thing, separated, full of fear—the fox ran around and around and around the little lamb. Then he attacked, and he bit off his nose. Then around and around, he attacked again, and bit off an ear. Then around and around, tormenting, he attacked again, and tore off the other ear. And around and around, and attacked again, and broke the little lamb's leg; and then finally destroyed its life. That is Satan—to divide, and to alienate, and to separate, and to torment—that is hell.
It is a strange answer from this fallen world that hell is a place where our convivial boon companions gather together in banqueting, and in rioting, and in revelry. Not so, hell is an isolation! Time and again does the Lord Jesus speak of these who are cast into outer darkness. In hell you will be alone; you will be isolated. You will be separated; you will be alienated. That is hell, and thus Satan has been dividing, and alienating, and separating from the beginning of this fallen world.
He separated himself from God; he separated his angels from God. He separated man from God. And he separates man from man, and man from woman, and nation from nation, and earth from heaven. It is Satan who coined the phrase, “irreconcilable differences.” It is Satan who invented the word “irreconcilable.” “Incompatible.” It is Satan who plows up and divides families, and homes, and friendships. With sledgehammer blows he drives wedges between loving and dear people. It is Satan who divides nations, places hatred in their hearts. And he ran an Arab world against the Jew; these countries in Central America; Eastern Europe against Western Europe, Satan divides.
I read the craziest story this week than I think I ever heard of in my life! A Chinese gentleman and a Jewish gentleman—friends—were eating lunch together. And a cloud came over the face, and a hostile spirit covered the countenance of the Jew. And he stood up and slapped his Chinese friend and knocked him out of the chair. And the Chinese brother looked at him and said, "What is the matter? What have you done?" And the Jew said, "That's for Pearl Harbor. What you did at Pearl Harbor!"
And the Chinese gentleman said, "We had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor, that was the Japanese!"
So, they went back to eating lunch together. And suddenly there came over the face of the Chinese gentleman a hostile spirit. And he stood up and he slapped that Jew out of his chair. And when the Jew arose and gathered himself, he said, "What is the matter with you? What's that done?"
And the Chinese said, "That's for sinking the Titanic!"
And the Jew said, "Titanic? The Jews had nothing to do with the Titanic!"
And the Chinese said, "What?" He said, "Goldberg, Steinberg, Feinberg, Insberg, iceberg—it's all the same!"
That's humanity! The dividing, and the separating, and the misunderstanding; finally the hatred, and the slaughter, and the war—that's Satan! It is tragic beyond description to see that in the house of God among brethren. I grew up in little churches. The bitterness in some of those churches—hatred to one another—was like the opening of the abyss itself. I have sat in services as a youth, as a boy. I have listened to the most dastardly, condemnatory, incriminating accusations! I have seen brethren stand up, point to the pastor in the pulpit, accuse him of everything imaginable, and fire him on the spot. Division, separation, alienation!
That's why I think one of the most beautiful verses in the Psalms is 133, verse 1: "Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to gather together in unity!" Loving each other, preferring each other, encouraging each other. That's God, and as the goal and purpose of Satan is to divide, and to separate, and to alienate, God's purpose in Christ is that we be reconciled, that we be one in Him.
As with many of you, I have looked on the dead face of Nikolai [Vladimir] Lenin in his tomb in the Red Square in Moscow. Always, every day in the week, there will be a line, a queue there, a mile long. And under the surveillance and direction of those Russian soldiers at a certain temple, you're guided into the tomb and then around that glass encasement, this side, that side, that side. And then out. As you look at Nikolai [Vladimir] Lenin—he died in 1924, he was a little beyond fifty years of age, and he died suddenly—and as you look on his dead face, his right arm is extended and lies on his chest. And his fist is doubled up, and he lies there with his fist doubled up. There are statisticians who say there are more followers of Lenin’s Communism in the world than there are of Jesus Christ. And wherever he touches, there is that fist doubled up. Sowing the seeds of hatred, and suspicion, and war, and revolution, and death; Lenin with his fist doubled up.
And if you're as I was, and you walk, and look, and see, you couldn't help but think about our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. He died with His hands open, nailed to a cross. And He died with His arms outstretched, extended as far as the east goes east and the west goes west. So the arms of our Lord embrace the entire world of lost humanity.
Reconciliation, loving forgiveness—back to God as God intended that earth be near to heaven—reconciling brothers, man to man, woman to woman, man to woman, children to parents: God's people, one in Him.
I think of our Lord. Out of all of the unusual and impressive incidents told in His life here in the Gospels, I think one of the most impressive is this. When He came into the city of Jericho, He walked to a certain tree and looked up into the top of it. There was a little diminutive Jew. He was a despised, and hated, an outcast, publican, tax collector—a traitor in the sight of his brothers—a servant of the hated Roman government, a pawn in their hands to oppress his own people. Jesus went to that tree, looked up and called him by his name. He knows us every one, and all about us. Called him by his name and said, "Today, this day, am I to spend these hours in your house."
The little fellow came down and stood ten feet tall. And the loving, compassionate encouragement and remembrance of our Lord brought him into a new faith and a new relationship with God. That's the Lord! Reconciliation, kindness, encouragement, brotherly love. And there is something on the inside of all of us that longs for, and hungers for encouragement, and affection, and remembrance, and helpfulness, and love. We are made that way, we cannot help it. When God created us, He created us for that. He said, "It is not good that the man live alone." He placed us in homes and He placed us in families. And it was His purpose that we love one another, and be as one in Him. And I say there is something deep on the inside of all of us that long for love, and remembrance, and affection.
I was asked the other day, "Do you remember the First World War?"
Every syllable of it! Lived through every moment of it; had a member of the family who fought through it.
Over the trenches and into No Man's Land, the attack was made. And when the American soldiers came back, this fine American boy had left his friend out there in No Man's Land somewhere. He didn't come back. And the American soldier went to his captain and said, "May I go back and find him? He's out there somewhere!"
And the captain said, "American soldier, No! No! You do that at the risk of your life.”
But the American soldier persisted, and gaining permission from the captain, he went out into No Man's Land. When he returned, he fell into the trench, severely wounded, shattered. And the captain came to him and said, "Didn't I tell you, 'Don't go?' And didn't I tell you at the risk of your life you would go? Didn't I tell you that?"
And the American soldier replied, "Sir, when I found him, when I found him, he looked up to me and smiled and said, `I knew you would come,' then died in my arms. And captain, I had rather have died myself than to have failed him."
All of us are made like that. There is something on the inside of us that longs for love and remembrance, companionship and encouragement. My sweet mother had a cerebral hemorrhage and lingered for almost seven years. In those years, we placed her in a cottage. There was a dear, wonderful, Christian woman who had about four aged women in the cottage. And she took care of those four women, one of whom was my mother. Visiting her one time, just across the hallway and through an open door, I could see a mother there; an aged mother who wept, and sobbed, and cried. I went to the dear woman who took care of those precious mothers and I said to her, "Why does she cry so? Why does she sob so?"
And the dear Christian woman said to me, "Her children have never been to see her. And your coming to see your mother has brought to her the brokenness of her heart. And she cries."
And I said to the Christian woman, "Would it be all right if I visited her?"
She said, "Oh, do so!"
And I went into the room, and sat down by her side, and visited with her long. And I prayed, preciously, and then prayed with her. It's hard for me as it is for you to think how could children forget their mother? But sometimes they do. And when they do, it is the saddest heartbreak in human life to be left alone. As I said, this is a new departure for me. I have not preached on things like this, ever.
And as I read and read and read, I came across many things. Here's one of them:
A psychiatrist—the psychiatrist says, "The baby needs touching, and caressing, and loving, and holding. The baby needs that. And if the child is to grow up respecting itself, you must touch the child, and care for the child, and hold the child."
Then I read another psychiatrist who said, "The reason God makes little toddlers so precious, and so beautiful, and so cute, is that so many people will touch them, and caress them, and love them, and show them affection. That's why God did it," the psychiatrist said. Well, this is what I say. I say we're all babies, all of us. You just can't help being that way. We're all babies, we love to be caressed, to be touched, to be loved. Affection is something deep, needed in our souls.
Reading also about solitary confinement—now, this is from physicians—I was surprised to read that in solitary confinement, let the isolation of the prisoner extend for a while and the nervous system will disintegrate, and the very anatomical processes of the prisoner will deteriorate. God made us for one another. And when we're separated, and isolated, and alone, we perish. What an amazing thing about human nature and human life!
But I can tell you this. Isolation and separation are not just for that prisoner in solitary confinement. We can feel isolated and separated anywhere in the world. If you want to feel lonely, you walk up and down the streets of New York City by yourself—don't know a soul, don't know a person—and there are thousands of people around you. But you never feel so alone in your life as you do in a great city by yourself.
And that's why I had us read from the Psalms, "Reproach hath broken my heart. I'm full of heaviness. I look for somebody to take pity, and there was none; and for comfort, and I found none. I'm like a pelican of the wilderness. I'm like an owl of the desert. I watch and am a sparrow alone upon the housetop." Loneliness, "Lord, Lord, why has Thou forsaken me?"
Now, I must conclude. It is the heart of God and the purpose of God that He be closer to us than hands and feet, and nearer than our very breath. That's God's heart and love extended toward us. Do you remember this verse from Isaiah 49? "A mother may forget her sucking child, and the mother may forget compassion for the son of her womb, but I will never forget thee."
Or from the thirteenth chapter of Hebrews: "I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee." God is always with us. When Gehazi lamented that Elisha was in the hands of his captors and about to be taken, Elisha said, "They that are with us are more than they that are with them" (2 Kings 6:16). And Elisha was alone. And the prophet prayed saying, “Lord, open his eyes.” And God opened the eyes of Gahazi. “And behold, the mountains were filled with horses and chariots of fire, surrounding Elisha" (2 Kings 6:17).
God's angels are always around us, always with us, always. God is there. When Ruth, leaving her beloved and native Moab—as a stranger entering the land of Israel, God went with her—and she is listed in the genealogy of our Lord and Savior, Christ Jesus. God is with us!
When Nebuchadnezzar looked into the fiery furnace, he said, "Did we not cast three into the burning fury? But I see four walking free. And the sight and the countenance of the fourth is like unto the Son of God" (Daniel 3:24, 25).
God is with us! In that terrible storm in Acts 27, the Apostle Paul said, "There stood by me this night the angel of God, whose I am, and whom I serve."
The Apocalypse, in the first chapter opens:
I, John, your brother, was in the isle called Patmos for the testimony of Jesus Christ, alone. And I heard behind me a great voice as of a trumpet saying: I am Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last. And I turned to see the voice that spake unto me…
[Revelation 1:9]
And being turned, then he describes the glorified Lord Jesus. He is always with us. We are never alone. The great host of angelic angels hover around us. Always, God is with us. As I read this poem, written by a Stoic, a stoical attitude, I thought, that's fine, noble:
Though I am beaten, nobody shall know.
I wear defeat proudly. I shall go
About my business as I did before.
Only when I have safely closed the door
Against friends and the rest shall I be free,
To bow my head where there is none to see.
Tonight, I will shed my tears. Tomorrow, when
I talk with you I will be up again.
Though, I am beaten nobody shall guess.
For I will walk as though I knew success.
[Author and work unknown]
I read that and I thought, that's wonderful to be stoical. Nobody, anybody; I'll just be strong in myself, and self-sufficient, and able, and equal. That's just great! But I'm not that way; if you want to know how I am, this is how I am:
I must tell Jesus all of my trials,
I cannot bear these burdens alone;
In my distress He kindly will help me;
He ever loves and cares for His own.
I must tell Jesus all of my troubles;
He is a kind, compassionate friend;
If I but ask Him, He will deliver,
Make of my troubles quickly an end.
I must tell Jesus! I must tell Jesus!
[from “I Must Tell Jesus,”; Elisha A. Hoffman]
It's a different life; it's a different way; it's a different quality; it's a different world, looking to Jesus, asking His presence, and His help, and His grace, and His blessing. I must close.
As I would say practically all of you know, I grew up poor, poor, poor. And for years—not days, for years—I lived on a few dollars a month. I struggled as a youth, there's hardly any trial that a young fellow would face that I haven't lived through. Not only that, but I was also of a certain turn, a certain nature, in studying. One of the dearest friends, one of the closest friends I had in school said to me, "You'll never be a preacher." He and I were in those philosophy classes together. And a whole lot of the things of mind of men contradict, and controvert, and interdict the things of God. Faith moves in another world than the rationalizing of a man's mind. Well, in those days, I wrote a poem. They are just the words of a youth, but these are they:
I have been thrust in the valley, and could not understand why.
God seemed so far away, distance drowned my cry.
My heart turned to a promise that Satan cannot deny;
God said, “I will be with thee,” and He cannot lie!
I've wandered in a wilderness, desperately seeking the trail,
The books of men and the men of books had bled my faith so pale.
My hand reached up toward a Helper, to a God who could prevail.
My hand was clasped by Jesus, and He cannot fail!
O my soul, why dost thou ever falter before the Lord?
Behold, He leadeth forever those who trust in His Word.
Follow the call of the Spirit, wherever the Spirit moves,
For the battle is with the Lord Jesus, and He cannot lose!
[“Words of a faithful Youth”; Dr. W. A. Criswell]
And that faith to which I gave myself as a youth is the faith that increasingly, endearingly, preciously I embrace today—and shall until God says, "It is enough, come up higher, come up with Me." Walking with the Lord in the morning of life, walking with God in the noonday of life, walking with God in the evening of life, and walking with God into the night.
"I will never leave thee nor forsake thee." Oh, blessed Jesus! Precious Lord, what you mean to me and to us! And that is our invitation to your heart.
Copyright © 2009 The W. A. Criswell Sermon Library.
All Rights Reserved.
Matthew 27:46; John 16:32
10-27-85 10:50 a.m.
You're a part of the First Baptist Church in Dallas, and this is the pastor bringing the morning message. It is the first in a series of five, and is a new departure as far as your pastor is concerned in a preaching ministry. If you've been here to church any length of time, you know the way I preach is through expounding the Scriptures, book by book, preaching through a book; always, preaching through a book in the Bible.
Sometime ago, not too long ago, there was a vast, extensive survey made among the people of America. It concerned the problems they face in their lives, and out of that vast survey, there were five human problems that surfaced everywhere. One was loneliness, one was hopelessness, one was purposelessness, one was emptiness, and one was fear.
So I have prepared, am preparing, these five messages addressed to the problems of human life. I am doing it under a theme: “Jesus Speaks to Us.” Jesus Speaks to Us About Loneliness; Jesus Speaks to Us About Hopelessness; Jesus Speaks to Us About Purposelessness; Jesus Speaks to Us About Emptiness; and Jesus Speaks to Us About Fear—these five sermons in this series, and the message today, Jesus Speaks to Us About Loneliness.
Our background text is in Matthew 27, verse 46; Matthew 27, verse 46 It is a cry from the cross. “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" Aramaic for, "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?"
In the forty-third verse, those who had Him crucified, mocking and jeering said, "He trusted in God; let Him deliver Him now, if He will have Him: for He said, ‘I am God's Son.’"
Then the cry of our Lord, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?"
It had been just a few hours earlier that the Lord had spoken to His disciples in John 16:32 saying, "Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that you shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave Me alone: and yet I am not alone, because My Father is with Me.” I am not alone. My Father is with Me. Then the cry from the cross, "My God, My God. Why has Thou forsaken Me alone?"
This is the goal and the purpose of Satan from the beginning of the destruction of the world, to separate, to divide, to alienate, even God from His only begotten Son. A fox separated a little lamb from the flock. And the little thing, separated, full of fear—the fox ran around and around and around the little lamb. Then he attacked, and he bit off his nose. Then around and around, he attacked again, and bit off an ear. Then around and around, tormenting, he attacked again, and tore off the other ear. And around and around, and attacked again, and broke the little lamb's leg; and then finally destroyed its life. That is Satan—to divide, and to alienate, and to separate, and to torment—that is hell.
It is a strange answer from this fallen world that hell is a place where our convivial boon companions gather together in banqueting, and in rioting, and in revelry. Not so, hell is an isolation! Time and again does the Lord Jesus speak of these who are cast into outer darkness. In hell you will be alone; you will be isolated. You will be separated; you will be alienated. That is hell, and thus Satan has been dividing, and alienating, and separating from the beginning of this fallen world.
He separated himself from God; he separated his angels from God. He separated man from God. And he separates man from man, and man from woman, and nation from nation, and earth from heaven. It is Satan who coined the phrase, “irreconcilable differences.” It is Satan who invented the word “irreconcilable.” “Incompatible.” It is Satan who plows up and divides families, and homes, and friendships. With sledgehammer blows he drives wedges between loving and dear people. It is Satan who divides nations, places hatred in their hearts. And he ran an Arab world against the Jew; these countries in Central America; Eastern Europe against Western Europe, Satan divides.
I read the craziest story this week than I think I ever heard of in my life! A Chinese gentleman and a Jewish gentleman—friends—were eating lunch together. And a cloud came over the face, and a hostile spirit covered the countenance of the Jew. And he stood up and slapped his Chinese friend and knocked him out of the chair. And the Chinese brother looked at him and said, "What is the matter? What have you done?" And the Jew said, "That's for Pearl Harbor. What you did at Pearl Harbor!"
And the Chinese gentleman said, "We had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor, that was the Japanese!"
So, they went back to eating lunch together. And suddenly there came over the face of the Chinese gentleman a hostile spirit. And he stood up and he slapped that Jew out of his chair. And when the Jew arose and gathered himself, he said, "What is the matter with you? What's that done?"
And the Chinese said, "That's for sinking the Titanic!"
And the Jew said, "Titanic? The Jews had nothing to do with the Titanic!"
And the Chinese said, "What?" He said, "Goldberg, Steinberg, Feinberg, Insberg, iceberg—it's all the same!"
That's humanity! The dividing, and the separating, and the misunderstanding; finally the hatred, and the slaughter, and the war—that's Satan! It is tragic beyond description to see that in the house of God among brethren. I grew up in little churches. The bitterness in some of those churches—hatred to one another—was like the opening of the abyss itself. I have sat in services as a youth, as a boy. I have listened to the most dastardly, condemnatory, incriminating accusations! I have seen brethren stand up, point to the pastor in the pulpit, accuse him of everything imaginable, and fire him on the spot. Division, separation, alienation!
That's why I think one of the most beautiful verses in the Psalms is 133, verse 1: "Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to gather together in unity!" Loving each other, preferring each other, encouraging each other. That's God, and as the goal and purpose of Satan is to divide, and to separate, and to alienate, God's purpose in Christ is that we be reconciled, that we be one in Him.
As with many of you, I have looked on the dead face of Nikolai [Vladimir] Lenin in his tomb in the Red Square in Moscow. Always, every day in the week, there will be a line, a queue there, a mile long. And under the surveillance and direction of those Russian soldiers at a certain temple, you're guided into the tomb and then around that glass encasement, this side, that side, that side. And then out. As you look at Nikolai [Vladimir] Lenin—he died in 1924, he was a little beyond fifty years of age, and he died suddenly—and as you look on his dead face, his right arm is extended and lies on his chest. And his fist is doubled up, and he lies there with his fist doubled up. There are statisticians who say there are more followers of Lenin’s Communism in the world than there are of Jesus Christ. And wherever he touches, there is that fist doubled up. Sowing the seeds of hatred, and suspicion, and war, and revolution, and death; Lenin with his fist doubled up.
And if you're as I was, and you walk, and look, and see, you couldn't help but think about our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. He died with His hands open, nailed to a cross. And He died with His arms outstretched, extended as far as the east goes east and the west goes west. So the arms of our Lord embrace the entire world of lost humanity.
Reconciliation, loving forgiveness—back to God as God intended that earth be near to heaven—reconciling brothers, man to man, woman to woman, man to woman, children to parents: God's people, one in Him.
I think of our Lord. Out of all of the unusual and impressive incidents told in His life here in the Gospels, I think one of the most impressive is this. When He came into the city of Jericho, He walked to a certain tree and looked up into the top of it. There was a little diminutive Jew. He was a despised, and hated, an outcast, publican, tax collector—a traitor in the sight of his brothers—a servant of the hated Roman government, a pawn in their hands to oppress his own people. Jesus went to that tree, looked up and called him by his name. He knows us every one, and all about us. Called him by his name and said, "Today, this day, am I to spend these hours in your house."
The little fellow came down and stood ten feet tall. And the loving, compassionate encouragement and remembrance of our Lord brought him into a new faith and a new relationship with God. That's the Lord! Reconciliation, kindness, encouragement, brotherly love. And there is something on the inside of all of us that longs for, and hungers for encouragement, and affection, and remembrance, and helpfulness, and love. We are made that way, we cannot help it. When God created us, He created us for that. He said, "It is not good that the man live alone." He placed us in homes and He placed us in families. And it was His purpose that we love one another, and be as one in Him. And I say there is something deep on the inside of all of us that long for love, and remembrance, and affection.
I was asked the other day, "Do you remember the First World War?"
Every syllable of it! Lived through every moment of it; had a member of the family who fought through it.
Over the trenches and into No Man's Land, the attack was made. And when the American soldiers came back, this fine American boy had left his friend out there in No Man's Land somewhere. He didn't come back. And the American soldier went to his captain and said, "May I go back and find him? He's out there somewhere!"
And the captain said, "American soldier, No! No! You do that at the risk of your life.”
But the American soldier persisted, and gaining permission from the captain, he went out into No Man's Land. When he returned, he fell into the trench, severely wounded, shattered. And the captain came to him and said, "Didn't I tell you, 'Don't go?' And didn't I tell you at the risk of your life you would go? Didn't I tell you that?"
And the American soldier replied, "Sir, when I found him, when I found him, he looked up to me and smiled and said, `I knew you would come,' then died in my arms. And captain, I had rather have died myself than to have failed him."
All of us are made like that. There is something on the inside of us that longs for love and remembrance, companionship and encouragement. My sweet mother had a cerebral hemorrhage and lingered for almost seven years. In those years, we placed her in a cottage. There was a dear, wonderful, Christian woman who had about four aged women in the cottage. And she took care of those four women, one of whom was my mother. Visiting her one time, just across the hallway and through an open door, I could see a mother there; an aged mother who wept, and sobbed, and cried. I went to the dear woman who took care of those precious mothers and I said to her, "Why does she cry so? Why does she sob so?"
And the dear Christian woman said to me, "Her children have never been to see her. And your coming to see your mother has brought to her the brokenness of her heart. And she cries."
And I said to the Christian woman, "Would it be all right if I visited her?"
She said, "Oh, do so!"
And I went into the room, and sat down by her side, and visited with her long. And I prayed, preciously, and then prayed with her. It's hard for me as it is for you to think how could children forget their mother? But sometimes they do. And when they do, it is the saddest heartbreak in human life to be left alone. As I said, this is a new departure for me. I have not preached on things like this, ever.
And as I read and read and read, I came across many things. Here's one of them:
A psychiatrist—the psychiatrist says, "The baby needs touching, and caressing, and loving, and holding. The baby needs that. And if the child is to grow up respecting itself, you must touch the child, and care for the child, and hold the child."
Then I read another psychiatrist who said, "The reason God makes little toddlers so precious, and so beautiful, and so cute, is that so many people will touch them, and caress them, and love them, and show them affection. That's why God did it," the psychiatrist said. Well, this is what I say. I say we're all babies, all of us. You just can't help being that way. We're all babies, we love to be caressed, to be touched, to be loved. Affection is something deep, needed in our souls.
Reading also about solitary confinement—now, this is from physicians—I was surprised to read that in solitary confinement, let the isolation of the prisoner extend for a while and the nervous system will disintegrate, and the very anatomical processes of the prisoner will deteriorate. God made us for one another. And when we're separated, and isolated, and alone, we perish. What an amazing thing about human nature and human life!
But I can tell you this. Isolation and separation are not just for that prisoner in solitary confinement. We can feel isolated and separated anywhere in the world. If you want to feel lonely, you walk up and down the streets of New York City by yourself—don't know a soul, don't know a person—and there are thousands of people around you. But you never feel so alone in your life as you do in a great city by yourself.
And that's why I had us read from the Psalms, "Reproach hath broken my heart. I'm full of heaviness. I look for somebody to take pity, and there was none; and for comfort, and I found none. I'm like a pelican of the wilderness. I'm like an owl of the desert. I watch and am a sparrow alone upon the housetop." Loneliness, "Lord, Lord, why has Thou forsaken me?"
Now, I must conclude. It is the heart of God and the purpose of God that He be closer to us than hands and feet, and nearer than our very breath. That's God's heart and love extended toward us. Do you remember this verse from Isaiah 49? "A mother may forget her sucking child, and the mother may forget compassion for the son of her womb, but I will never forget thee."
Or from the thirteenth chapter of Hebrews: "I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee." God is always with us. When Gehazi lamented that Elisha was in the hands of his captors and about to be taken, Elisha said, "They that are with us are more than they that are with them" (2 Kings 6:16). And Elisha was alone. And the prophet prayed saying, “Lord, open his eyes.” And God opened the eyes of Gahazi. “And behold, the mountains were filled with horses and chariots of fire, surrounding Elisha" (2 Kings 6:17).
God's angels are always around us, always with us, always. God is there. When Ruth, leaving her beloved and native Moab—as a stranger entering the land of Israel, God went with her—and she is listed in the genealogy of our Lord and Savior, Christ Jesus. God is with us!
When Nebuchadnezzar looked into the fiery furnace, he said, "Did we not cast three into the burning fury? But I see four walking free. And the sight and the countenance of the fourth is like unto the Son of God" (Daniel 3:24, 25).
God is with us! In that terrible storm in Acts 27, the Apostle Paul said, "There stood by me this night the angel of God, whose I am, and whom I serve."
The Apocalypse, in the first chapter opens:
I, John, your brother, was in the isle called Patmos for the testimony of Jesus Christ, alone. And I heard behind me a great voice as of a trumpet saying: I am Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last. And I turned to see the voice that spake unto me…
[Revelation 1:9]
And being turned, then he describes the glorified Lord Jesus. He is always with us. We are never alone. The great host of angelic angels hover around us. Always, God is with us. As I read this poem, written by a Stoic, a stoical attitude, I thought, that's fine, noble:
Though I am beaten, nobody shall know.
I wear defeat proudly. I shall go
About my business as I did before.
Only when I have safely closed the door
Against friends and the rest shall I be free,
To bow my head where there is none to see.
Tonight, I will shed my tears. Tomorrow, when
I talk with you I will be up again.
Though, I am beaten nobody shall guess.
For I will walk as though I knew success.
[Author and work unknown]
I read that and I thought, that's wonderful to be stoical. Nobody, anybody; I'll just be strong in myself, and self-sufficient, and able, and equal. That's just great! But I'm not that way; if you want to know how I am, this is how I am:
I must tell Jesus all of my trials,
I cannot bear these burdens alone;
In my distress He kindly will help me;
He ever loves and cares for His own.
I must tell Jesus all of my troubles;
He is a kind, compassionate friend;
If I but ask Him, He will deliver,
Make of my troubles quickly an end.
I must tell Jesus! I must tell Jesus!
[from “I Must Tell Jesus,”; Elisha A. Hoffman]
It's a different life; it's a different way; it's a different quality; it's a different world, looking to Jesus, asking His presence, and His help, and His grace, and His blessing. I must close.
As I would say practically all of you know, I grew up poor, poor, poor. And for years—not days, for years—I lived on a few dollars a month. I struggled as a youth, there's hardly any trial that a young fellow would face that I haven't lived through. Not only that, but I was also of a certain turn, a certain nature, in studying. One of the dearest friends, one of the closest friends I had in school said to me, "You'll never be a preacher." He and I were in those philosophy classes together. And a whole lot of the things of mind of men contradict, and controvert, and interdict the things of God. Faith moves in another world than the rationalizing of a man's mind. Well, in those days, I wrote a poem. They are just the words of a youth, but these are they:
I have been thrust in the valley, and could not understand why.
God seemed so far away, distance drowned my cry.
My heart turned to a promise that Satan cannot deny;
God said, “I will be with thee,” and He cannot lie!
I've wandered in a wilderness, desperately seeking the trail,
The books of men and the men of books had bled my faith so pale.
My hand reached up toward a Helper, to a God who could prevail.
My hand was clasped by Jesus, and He cannot fail!
O my soul, why dost thou ever falter before the Lord?
Behold, He leadeth forever those who trust in His Word.
Follow the call of the Spirit, wherever the Spirit moves,
For the battle is with the Lord Jesus, and He cannot lose!
[“Words of a faithful Youth”; Dr. W. A. Criswell]
And that faith to which I gave myself as a youth is the faith that increasingly, endearingly, preciously I embrace today—and shall until God says, "It is enough, come up higher, come up with Me." Walking with the Lord in the morning of life, walking with God in the noonday of life, walking with God in the evening of life, and walking with God into the night.
"I will never leave thee nor forsake thee." Oh, blessed Jesus! Precious Lord, what you mean to me and to us! And that is our invitation to your heart.
Copyright © 2009 The W. A. Criswell Sermon Library.
All Rights Reserved.
Senin, 13 Juli 2009
HAROLD OCKENGA AND THE NEW EVANGELICAL MOVEMENT HE FOUNDED
Jul/09/09 06:26
July 7, 2009 (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -
The following is a review of the book The Surprising Work of God: Harold John Ockenga, Billy Graham, and the Rebirth of Evangelicalism by Garth M. Rosell (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008). Rosell is the son of Merv Rosell, an evangelist who associated with Ockenga, Graham, and other leaders of the New Evangelical movement.
OCKENGA WAS THE FOUNDER OF THE NEW EVANGELICAL MOVEMENT AND ENUNCIATED THAT MOVEMENT’S REJECTION OF SEPARATION
Harold Ockenga (1905-85) was possibly the most influential evangelical leader of the 20th century. He was pastor of the prominent Park Street Church in Boston, founder of the National Association of Evangelicals, co-founder and first president of Fuller Theological Seminary, first president of the World Evangelical Fellowship, president of Gordon College and Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, a director of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, and chairman of the board and one-time editor of Christianity Today.
In the 1950s Ockenga helped found the New Evangelical movement that rejected separatism and aimed at a more positive and pragmatic philosophy as opposed to the negativism and isolation of fundamentalism.
In a speech he gave in 1947 at the founding of Fuller Seminary, Ockenga said:
“We repudiate the ‘Come-outist’ movement which brands all Denominations as apostate. We expect to be positive in our emphasis, except where error so exists that it is necessary for us to point it out in order to declare the truth. The positive emphasis will be on the broad doctrinal basis of a low Calvinism” (p. 176).
Looking back on this epic speech thirty years later, Ockenga commented:
“Neo-evangelicalism was born ... in connection with a convocation address which I gave in the Civic Auditorium in Pasadena. While reaffirming the theological view of fundamentalism, this address REPUDIATED ITS ECCLESIOLOGY AND ITS SOCIAL THEORY. The ringing call for A REPUDIATION OF SEPARATISM AND THE SUMMONS TO SOCIAL INVOLVEMENT received a hearty response from many evangelicals. The name caught on and spokesmen such as Drs. Harold Lindsell, Carl F.H. Henry, Edward Carnell, and Gleason Archer supported this viewpoint. We had no intention of launching a movement, but found that the emphasis attracted widespread support and exercised great influence. Neo-evangelicalism... DIFFERENT FROM FUNDAMENTALISM IN ITS REPUDIATION OF SEPARATISM AND ITS DETERMINATION TO ENGAGE ITSELF IN THE THEOLOGICAL DIALOGUE OF THE DAY. IT HAD A NEW EMPHASIS UPON THE APPLICATION OF THE GOSPEL TO THE SOCIOLOGICAL, POLITICAL, AND ECONOMIC AREAS OF LIFE. Neo-evangelicals emphasized the restatement of Christian theology in accordance with the need of the times, the REENGAGEMENT IN THE THEOLOGICAL DEBATE, THE RECAPTURE OF DENOMINATIONAL LEADERSHIP, AND THE REEXAMINATION OF THEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS SUCH AS THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN, THE UNIVERSALITY OF THE FLOOD, GOD'S METHOD OF CREATION, AND OTHERS” (Ockenga, foreword to Harold Lindsell’s book The Battle for the Bible).
Ockenga represented the changing mood of the sons of the old fundamentalists. They were tired of exposing error and separating from modernistic, compromised denominations and churches.
That new generation of evangelicals determined to abandon a militant Bible stance. Instead, they would pursue dialogue, intellectualism, and appeasement. They determined to stay within apostate denominations to attempt to change things from within rather than practice biblical separation. The New Evangelical would dialogue with those who teach error rather than proclaim the Word of God boldly and without compromise. The New Evangelical would meet the proud humanist and the haughty liberal on their own turf with human scholarship rather than follow the humble path of being counted a fool for Christ’s sake by standing simply upon the Bible. New Evangelical leaders also determined to start a “rethinking process” whereby the old paths were to be continually reassessed in light of new goals, methods, and ideology.
New Evangelicalism has swept the globe. Today it is no exaggeration to say that those who call themselves evangelicals are New Evangelicals; the terms have become synonymous. Old-line evangelicals, with rare exceptions, either have aligned with the fundamentalist movement or have adopted New Evangelicalism. The evangelical movement today is the New Evangelical movement. For all practical purposes, they are the same.
Ernest Pickering observed: “Part of the current confusion regarding New Evangelicalism stems from the fact that there is now little difference between evangelicalism and New Evangelicalism. The principles of the original New Evangelicalism have become so universally accepted by those who refer to themselves as evangelicals that any distinctions which might have been made years ago are all but lost. It is no doubt true to state that ‘Ockenga’s designation of the new movement as New or Neo-Evangelical was abbreviated to Evangelical. ... Thus today we speak of this branch of conservative Christianity simply as the Evangelical movement’” (The Tragedy of Compromise, p. 96).
OCKENGA WAS A POWERFUL INFLUENCE ON BILLY GRAHAM
Billy Graham is without question the popular face of New Evangelicalism. Historian George Marsden said that a good definition of an evangelical is simply “anyone who likes Billy Graham” (The Surprising Work of God, p. 18). But while Billy Graham is the popular face of New Evangelicalism, Harold Ockenga was the brain behind the movement. At Ockenga’s funeral in 1985, Graham said, “He was a giant among giants. Nobody outside of my family influenced me more than he did. I never made a major decision without first calling and asking his advice and counsel” (p. 17).
OCKENGA WAS YOUNG
New Evangelicalism was founded by young men. When Ockenga renounced separatism he was in his 30s. One reporter observed that the leaders of the Billy Graham crusade in Boston, in 1950 where Ockenga had a central role, “were nearly all in their twenties and early thirties” (p. 138). It was the Boston crusade that “established Billy Graham’s reputation as the outstanding evangelist of his time” (p. 147).
Young men have zeal and vision, but they lack experience and wisdom, and they should be influenced by older men who have a large measure of these important things.
History is repeating itself today in the fundamentalist movement with the “younger fundamentalists” questioning separatism.
OCKENGA WAS A SEPARATIST DURING THE EARLY PART OF HIS MINISTRY
In 1929, Ockenga left Princeton Theological Seminary because of its theological modernism. He followed J. Gresham Machen and other conservative Presbyterians out of Princeton and continued his studies at the newly established Westminster Theological Seminary. In those days, Ockenga wrote:
“Princeton has changed and can never be the same, so they set forth to organize a new seminary which would be true to God’s Word. ... I left Princeton, an assured degree, an assured Fellowship which would send me to Europe, and all the material advantages and came here to Westminster Theological school. It was a question of taking a definite stand for Christ and we have done it, but at great cost” (pp. 58, 59).
In the early days of his pastorate at Park Street Church in Boston beginning in 1936, Ockenga said that separation was necessary.
“Tragic as it is, the controversy between Christianity and Modernism is necessary. ... [If] the present, powerless, depleted, diminished Church is again to enjoy God’s blessing and receive times of refreshing from on high, that Church must purify itself from the hoary heresies of antiquity and from the questionable ethics of many of its leaders. ... Then it falls to us to withdraw all membership, influence and financial support from Modernistic organizations and throw it one hundred percent toward Bible Christianity” (p. 88).
This was a bold stand, but eventually Ockenga bent under pressure and found a more pragmatic way than simple faithfulness to God’s Word. He would turn away from the charge that was given at his ordination by J. Gresham Machen. Preaching on the threatening letter that came to King Hezekiah in 2 Kings 19, Machen charged Ockenga to take a stand for truth and not to fear controversy. Machen said:
“Today, all over the world, public opinion is overwhelmingly against the gospel of Jesus Christ [even among those who dominate] the life and machinery of the churches. ... If we are not standing in opposition in the presence of a hostile world, we are no true disciples of Jesus Christ. The teaching of our Lord is full of controversy--because he set his righteousness sharply in opposition to the false righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees. ... when the Spirit moves in power in the Church of Jesus Christ ... the miserable, feeble talk about the avoidance of controversy on the part of Christian men and preachers of Jesus Christ, will all be swept away as with a mighty flood. A man on fire with a message never speaks in a way like that; never speaks with the indifferent manner of the world, but proclaims his gospel in the presence of the world of enemies, briefly and nobly in the presence of everything that is lifted up against the Gospel of Jesus Christ” (p. 68).
This was a true and mighty challenge, but Ockenga ultimately renounced it, and the evangelical world has become a traitor to the truth by its unwillingness to earnestly contend for the whole counsel of God and to separate from the enemies of the Word of God.
OCKENGA WAS A PROTESTANT
It is important to understand that the evangelical movement is fundamentally a Protestant movement. This is why it has the universal view of the church and is careless about the mode of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, usually allowing for infant baptism and sacramentalism. Ockenga began his ministry as a Methodist but he easily changed over to Presbyterian. In fact, he said, “I will now have had the experience of ordination from a Methodist Bishop and from a Presbyterian Presbytery” (p. 64).
OCKENGA BOUGHT INTO THE ERROR THAT THERE ARE “UNESSENTIAL DOCTRINAL DIFFERENCES”
After arriving in Boston, Ockenga participated in the New England Fellowship and was influenced by its founder and president J. Elwin Wright, who sought for an evangelical ecumenism. Wright warned against “carping and unkind criticism of our brethren of like precious faith” (p. 96), not acknowledging that criticism does not have to be unkind and in fact is necessary in order to maintain doctrinal and moral purity (Proverbs 6:23). Paul criticized false teachers and compromisers repeatedly in his epistles.
Wright was “a tireless advocate for evangelical cooperation” (p. 89), but the only way that churches that hold different doctrines can associate in joint ministries such as evangelism is to downplay their differences. We are told that the various denominations that participated in the New England Fellowship (Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Holiness, Pentecostal, etc.) were able to “submerge their unessential differences” (p. 90). These differences consisted of things such as the gifts of the Spirit, eternal security, modes of baptism, the practice of the Lord’s Supper, ecclesiology, women preachers, sinless perfection, and sovereign election.
These are called “secondary” or “peripheral” doctrines, but they are never treated as such in Scripture. The Lord Jesus Christ has commanded the churches to teach “them to observe ALL things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:20).
Paul did not preface the last half of his epistles with the words, “Now, dear readers, I am going to give you some unessential doctrine and it is not necessary to take this as seriously as what I wrote previously.”
In fact, when the apostle wrote to Timothy to instruct him in church doctrine he concluded with these words:
“I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession; that thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Timothy 6:13-14).
Timothy was instructed to keep the commandment of 1 Timothy without spot. That refers to attention to the details. Timothy was to honor and obey everything the apostle had delivered to him by divine inspiration. And this epistle contains many things that are considered “secondary” by evangelicals, such as standards for pastors and deacons, the woman’s role in the church, and support and discipline of elders. We know that not everything in the Bible is of equal importance, but everything has some importance, and we do not have the authority to set aside some things in order to have a wider fellowship and broader ministry. That is treachery to God’s Word. Saul lost his kingship because he did not honor all of the Word of God (1 Samuel 15:22-23).
The New England Fellowship had a powerful influence on the formation of The National Association of Evangelicals in 1942, and Ockenga was a chief player. He traveled across the country meeting with Christian leaders and encouraging them to support the new organization and its inclusive philosophy, and he became its first president.
From the beginning, Ockenga supported the inclusion of Pentecostals in spite of their heresies pertaining to Spirit baptism, filling, and gifts, among others.
The philosophy of “secondary” doctrine has become the working philosophy of modern-day evangelicalism, but it is a damnable thing that has caused great spiritual destruction.
OCKENGA HELD TO MANY GOOD THINGS BUT HE DID NOT SEE THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO MAINTAIN THE TRUTH IF ONE’S ASSOCIATIONS ARE CORRUPT
The Bible warns, “Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners” (1 Corinthians 15:33), but Harold Ockenga did not take this to heart and instead renounced separatism and called for the infiltration of modernistic denominations and institutions, and this oversight and disobedience has resulted in the ruin of evangelicalism.
Ockenga was “open to cooperation whenever it could be done without theological compromise” (p. 158), but it is impossible to cooperate with error without theological compromise.
The corruption that has spread throughout evangelicalism over the past half century is well documented and is admitted by some of the more candid and honest evangelicals:
Harold Lindsell, who was vice-president of Fuller Seminary and editor of Christianity Today, said in 1985: “Evangelicalism today is in a sad state of disarray. ... It is clear that evangelicalism is now broader and shallower, and is becoming more so. Evangelicalism’s children are in the process of forsaking the faith of their fathers” (Christian News, Dec. 2, 1985).
Francis Schaeffer, speaking at the 1976 National Association of Evangelicals convention, said: “What is the use of evangelicalism seeming to get larger and larger in number if significant numbers of those under the name of ‘evangelical’ no longer hold to that which makes evangelicalism evangelical?” (Schaeffer, “The Watershed of the Evangelical World: Biblical Inspiration”).
A 1996 Moody Press book entitled The Coming Evangelical Crisis documented the apostasy of Evangelicalism.
“... evangelicalism in the 1990s is an amalgam of diverse and often theologically ill-defined groups, institutions, and traditions. ... THE THEOLOGICAL UNITY THAT ONCE MARKED THE MOVEMENT HAS GIVEN WAY TO A THEOLOGICAL PLURALISM THAT WAS PRECISELY WHAT MANY OF THE FOUNDERS OF MODERN EVANGELICALISM HAD REJECTED IN MAINLINE PROTESTANTISM. ... Evangelicalism is not healthy in conviction or spiritual discipline. Our theological defenses have been let down, and the infusion of revisionist theologies has affected large segments of evangelicalism. Much damage has already been done, but a greater crisis yet threatens” (R. Albert Mohler, Jr., “Evangelical What’s in a Name?” The Coming Evangelical Crisis, 1996, pp. 32, 33, 36).
Consider just a few specific examples of doctrines that Ockenga believed that were given up by his sons and daughters in the New Evangelical movement.
Ockenga believed in the infallible inspiration of the Bible and called this “the watershed of modern theological controversy” (The Surprising Work of God, p. 82). But he called on evangelicals to associate with those who deny the Bible’s infallibility, and as a result the movement has become riddled with unbelief.
Consider the testimony of Carl Henry in 1976: “A GROWING VANGUARD OF YOUNG GRADUATES OF EVANGELICAL COLLEGES WHO HOLD DOCTORATES FROM NON-EVANGELICAL DIVINITY CENTERS NOW QUESTION OR DISOWN INERRANCY and the doctrine is held less consistently by evangelical faculties. … Some retain the term and reassure supportive constituencies but nonetheless stretch the term’s meaning” (Carl F.H. Henry, pastor senior editor of Christianity Today, “Conflict Over Biblical Inerrancy,” Christianity Today, May 7, 1976).
In 1976 and 1979, Harold Lindsell published two volumes documenting the frightful downgrade of the Bible in evangelicalism. This careful documentation by a man who was in the inner circle of evangelicalism’s leadership for many decades left no doubt that the evangelical world of the last half of the twentieth century was deeply leavened with apostasy.
Lindsell said, “I must regretfully conclude that the term evangelical has been so debased that it has lost its usefulness. ... Forty years ago the term evangelical represented those who were theologically orthodox and who held to biblical inerrancy as one of the distinctives. ... WITHIN A DECADE OR SO NEOEVANGELICALISM . . . WAS BEING ASSAULTED FROM WITHIN BY INCREASING SKEPTICISM WITH REGARD TO BIBLICAL INFALLIBILITY OR INERRANCY” (Harold Lindsell, The Bible in the Balance, 1979, p. 319).
In 1978, Richard Quebedeaux warned: “... it is a well-known fact that A LARGE NUMBER, IF NOT MOST, OF THE COLLEGES AND SEMINARIES IN QUESTION NOW HAVE FACULTY WHO NO LONGER BELIEVE IN TOTAL INERRANCY...” (Quebedeaux, The Worldly Evangelicals, p. 30).
In 1983, Francis Schaeffer warned: “WITHIN EVANGELICALISM THERE ARE A GROWING NUMBER WHO ARE MODIFYING THEIR VIEWS ON THE INERRANCY OF THE BIBLE SO THAT THE FULL AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE IS COMPLETELY UNDERCUT. … Accommodation, accommodation. How the mindset of accommodation grows and expands. . . . With tears we must say that largely it is not there and that A LARGE SEGMENT OF THE EVANGELICAL WORLD HAS BECOME SEDUCED BY THE WORLD SPIRIT OF THIS PRESENT AGE” (Francis Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster, 1983, pp. 44,141).
Consider, secondly, that Ockenga believed in the necessity of the new birth and called for clear evidence of conversion (p. 83). But he condemned the practice of separating from those who don’t believe this and who accept mere infant baptism and church membership as salvation. As a result, evangelicalism is riddled with pastors and church members that don’t have a biblical testimony of salvation.
Ockenga also believed in total abstinence and promoted a “five point program to end the production, distribution, and use of alcohol” (p. 172). He urged people to “talk with the children in the church and the home and warn them of the evils of drink” and challenged them to “write in your Bible, ‘I will abstain from all alcoholic beverages’” (p. 172). But he taught evangelicals to become more “culturally relative” and to associate with liberals who drink, and it is not surprising that his grandchildren in the faith, the emerging church, love to drink. (See “Emerging Church Loves to Drink” at the Way of Life web site.)
Ockenga believed that “only the atoning work of Christ on the cross was sufficient to forgive sins, tame the rebellious heart, and bring genuine peace with God” and that “consequently, the fundamental solution to human sinfulness and the starting point for all genuine social reform is the transforming power of the gospel” (p. 173). But because of the evil communications that have resulted from the disavowal of biblical separation, Ockenga’s grandchildren believe that the pursuit of social-justice issues apart from gospel preaching is perfectly legitimate. (See our book “The Emerging Church” for extensive documentation.)
There are many other things that Harold Ockenga and the other founders of New Evangelicalism believed that their children and grandchildren have either questioned or soundly rejected. This is very sad, but does not the Bible warn, “Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners” (1 Corinthians 15:33).
OCKENGA WAS WARNED
When Ockenga renounced separatism and compromised the position he had formerly held, he was warned and exhorted by his uncompromising brethren.
For example, his old friend and colleague Billy Hawks, wrote in December 1947:
“I I feel like weeping and lamenting and mourning over you. ... some of the things you are doing only cause me grief and heaviness of heart. [It] grieves me Harold to see you giving way here a little and there a little to policies that will be the ruination of our country. [You] ought to be a trumpet of God in America [yet you] are fast succumbing to the inclusivistic trends that will sink us into the sea of oblivion spiritually as surely as it has the countries across the sea. ... Combination is weakness! Separatism is Power! in the sight of God” (p. 177).
The same warning was given repeatedly to Billy Graham, but both he and Ockenga ignored it and mischaracterized the warnings as divisive hatemongering. (See the article “Graham Was Warned Many Times” at the Way of Life web site.)
OCKENGA AND HIS FELLOW NEW EVANGELICALS WERE HYPOCRITICAL ABOUT JUDGMENTALISM AND CRITICISM
Ockenga and his associates preached against judgmentalism and “criticism of the brethren.” Merv Rosell said, “I have persistently refused to become a party to criticism” (p. 159). They have refused to criticize Modernists and Romanists, but they have bitterly criticized Fundamentalists. They have labeled them Pharisees, Legalists, Hateful, Divisive, Non-intellectual, Mean-spirited, Hurtful to the Body of Christ, and many other things.
Ockenga said:
“I think that these fundamentalists are doing irreparable harm to our movement by identifying Christianity with ‘Thou shall not.’ They have lost all the joy out of Christianity and Christian living. They have made it negative. They are dividing to absurdity and I assure you that I myself will have nothing to do with that kind of movement” (p. 184).
Those are strong, hyper-critical, judgmental words, and they aren’t even true. I don’t know of any sound fundamentalist Bible believers that have lost all joy because they take the Bible seriously. Yes, there are plenty of negatives in the Bible and tons of “thou shalt nots,” but the fundamentalists that I have known these past 36 years have plenty of wholesome fun.
The fact is that the one great spiritual enemy that New Evangelicals consistently identify and attack are fundamentalist Bible believers. Their judgment of fundamentalists is merciless. This has been a consistent mark of New Evangelicalism for 60 years.
[Distributed by Way of Life Literature's Fundamental Baptist Information Service, an e-mail listing for Fundamental Baptists and other fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians. OUR GOAL IN THIS PARTICULAR ASPECT OF OUR MINISTRY IS NOT DEVOTIONAL BUT IS TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO ASSIST PREACHERS IN THE PROTECTION OF THE CHURCHES IN THIS APOSTATE HOUR. This material is sent only to those who personally subscribe to the list. If somehow you have subscribed unintentionally, following are the instructions for removal. The Fundamental Baptist Information Service mailing list is automated. To SUBSCRIBE, go to http://www.wayoflife.org/wayoflife/subscribe.html . TO UNSUBSCRIBE OR CHANGE ADDRESSES, go to the very bottom of any email received from us and click "Manage My Subscription." If you have any trouble with this, please let us know. We take up a quarterly offering to fund this ministry, and those who use the materials are expected to participate (Galatians 6:6) if they can. Some of the articles are from O Timothy magazine, which is in its 26th year of publication. Way of Life publishes many helpful books. The catalog is located at the web site: http://www.wayoflife.org/publications/index.html. Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061. 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org. We do not solicit funds from those who do not agree with our preaching and who are not helped by these publications, but only from those who are. OFFERINGS can be made at http://www.wayoflife.org/wayoflife/makeanoffering.html. PAYPAL offerings can be made to
July 7, 2009 (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -
The following is a review of the book The Surprising Work of God: Harold John Ockenga, Billy Graham, and the Rebirth of Evangelicalism by Garth M. Rosell (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008). Rosell is the son of Merv Rosell, an evangelist who associated with Ockenga, Graham, and other leaders of the New Evangelical movement.
OCKENGA WAS THE FOUNDER OF THE NEW EVANGELICAL MOVEMENT AND ENUNCIATED THAT MOVEMENT’S REJECTION OF SEPARATION
Harold Ockenga (1905-85) was possibly the most influential evangelical leader of the 20th century. He was pastor of the prominent Park Street Church in Boston, founder of the National Association of Evangelicals, co-founder and first president of Fuller Theological Seminary, first president of the World Evangelical Fellowship, president of Gordon College and Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, a director of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, and chairman of the board and one-time editor of Christianity Today.
In the 1950s Ockenga helped found the New Evangelical movement that rejected separatism and aimed at a more positive and pragmatic philosophy as opposed to the negativism and isolation of fundamentalism.
In a speech he gave in 1947 at the founding of Fuller Seminary, Ockenga said:
“We repudiate the ‘Come-outist’ movement which brands all Denominations as apostate. We expect to be positive in our emphasis, except where error so exists that it is necessary for us to point it out in order to declare the truth. The positive emphasis will be on the broad doctrinal basis of a low Calvinism” (p. 176).
Looking back on this epic speech thirty years later, Ockenga commented:
“Neo-evangelicalism was born ... in connection with a convocation address which I gave in the Civic Auditorium in Pasadena. While reaffirming the theological view of fundamentalism, this address REPUDIATED ITS ECCLESIOLOGY AND ITS SOCIAL THEORY. The ringing call for A REPUDIATION OF SEPARATISM AND THE SUMMONS TO SOCIAL INVOLVEMENT received a hearty response from many evangelicals. The name caught on and spokesmen such as Drs. Harold Lindsell, Carl F.H. Henry, Edward Carnell, and Gleason Archer supported this viewpoint. We had no intention of launching a movement, but found that the emphasis attracted widespread support and exercised great influence. Neo-evangelicalism... DIFFERENT FROM FUNDAMENTALISM IN ITS REPUDIATION OF SEPARATISM AND ITS DETERMINATION TO ENGAGE ITSELF IN THE THEOLOGICAL DIALOGUE OF THE DAY. IT HAD A NEW EMPHASIS UPON THE APPLICATION OF THE GOSPEL TO THE SOCIOLOGICAL, POLITICAL, AND ECONOMIC AREAS OF LIFE. Neo-evangelicals emphasized the restatement of Christian theology in accordance with the need of the times, the REENGAGEMENT IN THE THEOLOGICAL DEBATE, THE RECAPTURE OF DENOMINATIONAL LEADERSHIP, AND THE REEXAMINATION OF THEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS SUCH AS THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN, THE UNIVERSALITY OF THE FLOOD, GOD'S METHOD OF CREATION, AND OTHERS” (Ockenga, foreword to Harold Lindsell’s book The Battle for the Bible).
Ockenga represented the changing mood of the sons of the old fundamentalists. They were tired of exposing error and separating from modernistic, compromised denominations and churches.
That new generation of evangelicals determined to abandon a militant Bible stance. Instead, they would pursue dialogue, intellectualism, and appeasement. They determined to stay within apostate denominations to attempt to change things from within rather than practice biblical separation. The New Evangelical would dialogue with those who teach error rather than proclaim the Word of God boldly and without compromise. The New Evangelical would meet the proud humanist and the haughty liberal on their own turf with human scholarship rather than follow the humble path of being counted a fool for Christ’s sake by standing simply upon the Bible. New Evangelical leaders also determined to start a “rethinking process” whereby the old paths were to be continually reassessed in light of new goals, methods, and ideology.
New Evangelicalism has swept the globe. Today it is no exaggeration to say that those who call themselves evangelicals are New Evangelicals; the terms have become synonymous. Old-line evangelicals, with rare exceptions, either have aligned with the fundamentalist movement or have adopted New Evangelicalism. The evangelical movement today is the New Evangelical movement. For all practical purposes, they are the same.
Ernest Pickering observed: “Part of the current confusion regarding New Evangelicalism stems from the fact that there is now little difference between evangelicalism and New Evangelicalism. The principles of the original New Evangelicalism have become so universally accepted by those who refer to themselves as evangelicals that any distinctions which might have been made years ago are all but lost. It is no doubt true to state that ‘Ockenga’s designation of the new movement as New or Neo-Evangelical was abbreviated to Evangelical. ... Thus today we speak of this branch of conservative Christianity simply as the Evangelical movement’” (The Tragedy of Compromise, p. 96).
OCKENGA WAS A POWERFUL INFLUENCE ON BILLY GRAHAM
Billy Graham is without question the popular face of New Evangelicalism. Historian George Marsden said that a good definition of an evangelical is simply “anyone who likes Billy Graham” (The Surprising Work of God, p. 18). But while Billy Graham is the popular face of New Evangelicalism, Harold Ockenga was the brain behind the movement. At Ockenga’s funeral in 1985, Graham said, “He was a giant among giants. Nobody outside of my family influenced me more than he did. I never made a major decision without first calling and asking his advice and counsel” (p. 17).
OCKENGA WAS YOUNG
New Evangelicalism was founded by young men. When Ockenga renounced separatism he was in his 30s. One reporter observed that the leaders of the Billy Graham crusade in Boston, in 1950 where Ockenga had a central role, “were nearly all in their twenties and early thirties” (p. 138). It was the Boston crusade that “established Billy Graham’s reputation as the outstanding evangelist of his time” (p. 147).
Young men have zeal and vision, but they lack experience and wisdom, and they should be influenced by older men who have a large measure of these important things.
History is repeating itself today in the fundamentalist movement with the “younger fundamentalists” questioning separatism.
OCKENGA WAS A SEPARATIST DURING THE EARLY PART OF HIS MINISTRY
In 1929, Ockenga left Princeton Theological Seminary because of its theological modernism. He followed J. Gresham Machen and other conservative Presbyterians out of Princeton and continued his studies at the newly established Westminster Theological Seminary. In those days, Ockenga wrote:
“Princeton has changed and can never be the same, so they set forth to organize a new seminary which would be true to God’s Word. ... I left Princeton, an assured degree, an assured Fellowship which would send me to Europe, and all the material advantages and came here to Westminster Theological school. It was a question of taking a definite stand for Christ and we have done it, but at great cost” (pp. 58, 59).
In the early days of his pastorate at Park Street Church in Boston beginning in 1936, Ockenga said that separation was necessary.
“Tragic as it is, the controversy between Christianity and Modernism is necessary. ... [If] the present, powerless, depleted, diminished Church is again to enjoy God’s blessing and receive times of refreshing from on high, that Church must purify itself from the hoary heresies of antiquity and from the questionable ethics of many of its leaders. ... Then it falls to us to withdraw all membership, influence and financial support from Modernistic organizations and throw it one hundred percent toward Bible Christianity” (p. 88).
This was a bold stand, but eventually Ockenga bent under pressure and found a more pragmatic way than simple faithfulness to God’s Word. He would turn away from the charge that was given at his ordination by J. Gresham Machen. Preaching on the threatening letter that came to King Hezekiah in 2 Kings 19, Machen charged Ockenga to take a stand for truth and not to fear controversy. Machen said:
“Today, all over the world, public opinion is overwhelmingly against the gospel of Jesus Christ [even among those who dominate] the life and machinery of the churches. ... If we are not standing in opposition in the presence of a hostile world, we are no true disciples of Jesus Christ. The teaching of our Lord is full of controversy--because he set his righteousness sharply in opposition to the false righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees. ... when the Spirit moves in power in the Church of Jesus Christ ... the miserable, feeble talk about the avoidance of controversy on the part of Christian men and preachers of Jesus Christ, will all be swept away as with a mighty flood. A man on fire with a message never speaks in a way like that; never speaks with the indifferent manner of the world, but proclaims his gospel in the presence of the world of enemies, briefly and nobly in the presence of everything that is lifted up against the Gospel of Jesus Christ” (p. 68).
This was a true and mighty challenge, but Ockenga ultimately renounced it, and the evangelical world has become a traitor to the truth by its unwillingness to earnestly contend for the whole counsel of God and to separate from the enemies of the Word of God.
OCKENGA WAS A PROTESTANT
It is important to understand that the evangelical movement is fundamentally a Protestant movement. This is why it has the universal view of the church and is careless about the mode of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, usually allowing for infant baptism and sacramentalism. Ockenga began his ministry as a Methodist but he easily changed over to Presbyterian. In fact, he said, “I will now have had the experience of ordination from a Methodist Bishop and from a Presbyterian Presbytery” (p. 64).
OCKENGA BOUGHT INTO THE ERROR THAT THERE ARE “UNESSENTIAL DOCTRINAL DIFFERENCES”
After arriving in Boston, Ockenga participated in the New England Fellowship and was influenced by its founder and president J. Elwin Wright, who sought for an evangelical ecumenism. Wright warned against “carping and unkind criticism of our brethren of like precious faith” (p. 96), not acknowledging that criticism does not have to be unkind and in fact is necessary in order to maintain doctrinal and moral purity (Proverbs 6:23). Paul criticized false teachers and compromisers repeatedly in his epistles.
Wright was “a tireless advocate for evangelical cooperation” (p. 89), but the only way that churches that hold different doctrines can associate in joint ministries such as evangelism is to downplay their differences. We are told that the various denominations that participated in the New England Fellowship (Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Holiness, Pentecostal, etc.) were able to “submerge their unessential differences” (p. 90). These differences consisted of things such as the gifts of the Spirit, eternal security, modes of baptism, the practice of the Lord’s Supper, ecclesiology, women preachers, sinless perfection, and sovereign election.
These are called “secondary” or “peripheral” doctrines, but they are never treated as such in Scripture. The Lord Jesus Christ has commanded the churches to teach “them to observe ALL things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:20).
Paul did not preface the last half of his epistles with the words, “Now, dear readers, I am going to give you some unessential doctrine and it is not necessary to take this as seriously as what I wrote previously.”
In fact, when the apostle wrote to Timothy to instruct him in church doctrine he concluded with these words:
“I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession; that thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Timothy 6:13-14).
Timothy was instructed to keep the commandment of 1 Timothy without spot. That refers to attention to the details. Timothy was to honor and obey everything the apostle had delivered to him by divine inspiration. And this epistle contains many things that are considered “secondary” by evangelicals, such as standards for pastors and deacons, the woman’s role in the church, and support and discipline of elders. We know that not everything in the Bible is of equal importance, but everything has some importance, and we do not have the authority to set aside some things in order to have a wider fellowship and broader ministry. That is treachery to God’s Word. Saul lost his kingship because he did not honor all of the Word of God (1 Samuel 15:22-23).
The New England Fellowship had a powerful influence on the formation of The National Association of Evangelicals in 1942, and Ockenga was a chief player. He traveled across the country meeting with Christian leaders and encouraging them to support the new organization and its inclusive philosophy, and he became its first president.
From the beginning, Ockenga supported the inclusion of Pentecostals in spite of their heresies pertaining to Spirit baptism, filling, and gifts, among others.
The philosophy of “secondary” doctrine has become the working philosophy of modern-day evangelicalism, but it is a damnable thing that has caused great spiritual destruction.
OCKENGA HELD TO MANY GOOD THINGS BUT HE DID NOT SEE THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO MAINTAIN THE TRUTH IF ONE’S ASSOCIATIONS ARE CORRUPT
The Bible warns, “Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners” (1 Corinthians 15:33), but Harold Ockenga did not take this to heart and instead renounced separatism and called for the infiltration of modernistic denominations and institutions, and this oversight and disobedience has resulted in the ruin of evangelicalism.
Ockenga was “open to cooperation whenever it could be done without theological compromise” (p. 158), but it is impossible to cooperate with error without theological compromise.
The corruption that has spread throughout evangelicalism over the past half century is well documented and is admitted by some of the more candid and honest evangelicals:
Harold Lindsell, who was vice-president of Fuller Seminary and editor of Christianity Today, said in 1985: “Evangelicalism today is in a sad state of disarray. ... It is clear that evangelicalism is now broader and shallower, and is becoming more so. Evangelicalism’s children are in the process of forsaking the faith of their fathers” (Christian News, Dec. 2, 1985).
Francis Schaeffer, speaking at the 1976 National Association of Evangelicals convention, said: “What is the use of evangelicalism seeming to get larger and larger in number if significant numbers of those under the name of ‘evangelical’ no longer hold to that which makes evangelicalism evangelical?” (Schaeffer, “The Watershed of the Evangelical World: Biblical Inspiration”).
A 1996 Moody Press book entitled The Coming Evangelical Crisis documented the apostasy of Evangelicalism.
“... evangelicalism in the 1990s is an amalgam of diverse and often theologically ill-defined groups, institutions, and traditions. ... THE THEOLOGICAL UNITY THAT ONCE MARKED THE MOVEMENT HAS GIVEN WAY TO A THEOLOGICAL PLURALISM THAT WAS PRECISELY WHAT MANY OF THE FOUNDERS OF MODERN EVANGELICALISM HAD REJECTED IN MAINLINE PROTESTANTISM. ... Evangelicalism is not healthy in conviction or spiritual discipline. Our theological defenses have been let down, and the infusion of revisionist theologies has affected large segments of evangelicalism. Much damage has already been done, but a greater crisis yet threatens” (R. Albert Mohler, Jr., “Evangelical What’s in a Name?” The Coming Evangelical Crisis, 1996, pp. 32, 33, 36).
Consider just a few specific examples of doctrines that Ockenga believed that were given up by his sons and daughters in the New Evangelical movement.
Ockenga believed in the infallible inspiration of the Bible and called this “the watershed of modern theological controversy” (The Surprising Work of God, p. 82). But he called on evangelicals to associate with those who deny the Bible’s infallibility, and as a result the movement has become riddled with unbelief.
Consider the testimony of Carl Henry in 1976: “A GROWING VANGUARD OF YOUNG GRADUATES OF EVANGELICAL COLLEGES WHO HOLD DOCTORATES FROM NON-EVANGELICAL DIVINITY CENTERS NOW QUESTION OR DISOWN INERRANCY and the doctrine is held less consistently by evangelical faculties. … Some retain the term and reassure supportive constituencies but nonetheless stretch the term’s meaning” (Carl F.H. Henry, pastor senior editor of Christianity Today, “Conflict Over Biblical Inerrancy,” Christianity Today, May 7, 1976).
In 1976 and 1979, Harold Lindsell published two volumes documenting the frightful downgrade of the Bible in evangelicalism. This careful documentation by a man who was in the inner circle of evangelicalism’s leadership for many decades left no doubt that the evangelical world of the last half of the twentieth century was deeply leavened with apostasy.
Lindsell said, “I must regretfully conclude that the term evangelical has been so debased that it has lost its usefulness. ... Forty years ago the term evangelical represented those who were theologically orthodox and who held to biblical inerrancy as one of the distinctives. ... WITHIN A DECADE OR SO NEOEVANGELICALISM . . . WAS BEING ASSAULTED FROM WITHIN BY INCREASING SKEPTICISM WITH REGARD TO BIBLICAL INFALLIBILITY OR INERRANCY” (Harold Lindsell, The Bible in the Balance, 1979, p. 319).
In 1978, Richard Quebedeaux warned: “... it is a well-known fact that A LARGE NUMBER, IF NOT MOST, OF THE COLLEGES AND SEMINARIES IN QUESTION NOW HAVE FACULTY WHO NO LONGER BELIEVE IN TOTAL INERRANCY...” (Quebedeaux, The Worldly Evangelicals, p. 30).
In 1983, Francis Schaeffer warned: “WITHIN EVANGELICALISM THERE ARE A GROWING NUMBER WHO ARE MODIFYING THEIR VIEWS ON THE INERRANCY OF THE BIBLE SO THAT THE FULL AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE IS COMPLETELY UNDERCUT. … Accommodation, accommodation. How the mindset of accommodation grows and expands. . . . With tears we must say that largely it is not there and that A LARGE SEGMENT OF THE EVANGELICAL WORLD HAS BECOME SEDUCED BY THE WORLD SPIRIT OF THIS PRESENT AGE” (Francis Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster, 1983, pp. 44,141).
Consider, secondly, that Ockenga believed in the necessity of the new birth and called for clear evidence of conversion (p. 83). But he condemned the practice of separating from those who don’t believe this and who accept mere infant baptism and church membership as salvation. As a result, evangelicalism is riddled with pastors and church members that don’t have a biblical testimony of salvation.
Ockenga also believed in total abstinence and promoted a “five point program to end the production, distribution, and use of alcohol” (p. 172). He urged people to “talk with the children in the church and the home and warn them of the evils of drink” and challenged them to “write in your Bible, ‘I will abstain from all alcoholic beverages’” (p. 172). But he taught evangelicals to become more “culturally relative” and to associate with liberals who drink, and it is not surprising that his grandchildren in the faith, the emerging church, love to drink. (See “Emerging Church Loves to Drink” at the Way of Life web site.)
Ockenga believed that “only the atoning work of Christ on the cross was sufficient to forgive sins, tame the rebellious heart, and bring genuine peace with God” and that “consequently, the fundamental solution to human sinfulness and the starting point for all genuine social reform is the transforming power of the gospel” (p. 173). But because of the evil communications that have resulted from the disavowal of biblical separation, Ockenga’s grandchildren believe that the pursuit of social-justice issues apart from gospel preaching is perfectly legitimate. (See our book “The Emerging Church” for extensive documentation.)
There are many other things that Harold Ockenga and the other founders of New Evangelicalism believed that their children and grandchildren have either questioned or soundly rejected. This is very sad, but does not the Bible warn, “Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners” (1 Corinthians 15:33).
OCKENGA WAS WARNED
When Ockenga renounced separatism and compromised the position he had formerly held, he was warned and exhorted by his uncompromising brethren.
For example, his old friend and colleague Billy Hawks, wrote in December 1947:
“I I feel like weeping and lamenting and mourning over you. ... some of the things you are doing only cause me grief and heaviness of heart. [It] grieves me Harold to see you giving way here a little and there a little to policies that will be the ruination of our country. [You] ought to be a trumpet of God in America [yet you] are fast succumbing to the inclusivistic trends that will sink us into the sea of oblivion spiritually as surely as it has the countries across the sea. ... Combination is weakness! Separatism is Power! in the sight of God” (p. 177).
The same warning was given repeatedly to Billy Graham, but both he and Ockenga ignored it and mischaracterized the warnings as divisive hatemongering. (See the article “Graham Was Warned Many Times” at the Way of Life web site.)
OCKENGA AND HIS FELLOW NEW EVANGELICALS WERE HYPOCRITICAL ABOUT JUDGMENTALISM AND CRITICISM
Ockenga and his associates preached against judgmentalism and “criticism of the brethren.” Merv Rosell said, “I have persistently refused to become a party to criticism” (p. 159). They have refused to criticize Modernists and Romanists, but they have bitterly criticized Fundamentalists. They have labeled them Pharisees, Legalists, Hateful, Divisive, Non-intellectual, Mean-spirited, Hurtful to the Body of Christ, and many other things.
Ockenga said:
“I think that these fundamentalists are doing irreparable harm to our movement by identifying Christianity with ‘Thou shall not.’ They have lost all the joy out of Christianity and Christian living. They have made it negative. They are dividing to absurdity and I assure you that I myself will have nothing to do with that kind of movement” (p. 184).
Those are strong, hyper-critical, judgmental words, and they aren’t even true. I don’t know of any sound fundamentalist Bible believers that have lost all joy because they take the Bible seriously. Yes, there are plenty of negatives in the Bible and tons of “thou shalt nots,” but the fundamentalists that I have known these past 36 years have plenty of wholesome fun.
The fact is that the one great spiritual enemy that New Evangelicals consistently identify and attack are fundamentalist Bible believers. Their judgment of fundamentalists is merciless. This has been a consistent mark of New Evangelicalism for 60 years.
[Distributed by Way of Life Literature's Fundamental Baptist Information Service, an e-mail listing for Fundamental Baptists and other fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians. OUR GOAL IN THIS PARTICULAR ASPECT OF OUR MINISTRY IS NOT DEVOTIONAL BUT IS TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO ASSIST PREACHERS IN THE PROTECTION OF THE CHURCHES IN THIS APOSTATE HOUR. This material is sent only to those who personally subscribe to the list. If somehow you have subscribed unintentionally, following are the instructions for removal. The Fundamental Baptist Information Service mailing list is automated. To SUBSCRIBE, go to http://www.wayoflife.org/wayoflife/subscribe.html . TO UNSUBSCRIBE OR CHANGE ADDRESSES, go to the very bottom of any email received from us and click "Manage My Subscription." If you have any trouble with this, please let us know. We take up a quarterly offering to fund this ministry, and those who use the materials are expected to participate (Galatians 6:6) if they can. Some of the articles are from O Timothy magazine, which is in its 26th year of publication. Way of Life publishes many helpful books. The catalog is located at the web site: http://www.wayoflife.org/publications/index.html. Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061. 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org. We do not solicit funds from those who do not agree with our preaching and who are not helped by these publications, but only from those who are. OFFERINGS can be made at http://www.wayoflife.org/wayoflife/makeanoffering.html. PAYPAL offerings can be made to
Minggu, 12 Juli 2009
PERTOBATAN SEJATI DR. JOHN SUNG
oleh Dr. R. L. Hymers, Jr.
“Apa gunanya seorang memperoleh seluruh dunia, tetapi ia kehilangan nyawanya?” (Markus 8:36).
4 Juni 2009 ditandai peringatan kedua puluh dari “Peristiwa Pembantaian Tiananmen” (“Tiananmen Square Massacre”). Selama enam minggu pada tahun 1989, ribuan orang China, kebanyakan para mahasiswa, mengadakan demonstrasi damai melawan pemerintahan Komunis, untuk menyerukan kebebasan berpikir. Kemudian, pada suatu pagi tanggal 4 Juni, pasukan pemerintah secara terbuka menembaki ribuan demonstran yang tidak bersenjata, ribuan dan tak terhitung jumlahnya orang terbunuh dan ribuan orang yang masih hidup lainnya terluka. Hong Yujian menyaksikan kekerasan yang terjadi di Beijing itu melalui siaran televisi ketika ia ada di University of Pennsylvania sebagai pertukaran mahasiswa. Ia berkata bahwa Pembantaian Massa Tiananmen membuat dia menanyakan pengharapannya dalam bidang sains dan demokrasi dan kemudian memimpinnya menjadi orang Kristen.
Ia berkata pembantaian massa di Tiananmen menolong dia dan yang lain untuk melihat dosa mereka sendiri dan kebutuhan mereka akan Kristus: “Saya berpikir Allah menggunakan ini untuk mempersiapkan jalan dan mempersiapkan hati masyarakat China” (World Magazine, June 6, 2009, p. 38).
World Magazine menjelaskan,
Terjadi ledakan tingkat pertumbuhan Kekristenan di China selama 20 tahun terakhir ini. Para ahli menyatakan urbanisasi dan pertumbuhan jumlah dari para pemikir berpengaruh yang yang percaya Kristus meningkat dengan cepat. OMF International (dulunya China Inland Mission) memperkirakan ada 70 juta orang Kristen di China. Padahal kelompok yang mengatakan sebagai orang Kristen Protestan di China berjumlah kurang dari 1 juta pada tahun 1949 [ketika pemerintah Komunis mulai berkuasa] (ibid.).
Dr. C. L. Cagan, seorang ahli statistik, memperkirakan bahwa sekarang kira-kira ada 700 orang bertobat menjadi Kristen setiap jamnya, dalam 24 jam per hari, di China.
Sejarah Kekristenan di China seharusnya sangat menarik perhatian orang-orang Kristen dimanapun mereka berada. Gerakan misionaris modern di China dapat dikatakan mulai dengan Robert Morrison (1782-1834). Morrison diutus ke China oleh London Missionary Society pada tahun 1807. Dibantu oleh rekan kerjanya, William Milne, ia menerjemahkan Alkitab ke dalam bahasa China pada tahun 1821. Setelah 27 tahun ada di China hanya beberapa orang China yang dibaptis – namun mereka semua adalah orang-orang Kristen yang setia. Alkitab terjemahan bahasa China karya Morrison, dan juga literatur-literatur penginjilan yang ia cetak, menjadi dasar Kekristenan evangelikal di China.
Pada tahun 1853 seorang dokter medis Inggris, James Hudson Taylor, berlayar ke China. Pada tahun 1860 ia mendirikan China Inland Mission, yang sekarang dikenal dengan nama Overseas Missionary Fellowship. Rekanan Taylor dengan cepat tersebar ke seluruh pedalaman China. Hudson Taylor meninggal di Changsha pada tahun 1905.
Pada tahun 1901 John Sung lahir. Ia menjadi terkenal sebagai penginjil terbesar dalam sejarah China. Ribuan orang yang bertobat melalui khotbahnya masih setia kepada Kristus setelah Komunis mulai berkuasa pada tahun 1949. Pada 60 tahun terakhir terjadi ledakan jumlah orang Kristen di China dalam kebangunan rohani Kekristenan terbesar pada sejarah modern. Malam ini saya akan menceritakan kepada Anda kisah yang luar biasa dari Dr. John Sung. Saya akan mulai dengan memberikan garis besar kehidupannya dari Dr. Elgin S. Moyer.
John Sung (1901-1944), penginjil China yang terkenal secara nasional; lahir di Hinghwa, Fukien, China; anak seorang pendeta Methodist. Mengakui Kristus kira-kira pada umur sembilan tahun [?]. Mahasiswa yang brilian; kuliah di Wesleyan University, Ohio State University, dan Union Theological Seminary. Menerima gelar Ph.D. dalam bidang ilmu kimia. Kembali ke China untuk memberitakan Injil daripada mengajar sains. Menghabiskan lima puluh tahun hidupnya untuk memberitakan injil di seluruh China dan Negara-negara sekitarnya dengan kuasa dan pengaruh yang unik (Elgin S. Moyer, Ph.D., Who Was Who in Church History, Moody Press, 1968 edition, hal. 394).
Itu hanyalah sketsa tentang kehidupan John Sung. Kembali ke dalam biografi yang lebih detail, saya tidak percaya bahwa ia bertobat pada waktu ia berumur sembilan tahun. Saya tidak percaya bila ia bertobat sebelum Pebruari 1927.
John Sung sendiri percaya bahwa ia belum bertobat sampai ia melewati beberapa tahun krisis rohani di Amerika. Ketika ia berumur sembilan tahun ada kebangunan rohani di Hinghwa. Pada bulan itu kira-kira ada 3,000 orang Kristen yang masih belum sungguh-sungguh bertobat. Pada Jum’at Agung pagi ia mendengar khotbah tentang ”Yesus di Taman Getsemani.” Pengkhotbah pada waktu itu membandingkan para Murid yang sedang tidur dengan keberanian Yesus. Banyak orang menangis dengan dukacita mendalam di akhir khotbah itu. Di antara orang-orang yang menangis itu adalah John Sung, seorang bocah berumur sembilan tahun dan anak lelaki seorang pendeta Methodis. Yang nampak bagi saya bahwa John Sung “mempersembahkan” hidupnya kepada Kristus namun belum sungguh-sungguh bertobat pada waktu itu. Sebagaimana pendeta pendahulu saya, Dr. Timothy Lin (yang ayahnya juga adalah seorang pendeta), John Sung mulai berkhotbah dan membantu ayahnya sebelum umur tiga belas tahun. Namun, juga seperti Dr. Lin, ia belum mengalami pertobatan sejati pada waktu itu. Ia adalah siswa yang rajin dan menyelesaikan sekolah menengah atasnya dengan prestasi terbaik di kelasnya. Pada waktu itu ia menjadi terkenal sebagai “pendeta cilik.” Namun kendati semua aktivitas hatinya dan semangatnya tidak semuanya memuaskan. Pekerjaan yang ia telah lakukan dalam pelayanannya digambarkan “sama spektakulernya dengan birunya bulu burung pekakak, suburnya seperti daun-daun pada musim panas, namun tanpa satupun buah segar untuk diberikan kepada Tuhan Yesus” (Leslie T. Lyall, A Biography of John Sung, China Inland Mission, 1965 edition, hal. 15).
Pada tahun 1919, Sung, yang pada waktu itu berumur 18 tahun, pergi ke Amerika, dan diterima di Ohio Wesleyan University dengan memperoleh beasiswa. Ia mulai mengambil kelas pra-medis dan pra-teologikal, namun berhenti dari mata kuliah pra-teologikal dan memutuskan untuk mengambil spesialis dalam bidang matematika dan kimia. Ia menghadiri kebaktian secara rutin dan mengorganisir kelompok-kelompok penginjilan di kalangan mahasiswa. Namun akhirnya ia mulai menolak belajar Alkitab dan berdoa, dan berbuat curang pada salah satu dari makalah-makalah ujiannya. Ia tamat pada tahun 1923 dengan predikat cum laude, sebagai salah satu dari empat mahasiswa paling berprestasi dari tiga ratus mahasiswa. Ia dianugerahi medali emas dan uang tunai untuk bidang fisika dan kimia, dan terpilih untuk menjadi anggota Phi Beta Kappa Fraternity, suatu masyarakat ekslusif dari para sarjana terkemuka, dan diberikan kunci emas, suatu lencana istimewa dalam ilmu pengetahuan.
Ia ditawari beasiswa dari banyak universitas, termasuk Harvard. Ia menerima beasiswa untuk program Master of Science di Ohio State University. Ia menyelesaikan program ini hanya dalam sembilan bulan! Ia ditawari beasiswa untuk belajar medis di Harvard. Ia juga diberi penawaran lain untuk belajar di seminari. Ia merasa bahwa ia harus belajar teologi, namun ketenaran yang menghampirinya menumpulkan keinginannya untuk menjadi hamba Tuhan. Oleh sebab itu akhirnya ia masuk program doktoral bidang kimia di Ohio State University. Ia menyelesaikan program Ph.D. dalam waktu hanya duapuluh satu bulan! Kemudian ia menjadi orang China pertama yang menyandang gelar Ph.D. Ia dilukiskan dalam surat kabar sebagai “mahasiswa paling terkenal dari Ohio.” “Namun dalam hatinya yang paling dalam ia tidak memiliki damai sejahtera. Kegelisahan rohaninya mulai tumbuh dalam periode-periode pergumulan yang mendalam” (Lyall, ibid., hal. 22).
Pada waktu itu ia berada di bawah pengaruh teologi liberal, dan pengajaran mereka tentang “injil sosial.” Teologi liberal mengajarkan bahwa Yesus adalah sosok teladan yang agung, namun bukan Juruselamat. Nampak bagi saya bahwa John Sung berpikir tentang Yesus sebagai “teladan agung” ketika ia masih berumur sembilan tahun, dan karena alasan itulah ia masih memiliki pertobatan yang palsu pada waktu itu. Namun Allah masih memanggil dia. Suatu malam ketika ia duduk sendirian ia seakan mendengar suara Tuhan yang berkata kepadanya, “Apa untungnya ini bagi seseorang, jika ia memperoleh seluruh dunia, namun kehilangan jiwanya sendiri?”
Hari berikutnya ia berbicara dengan seorang professor Methodis liberal. Ia menceritakan kepada professor itu bahwa sesungguhnya ia datang ke Amerika untuk belajar teologi. Profesor itu menantang dia untuk pergi ke New York untuk studi agama di sebuah seminari yang sangat liberal yaitu Union Theological Seminary. Dengan hanya sedikit keraguan ia memutuskan untuk pergi. Di Union Theological Seminary ia diberi beasiswa penuh dan pinjaman bantuan untuk penghidupan. Kemudian ia berkata bahwa ia tidak tertarik untuk melayani, namun hanya ingin belajar teologi saja selama setahun untuk menyenangkan ayahnya, dan kemudian kembali ke karir saintifiknya. Hatinya penuh dengan hura-hura dan gelap.
Pada musim gugur tahun 1926 Dr. John Sung mendaftar di Union Theological Seminary. Dr. Henry Sloane Coffin seorang yang sangat liberal baru saja menduduki jabatan sebagai rektor seminari itu. Di antara dosen-dosen yang sangat liberal di seminari itu salah satunya adalah Dr. Harry Emerson Fosdick, seorang penulis beberapa buku yang menyerang Fundamentalisme, seperti misalnya bukunya yang berjudul “The Modern Use of the Bible” dan “The Manhood of the Master.” Ceramahnya yang paling terkenal adalah “Shall the Fundamentalists Win?” (1922). Ia berkhotbah menentang kebangkitan tubuh Kristus dan kebenaran Alkitab setiap minggu pada program radionya. Seminari ini adalah ranjang hangatnya para pengkritik Alkitab dan penolakan terhadap teologi evangelikal. “Segala sesuatu yang tertulis di dalam Alkitab tidak dapat dibenarkan secara saintifik dan ditolak sebagai hal yang tidak layak untuk dipercaya! Kitab Kejadian memberikan catatan yang tidak sesuai dengan sejarah dan kepercayaan terhadap berbagai mujizat adalah hal yang tidak bersifat saintifik. Secara historis Yesus dipresentasikan sebagai teladan yang ideal, sementara nilai dari pengantian penebusan melalui kematian-Nya dan kebangkitan fisikal-Nya diingkari. Doa dianggap sebagai sesuatu yang bernilai subyektif. [Tidak menyetujui] hal ini akan dipandang sebagai obyek ejekan atau olok-olok” (Lyall, ibid., hal. 29-30).
Dr. Sung menenggelamkan diri dalam studi teologi liberalnya dengan segala kemampuan inteleknya. Pada tahun itu ia memperoleh nilai-nilai tertinggi, namun berpaling dari Kekristenan sama seperti ketika dulu ia mempelajari Budhisme dan Taoisme. Ia mulai menyanyikan kitab-kitab suci Budha dalam meditasi di kamarnya, dan berharap melalui penyangkalan diri akan membawanya memperoleh damai sejahtera. Ia menulis, ”Jiwaku mengembara di padang gurun.”
Dalam keadaan pikiran ini ia menjadi bersahabat dekat dengan teman-teman sekelasnya dari China, namun faktanya bahwa ia pernah ditunangkan dengan seorang gadis di China yang kemudian ia memutuskan hubungan itu. Hidupnya menjadi berantakan. Ia menulis, “Saya tidak dapat tidur ataupun makan… Hati saya dipenuhi dengan kegalauan yang paling dalam.” Para pejabat di Seminari itu memperhatikan bahwa ia ada dalam keadaan depresi terus menerus.
Dalam keadaan emosional ini ia pergi bersama dengan para mahasiswa lainnya untuk mendengarkan khotbah Dr. I. M. Haldeman, seorang pendeta fundamentalis dari First Baptist Church of New York City. Dr. Haldeman terkenal dengan pernyataannya, “Ia yang mengingkari kelahiran Kristus dari anak dara sama dengan mengingkari Kekristenan Alkitabiah.” Dr. Haldeman pernah ada dalam konflik langsung dengan Harry Emerson Fosdick dan Union Theological Seminary. John Sung pergi untuk mendengar ia berkhotbah oleh karena prasangka. Namun Dr. Haldeman tidak berkhotbah malam itu. Sebaliknya ada seorang gadis berumur lima belas tahun memberikan kesaksiannya. Ia membacakan Kitab Suci dan berbicara tentang kematian Kristus di kayu salib sebagai penggantian penebusan. Sung berkata bahwa ia dapat merasakan kehadiran Allah. Rekan-rekannya dari Seminari itu mengejek dia, namun ia sendiri kembali ke kebaktian penginjilan itu empat malam berturut-turut.
Ia mulai membaca biografi-biografi Kristen untuk menemukan kekuatan apa yang ia rasakan pada saat di kebaktian penginjilan itu. Pada satu sesi di Seminari itu, seorang dosen berbicara dengan keras menentang penggantian penebusan dari kematian Kristus di kayu Salib. John Sung berdiri di akhir pelajaran itu dan mendebat dia dan semua mahasiswa terkejut akan tindakannya itu. Akhirnya, pada tanggal 10 Pebruari 1927 ia mengalami pertobatan sejati. “Ia melihat semua dosa dari hidupnya terbentang di depannya. Pertama yang ia lihat adalah bahwa tidak ada jalan untuk luput dari semua itu dan bahwa ia harus pergi ke Neraka. Ia mencoba untuk melupakan semua itu, namun ia tidak dapat. Kesadaran akan dosa itu menusuk hatinya… Ia membaca kisah tentang Salib dalam Lukas xxiii, dan ketika ia membaca kisah itu begitu hidup.. ia merasa seakan ada di sana di bawah Salib itu dan percaya dosa-dosanya disucikan oleh darah yang mahal itu...Ia terus menangis dan berdoa sampai tengah malam. Kemudian ia [seolah mendengar] suara, ‘Nak, dosa-dosamu telah diampuni,’ dan semua beban dosanya nampak jatuh dari pundaknya pada waktu itu… ia melompat sambil berseru ‘Haleluya!’” (Lyall, ibid., hal. 33-34). Ia berlari sambil bersorak dan memuji Tuhan sambil berkeliling asrama itu. Ia mulai berbicara kepada setiap orang tentang kebutuhan mereka akan Kristus, termasuk kepada teman-teman sekelasnya dan para pengajar di Seminari itu.
Rektor Seminari itu berpikir bahwa ia telah kehilangan kesadarannya karena usaha belajarnya yang terlalu dipaksakan, dan mengalami psikopat dan mereka memasukkannya ke rumah sakit jiwa. Ia menghabiskan enam bulan di rumah sakit jiwa itu. Selama waktu itu ia membaca Alkitab dari permulaan sampai akhir empat puluh kali. “Rumah sakit jiwa itu justru menjadi perguruan tinggi teologi sejati John Sung!” (Lyall, hal. 38). Ia akhirnya menyadari pada kondisi itu bahwa ia harus kembali ke China. John Sung telah memutuskan hubungannya dengan Union Seminary ketika ia membakar buku-buku teologinya, dengan menyebutnya sebagai “buku-buku setan.” Union Seminary tidak pernah menjadi bangga berkenaan dengan hubungan mereka dengan penginjil terbesar dalam sejarah China itu.
Pada perjalanannya kembali ke China ia tahu bahwa ia dapat dengan mudah memperoleh kedudukan sebagai professor kimia di beberapa Universitas di China. “Suatu hari, ketika kapal yang ditumpanginya sudah mendekat ke tujuan perjalanannya, John Sung turun ke kabinnya, mengambil ijazah-ijazah dan medali-medali serta tanda keanggotaannya dalam organisasi-organisasi saintifik terkenal dan membuang semua itu ke laut. Semua ijazahnya tak tercuali ijazah doktornya, yang telah ia perjuangkan demi menyenangkan ayahnya” (Lyall, hal. 40).
Dr. John Sung turun dari kapal itu di Shanghai pada waktu musim gugur tahun 1927, untuk menjadi penginjil paling terkenal dalam sejarah China. Ia sering dijuluki “Wesley dari China.” John Sung menjadi pengkhotbah Injil yang penuh kuasa. Puluhan ribu orang bertobat. Ia juga pernah berkhotbah di Burma, Kamboja, Singapura, Indonesia dan Filipina. Ia selalu berkhotbah dengan seorang penerjemah, bahkan di China. Seperti Whitefield, John Sung secara pribadi memberikan konseling kepada kebanyakan mereka yang telah meresponi khotbahnya. “Orang-orang Kristen di China dan Taiwan hari ini berhutang banyak kepada pelayanan Sung; ia adalah salah satu karunia terbesar Tuhan bagi Timur Jauh pada abad dua pulu (T. Farak, in J. D. Douglas, Ph.D., Who’s Who in Christian History, Tyndale House, 1992, hal 650)
“Apa gunanya seorang memperoleh seluruh dunia, tetapi ia kehilangan nyawanya?” (Markus 8:36).
4 Juni 2009 ditandai peringatan kedua puluh dari “Peristiwa Pembantaian Tiananmen” (“Tiananmen Square Massacre”). Selama enam minggu pada tahun 1989, ribuan orang China, kebanyakan para mahasiswa, mengadakan demonstrasi damai melawan pemerintahan Komunis, untuk menyerukan kebebasan berpikir. Kemudian, pada suatu pagi tanggal 4 Juni, pasukan pemerintah secara terbuka menembaki ribuan demonstran yang tidak bersenjata, ribuan dan tak terhitung jumlahnya orang terbunuh dan ribuan orang yang masih hidup lainnya terluka. Hong Yujian menyaksikan kekerasan yang terjadi di Beijing itu melalui siaran televisi ketika ia ada di University of Pennsylvania sebagai pertukaran mahasiswa. Ia berkata bahwa Pembantaian Massa Tiananmen membuat dia menanyakan pengharapannya dalam bidang sains dan demokrasi dan kemudian memimpinnya menjadi orang Kristen.
Ia berkata pembantaian massa di Tiananmen menolong dia dan yang lain untuk melihat dosa mereka sendiri dan kebutuhan mereka akan Kristus: “Saya berpikir Allah menggunakan ini untuk mempersiapkan jalan dan mempersiapkan hati masyarakat China” (World Magazine, June 6, 2009, p. 38).
World Magazine menjelaskan,
Terjadi ledakan tingkat pertumbuhan Kekristenan di China selama 20 tahun terakhir ini. Para ahli menyatakan urbanisasi dan pertumbuhan jumlah dari para pemikir berpengaruh yang yang percaya Kristus meningkat dengan cepat. OMF International (dulunya China Inland Mission) memperkirakan ada 70 juta orang Kristen di China. Padahal kelompok yang mengatakan sebagai orang Kristen Protestan di China berjumlah kurang dari 1 juta pada tahun 1949 [ketika pemerintah Komunis mulai berkuasa] (ibid.).
Dr. C. L. Cagan, seorang ahli statistik, memperkirakan bahwa sekarang kira-kira ada 700 orang bertobat menjadi Kristen setiap jamnya, dalam 24 jam per hari, di China.
Sejarah Kekristenan di China seharusnya sangat menarik perhatian orang-orang Kristen dimanapun mereka berada. Gerakan misionaris modern di China dapat dikatakan mulai dengan Robert Morrison (1782-1834). Morrison diutus ke China oleh London Missionary Society pada tahun 1807. Dibantu oleh rekan kerjanya, William Milne, ia menerjemahkan Alkitab ke dalam bahasa China pada tahun 1821. Setelah 27 tahun ada di China hanya beberapa orang China yang dibaptis – namun mereka semua adalah orang-orang Kristen yang setia. Alkitab terjemahan bahasa China karya Morrison, dan juga literatur-literatur penginjilan yang ia cetak, menjadi dasar Kekristenan evangelikal di China.
Pada tahun 1853 seorang dokter medis Inggris, James Hudson Taylor, berlayar ke China. Pada tahun 1860 ia mendirikan China Inland Mission, yang sekarang dikenal dengan nama Overseas Missionary Fellowship. Rekanan Taylor dengan cepat tersebar ke seluruh pedalaman China. Hudson Taylor meninggal di Changsha pada tahun 1905.
Pada tahun 1901 John Sung lahir. Ia menjadi terkenal sebagai penginjil terbesar dalam sejarah China. Ribuan orang yang bertobat melalui khotbahnya masih setia kepada Kristus setelah Komunis mulai berkuasa pada tahun 1949. Pada 60 tahun terakhir terjadi ledakan jumlah orang Kristen di China dalam kebangunan rohani Kekristenan terbesar pada sejarah modern. Malam ini saya akan menceritakan kepada Anda kisah yang luar biasa dari Dr. John Sung. Saya akan mulai dengan memberikan garis besar kehidupannya dari Dr. Elgin S. Moyer.
John Sung (1901-1944), penginjil China yang terkenal secara nasional; lahir di Hinghwa, Fukien, China; anak seorang pendeta Methodist. Mengakui Kristus kira-kira pada umur sembilan tahun [?]. Mahasiswa yang brilian; kuliah di Wesleyan University, Ohio State University, dan Union Theological Seminary. Menerima gelar Ph.D. dalam bidang ilmu kimia. Kembali ke China untuk memberitakan Injil daripada mengajar sains. Menghabiskan lima puluh tahun hidupnya untuk memberitakan injil di seluruh China dan Negara-negara sekitarnya dengan kuasa dan pengaruh yang unik (Elgin S. Moyer, Ph.D., Who Was Who in Church History, Moody Press, 1968 edition, hal. 394).
Itu hanyalah sketsa tentang kehidupan John Sung. Kembali ke dalam biografi yang lebih detail, saya tidak percaya bahwa ia bertobat pada waktu ia berumur sembilan tahun. Saya tidak percaya bila ia bertobat sebelum Pebruari 1927.
John Sung sendiri percaya bahwa ia belum bertobat sampai ia melewati beberapa tahun krisis rohani di Amerika. Ketika ia berumur sembilan tahun ada kebangunan rohani di Hinghwa. Pada bulan itu kira-kira ada 3,000 orang Kristen yang masih belum sungguh-sungguh bertobat. Pada Jum’at Agung pagi ia mendengar khotbah tentang ”Yesus di Taman Getsemani.” Pengkhotbah pada waktu itu membandingkan para Murid yang sedang tidur dengan keberanian Yesus. Banyak orang menangis dengan dukacita mendalam di akhir khotbah itu. Di antara orang-orang yang menangis itu adalah John Sung, seorang bocah berumur sembilan tahun dan anak lelaki seorang pendeta Methodis. Yang nampak bagi saya bahwa John Sung “mempersembahkan” hidupnya kepada Kristus namun belum sungguh-sungguh bertobat pada waktu itu. Sebagaimana pendeta pendahulu saya, Dr. Timothy Lin (yang ayahnya juga adalah seorang pendeta), John Sung mulai berkhotbah dan membantu ayahnya sebelum umur tiga belas tahun. Namun, juga seperti Dr. Lin, ia belum mengalami pertobatan sejati pada waktu itu. Ia adalah siswa yang rajin dan menyelesaikan sekolah menengah atasnya dengan prestasi terbaik di kelasnya. Pada waktu itu ia menjadi terkenal sebagai “pendeta cilik.” Namun kendati semua aktivitas hatinya dan semangatnya tidak semuanya memuaskan. Pekerjaan yang ia telah lakukan dalam pelayanannya digambarkan “sama spektakulernya dengan birunya bulu burung pekakak, suburnya seperti daun-daun pada musim panas, namun tanpa satupun buah segar untuk diberikan kepada Tuhan Yesus” (Leslie T. Lyall, A Biography of John Sung, China Inland Mission, 1965 edition, hal. 15).
Pada tahun 1919, Sung, yang pada waktu itu berumur 18 tahun, pergi ke Amerika, dan diterima di Ohio Wesleyan University dengan memperoleh beasiswa. Ia mulai mengambil kelas pra-medis dan pra-teologikal, namun berhenti dari mata kuliah pra-teologikal dan memutuskan untuk mengambil spesialis dalam bidang matematika dan kimia. Ia menghadiri kebaktian secara rutin dan mengorganisir kelompok-kelompok penginjilan di kalangan mahasiswa. Namun akhirnya ia mulai menolak belajar Alkitab dan berdoa, dan berbuat curang pada salah satu dari makalah-makalah ujiannya. Ia tamat pada tahun 1923 dengan predikat cum laude, sebagai salah satu dari empat mahasiswa paling berprestasi dari tiga ratus mahasiswa. Ia dianugerahi medali emas dan uang tunai untuk bidang fisika dan kimia, dan terpilih untuk menjadi anggota Phi Beta Kappa Fraternity, suatu masyarakat ekslusif dari para sarjana terkemuka, dan diberikan kunci emas, suatu lencana istimewa dalam ilmu pengetahuan.
Ia ditawari beasiswa dari banyak universitas, termasuk Harvard. Ia menerima beasiswa untuk program Master of Science di Ohio State University. Ia menyelesaikan program ini hanya dalam sembilan bulan! Ia ditawari beasiswa untuk belajar medis di Harvard. Ia juga diberi penawaran lain untuk belajar di seminari. Ia merasa bahwa ia harus belajar teologi, namun ketenaran yang menghampirinya menumpulkan keinginannya untuk menjadi hamba Tuhan. Oleh sebab itu akhirnya ia masuk program doktoral bidang kimia di Ohio State University. Ia menyelesaikan program Ph.D. dalam waktu hanya duapuluh satu bulan! Kemudian ia menjadi orang China pertama yang menyandang gelar Ph.D. Ia dilukiskan dalam surat kabar sebagai “mahasiswa paling terkenal dari Ohio.” “Namun dalam hatinya yang paling dalam ia tidak memiliki damai sejahtera. Kegelisahan rohaninya mulai tumbuh dalam periode-periode pergumulan yang mendalam” (Lyall, ibid., hal. 22).
Pada waktu itu ia berada di bawah pengaruh teologi liberal, dan pengajaran mereka tentang “injil sosial.” Teologi liberal mengajarkan bahwa Yesus adalah sosok teladan yang agung, namun bukan Juruselamat. Nampak bagi saya bahwa John Sung berpikir tentang Yesus sebagai “teladan agung” ketika ia masih berumur sembilan tahun, dan karena alasan itulah ia masih memiliki pertobatan yang palsu pada waktu itu. Namun Allah masih memanggil dia. Suatu malam ketika ia duduk sendirian ia seakan mendengar suara Tuhan yang berkata kepadanya, “Apa untungnya ini bagi seseorang, jika ia memperoleh seluruh dunia, namun kehilangan jiwanya sendiri?”
Hari berikutnya ia berbicara dengan seorang professor Methodis liberal. Ia menceritakan kepada professor itu bahwa sesungguhnya ia datang ke Amerika untuk belajar teologi. Profesor itu menantang dia untuk pergi ke New York untuk studi agama di sebuah seminari yang sangat liberal yaitu Union Theological Seminary. Dengan hanya sedikit keraguan ia memutuskan untuk pergi. Di Union Theological Seminary ia diberi beasiswa penuh dan pinjaman bantuan untuk penghidupan. Kemudian ia berkata bahwa ia tidak tertarik untuk melayani, namun hanya ingin belajar teologi saja selama setahun untuk menyenangkan ayahnya, dan kemudian kembali ke karir saintifiknya. Hatinya penuh dengan hura-hura dan gelap.
Pada musim gugur tahun 1926 Dr. John Sung mendaftar di Union Theological Seminary. Dr. Henry Sloane Coffin seorang yang sangat liberal baru saja menduduki jabatan sebagai rektor seminari itu. Di antara dosen-dosen yang sangat liberal di seminari itu salah satunya adalah Dr. Harry Emerson Fosdick, seorang penulis beberapa buku yang menyerang Fundamentalisme, seperti misalnya bukunya yang berjudul “The Modern Use of the Bible” dan “The Manhood of the Master.” Ceramahnya yang paling terkenal adalah “Shall the Fundamentalists Win?” (1922). Ia berkhotbah menentang kebangkitan tubuh Kristus dan kebenaran Alkitab setiap minggu pada program radionya. Seminari ini adalah ranjang hangatnya para pengkritik Alkitab dan penolakan terhadap teologi evangelikal. “Segala sesuatu yang tertulis di dalam Alkitab tidak dapat dibenarkan secara saintifik dan ditolak sebagai hal yang tidak layak untuk dipercaya! Kitab Kejadian memberikan catatan yang tidak sesuai dengan sejarah dan kepercayaan terhadap berbagai mujizat adalah hal yang tidak bersifat saintifik. Secara historis Yesus dipresentasikan sebagai teladan yang ideal, sementara nilai dari pengantian penebusan melalui kematian-Nya dan kebangkitan fisikal-Nya diingkari. Doa dianggap sebagai sesuatu yang bernilai subyektif. [Tidak menyetujui] hal ini akan dipandang sebagai obyek ejekan atau olok-olok” (Lyall, ibid., hal. 29-30).
Dr. Sung menenggelamkan diri dalam studi teologi liberalnya dengan segala kemampuan inteleknya. Pada tahun itu ia memperoleh nilai-nilai tertinggi, namun berpaling dari Kekristenan sama seperti ketika dulu ia mempelajari Budhisme dan Taoisme. Ia mulai menyanyikan kitab-kitab suci Budha dalam meditasi di kamarnya, dan berharap melalui penyangkalan diri akan membawanya memperoleh damai sejahtera. Ia menulis, ”Jiwaku mengembara di padang gurun.”
Dalam keadaan pikiran ini ia menjadi bersahabat dekat dengan teman-teman sekelasnya dari China, namun faktanya bahwa ia pernah ditunangkan dengan seorang gadis di China yang kemudian ia memutuskan hubungan itu. Hidupnya menjadi berantakan. Ia menulis, “Saya tidak dapat tidur ataupun makan… Hati saya dipenuhi dengan kegalauan yang paling dalam.” Para pejabat di Seminari itu memperhatikan bahwa ia ada dalam keadaan depresi terus menerus.
Dalam keadaan emosional ini ia pergi bersama dengan para mahasiswa lainnya untuk mendengarkan khotbah Dr. I. M. Haldeman, seorang pendeta fundamentalis dari First Baptist Church of New York City. Dr. Haldeman terkenal dengan pernyataannya, “Ia yang mengingkari kelahiran Kristus dari anak dara sama dengan mengingkari Kekristenan Alkitabiah.” Dr. Haldeman pernah ada dalam konflik langsung dengan Harry Emerson Fosdick dan Union Theological Seminary. John Sung pergi untuk mendengar ia berkhotbah oleh karena prasangka. Namun Dr. Haldeman tidak berkhotbah malam itu. Sebaliknya ada seorang gadis berumur lima belas tahun memberikan kesaksiannya. Ia membacakan Kitab Suci dan berbicara tentang kematian Kristus di kayu salib sebagai penggantian penebusan. Sung berkata bahwa ia dapat merasakan kehadiran Allah. Rekan-rekannya dari Seminari itu mengejek dia, namun ia sendiri kembali ke kebaktian penginjilan itu empat malam berturut-turut.
Ia mulai membaca biografi-biografi Kristen untuk menemukan kekuatan apa yang ia rasakan pada saat di kebaktian penginjilan itu. Pada satu sesi di Seminari itu, seorang dosen berbicara dengan keras menentang penggantian penebusan dari kematian Kristus di kayu Salib. John Sung berdiri di akhir pelajaran itu dan mendebat dia dan semua mahasiswa terkejut akan tindakannya itu. Akhirnya, pada tanggal 10 Pebruari 1927 ia mengalami pertobatan sejati. “Ia melihat semua dosa dari hidupnya terbentang di depannya. Pertama yang ia lihat adalah bahwa tidak ada jalan untuk luput dari semua itu dan bahwa ia harus pergi ke Neraka. Ia mencoba untuk melupakan semua itu, namun ia tidak dapat. Kesadaran akan dosa itu menusuk hatinya… Ia membaca kisah tentang Salib dalam Lukas xxiii, dan ketika ia membaca kisah itu begitu hidup.. ia merasa seakan ada di sana di bawah Salib itu dan percaya dosa-dosanya disucikan oleh darah yang mahal itu...Ia terus menangis dan berdoa sampai tengah malam. Kemudian ia [seolah mendengar] suara, ‘Nak, dosa-dosamu telah diampuni,’ dan semua beban dosanya nampak jatuh dari pundaknya pada waktu itu… ia melompat sambil berseru ‘Haleluya!’” (Lyall, ibid., hal. 33-34). Ia berlari sambil bersorak dan memuji Tuhan sambil berkeliling asrama itu. Ia mulai berbicara kepada setiap orang tentang kebutuhan mereka akan Kristus, termasuk kepada teman-teman sekelasnya dan para pengajar di Seminari itu.
Rektor Seminari itu berpikir bahwa ia telah kehilangan kesadarannya karena usaha belajarnya yang terlalu dipaksakan, dan mengalami psikopat dan mereka memasukkannya ke rumah sakit jiwa. Ia menghabiskan enam bulan di rumah sakit jiwa itu. Selama waktu itu ia membaca Alkitab dari permulaan sampai akhir empat puluh kali. “Rumah sakit jiwa itu justru menjadi perguruan tinggi teologi sejati John Sung!” (Lyall, hal. 38). Ia akhirnya menyadari pada kondisi itu bahwa ia harus kembali ke China. John Sung telah memutuskan hubungannya dengan Union Seminary ketika ia membakar buku-buku teologinya, dengan menyebutnya sebagai “buku-buku setan.” Union Seminary tidak pernah menjadi bangga berkenaan dengan hubungan mereka dengan penginjil terbesar dalam sejarah China itu.
Pada perjalanannya kembali ke China ia tahu bahwa ia dapat dengan mudah memperoleh kedudukan sebagai professor kimia di beberapa Universitas di China. “Suatu hari, ketika kapal yang ditumpanginya sudah mendekat ke tujuan perjalanannya, John Sung turun ke kabinnya, mengambil ijazah-ijazah dan medali-medali serta tanda keanggotaannya dalam organisasi-organisasi saintifik terkenal dan membuang semua itu ke laut. Semua ijazahnya tak tercuali ijazah doktornya, yang telah ia perjuangkan demi menyenangkan ayahnya” (Lyall, hal. 40).
Dr. John Sung turun dari kapal itu di Shanghai pada waktu musim gugur tahun 1927, untuk menjadi penginjil paling terkenal dalam sejarah China. Ia sering dijuluki “Wesley dari China.” John Sung menjadi pengkhotbah Injil yang penuh kuasa. Puluhan ribu orang bertobat. Ia juga pernah berkhotbah di Burma, Kamboja, Singapura, Indonesia dan Filipina. Ia selalu berkhotbah dengan seorang penerjemah, bahkan di China. Seperti Whitefield, John Sung secara pribadi memberikan konseling kepada kebanyakan mereka yang telah meresponi khotbahnya. “Orang-orang Kristen di China dan Taiwan hari ini berhutang banyak kepada pelayanan Sung; ia adalah salah satu karunia terbesar Tuhan bagi Timur Jauh pada abad dua pulu (T. Farak, in J. D. Douglas, Ph.D., Who’s Who in Christian History, Tyndale House, 1992, hal 650)
Jumat, 10 Juli 2009
BENARKAH GERAKAN CALVINIS TIDAK ALKITABIAH?
(Oleh: Dance S Suat)
Sejak Jacob Hermann Arminius (1560-1609 AD) seorang Reformed Calvinis di Belanda memberikan reaksi yang keras terhadap pemikiran John Calvin mengenai soverign grace of God, yang termuat dalam bukunya Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin mengatakan;
God does not indiscriminately adopt all into the hope of salvation but gives to some what he denies to other God he also predestinate the fall into sin. (John Calvin, Institute of Christian Religion, ed. John T. Mcneill. (Phil: The Westmister Press, 1973). Hal. 921)
Hal ini membuat Arminius membuat reaksi yang keras dengan mengeluarkan “Declarations to the Lords of the state of Holland” pada tanggal 30 oktober 1608. Isi dari deklarasi ini berupa peringatan terhadap gereja-gereja Reformed di Belanda tentang kesesatan konsep Supra-Lapsarian. Sejak saat itu banyak tulisan yang bermunculan menyerang pemikiran John Calvin mengenai predestinasi, hingga sekarang. Bahkan beberapa tulisan bersifat membabi-buta dan bersifat spekulatif.
Tulisan-tulisan yang sifatnya membabi-buta dan spekulatif berusaha membuktikan ketidak-alkitabiahan pemikiran Calvin dan Calvinis mengenai predestinasi, tetapi keseluruhan dari banyak tulisan yang membabi-buta dan spekulatif ini tidak membangun suatu konsep yang Alkitabiah sebaliknya tulisan-tulisan tersebut telihat sangat dangkal memahami pemikiran Calvin.
Konsep supralapsarian (Allah sudah mempredestinasikan nasib manusia sebelum ada kejatuhan manusia dalam dosa) merupakan hasil perumusan Theodore Beza dari konsep pemikiran John Calvin mengenai pemilihan, pemikiran ini dipopulerkan oleh Prof. Gomarus dari Layden tahun 1594.
Arminius menolak pemikiran supralapsarian, sebab menurutnya ada tiga hukum yang Allah berikan secara universal yakni, salvation of all (menghendaki semua orang diselamatkan), Christ’s death for all (Kristus mati untuk semua manusia), dan offer means of salvation to all (tawaran Injil keselamatan untuk semua orang). Ketiga hal ini merupakan penetapan Allah dari kekal.
Ketiga hukum ini dijabarkan menjadi lima pasal pemikiran Arminius, yang mengundang kontroversi di seluruh Eropa. Sesudah kematian Arminius para penganut paham supralapsarian bersidang selama enam bulan (november 1618-mei 1619) yang diikuti delapan belas delegasi dan delapan puluh anggota, persidangan (sinod of Dort) ini menghasilkan lima pokok Calvinis yang dikenal dengan TULIP.
Jika kita mengamati latar belakang munculnya gerakan Calvinis, maka kita akan melihat titik tolak permasalahan dengan jelas. John Calvin dan Calvinis melihat kedaulatan Allah dan iman dari sisi pandang esensi dan mengabaikan sisi pandang eksitensi dari iman tersebut, hal ini terlihat dari konsep pemikiran supralapsarian yang tidak diterima sepenuhnya oleh kalangan calvinis. Beberapa dari penganut Calvinis menolak pemikiran supralapsarian dan merumuskan konsep lebih moderat yang dikenal dengan pemikiran infralapsarian.
Pemahaman John Calvin dan Calvinis mengenai esensi iman itu Alkitabiah
Alkitab menjelaskan bahwa, semua manusia telah berdosa dan dosa telah menyebabkan manusia tidak memiliki daya apapun untuk menyelamatkan dirinya dari penghukuman Allah (Yesaya 64: 6; Roma 3: 23). Dengan rencana dan perbuatan apapun yang dilakukan manusia, manusia tidak dapat merancang jalan keselamatan. Bagi Allah segala rancangan dan perbuatan manusia berdosa untuk menyelamatkan diri merupakan suatu kekejian (Yesaya 64:6).
Allah menuntut kesucian sebagai jalan penyelamatan. Namun kesucian manusia adalah kesucian yang berdosa sehingga bagi Allah merupakan suatu kekejian, apakah yang dapat diperbuat manusia jika dasar-dasar kesucian telah dihancurkan? (Mazmur 11:3) jawabannya tidak ada selain dari kematian yang kekal (Roma 6:23).
Hukum Taurat merupakan standar kesucian Allah. Adakah seorang manusia dapat menjalankan hukum taurat secara sempurna? Jelas tidak (Galatia 3:11). Dasar hukum taurat adalah perbuatan (Galatia 3:12). Dan dari sinilah kita tahu bahwa tidak ada seorang manusia pun yang dapat selamat karena perbuatan.
Inilah sekilas pemahamana yang melandaskan pemikiran John Calvin dan Calvinis untuk meremuskan konsep predestinasi dan doktrin pemilihan mereka. Bukan manusia yang berinisiatif menyelamatkan diri sendiri dan mencari Allah, tetapi Allahlah yang berinisiatif mencari dan menyelamatkan manusia (soverighty of God/ kedaulatan Allah).
Adam dan Hawa yang telah berdosa takut dan bersembunyi ketika mendengar suara Tuhan (Kejadian 3:8), tetapi Tuhan mencari mereka untuk menyelamatkan mereka dari keberdosaan (Kejadian 3:9; 15; !Timotius 2:15). Hal ini terbukti dengan Tuhan menumpahkan darah binatang (domba) dan mengambil kulitnya untuk dibuat menjadi pakaian Adam dan Hawa (Kejadian 3:21).
Dosa menyebabkan manusia takut dan menjauhi Tuhan, manusia yang berdosa memiliki kecendrungan hati melawan Tuhan (Kejadian 6:5), namun Tuhan yang maha kasih senantiasa menunjukkan kesabarannya supaya manusia dapat diselamatkan melalui AnugerahNya (2 Petrus 3:9). Tanpa anuggerah Tuhan manusia tidak dapat selamat (Yohanes 3:16), anuggerah itu dijanji melalui Injil (kabar baik kepada manusia tentang pemberasan dosa).
Kepada Adam dan orang-orang perjanjian lama Tuhan memerintah mereka supaya percaya kepada anuggerah Injil Tuhan mengenai pemberasan dosa. Tuhan memerintah kepada mereka untuk mengorban domba sebagai simbol dari anuggerah penyelamat yang akan datang membereskan dosa manusia, janji ini digenapi oleh Yesus Kristus yang mati tersalib untuk membereskan dosa-dosa manusia. Dan setiap kita yang ingin diselamatkan tidak boleh menolak anuggerah salib Kristus, karena hanya melalui penebusan Yesus Kristuslah manusia dapat diselamatkan dan disucikan dihadapan Allah.
Dan orang-orang yang telah diselamatkan hanya melalui anuggerah Allah hidup dipimpin oleh Roh Kudus (Efesus 1:13-14), dan bagi mereka yang telah diselamatkan Allah memberikan kepastian keselamatan, serta janji pemeliharan melalui Roh Kudus untuk memperoleh seluruhnya, yaitu penebusan yang menjadikan kita milik Allah, untuk memuji kemulianNya. Karena Allah yang membentuk manusia percaya bukan manusia yang membentuk Allah (Yesaya 10:15; 45:9; Yeremia 18:16; Matius 11:25-26; 20:15; Roma 9:17; 19-21)
Dari penguraian di atas kita dapat menyimpulkan bahwa, secara esensi pemahaman Calvin dan Calvinis mengenai esensi iman cukup Alkitabiah. Hal inilah yang menyebabkan orang-orang Kristen yang tingkat pemahaman Alkitab’bisa dikatakan pada level menengah’ tidak dapat melihat kesalahan Calvinis. Sebab mereka tidak dapat mengharmonisasikan bagian-bagian Alkitab secara keseluruhan dan cendrung konservatif dengan pemikiran tokoh-tokoh Calvinis.
Ketidak-Alkitabiahan Pemikiran Calvinis tentang Eksistensi Iman
Allah menciptakan manusia dengan kehendak bebas untuk menentukan pilihan-pilihan dalam hidup, dosa pun tidak menyebabkann manusia kehilangan keinginan untuk memilih. Manusia yang telah berdosa masih tetap memiliki kehendak bebas, hanya kecendrungan pilihan manusia selalu pada hal-hal yang berdosa (Kejadian 6:5).
Pemikiran doktrin pemilihan dan predestinasi Calvinis cendrung dibangun di atas suatu konsep penafsiran yang salah dari ayat-ayat Alkitab. Alkitab tidak pernah mengajarkan bahwa Allah mengikat kehendak bebas manusia untuk memilih (sehingga bukan manusia yang memilih apa yang ia kehendaki tetapi Allah memilih dan menentukkan apa yang Ia kehendaki). Salah satu contoh yang dapat kita pelajari dalam Alkitab yakni, ketika Allah memanggil Yeremia untuk menjadi Nabi. Allah menyatakan kepada Yeremia segala otoritasNya terhadap hidup Yeremia. Namun demikianpun Allah memberikan pilihan kepada Yeremia untuk tunduk kepada otoritasNya atau menolak otoritasNya (jika Yeremia tunduk pada otoritas Allah, maka Allah akan menyertainya, tetapi jika tidak maka Yeremia akanmendapat resiko dari penolakannya. Yeremia 1:17).
Calvinis cendrung melihat doktrin pemilihan dan predestinasi dari sisi kedaulatan Allah dalam hidup manusia secara pribadi, sehingga mereka mengajarkan bahwa Allahlah yang memilih dan menentukan seseorang untuk diselamatkan. Tetapi doktrin pemilihan dan predestinasi yang terdapat dalam Alkitab mengajarkan bahwa, predestinasi dan pemilihan ada pada inisiatif penyelamatannya Allah kepada manusia.
Konsep supralapsarian Calvinis sangat apriori dan sifatnya spekulatif terhadap sifat hakekat kemaha-tahuan Allah. Konsep ini dibangun di atas dasar pemahaman bahwa, sebelum penciptaan dan kejatuhan manusia Allah sudah menentukan orang yang dipilih untuk selamat dan binasa. Jelas pemikiran konsep ini melampui apa yang Allah nyatakan kepada manusia (karena manusia hanya mengenal Allah sejauh mana Allah memperkenalkan diriNya kepada manusia). Saya sangat setuju dengan pernyataan Arminius dalam “Declarations to the Lords of the state of Holland” yang mengatakan;
God’s appointmen of Christ to be a savior, and in this (and not in God’s instrutable will) our salvation rest. Believer’s assurance depends upon the decree the who believe shall be saved. But the doctrin of this predestination (of supralapsarianism) embraces within itself neither the first nor the second number of the sillogism…but the supralapsarianism position can not accommodate such matters. ( James Nichols, Declaration of Sentiment of Armenianism. Work I. London: Logman, 1925, hal. 555)
Dalam hemat saya Calvinis tidak mengakui keselamatan oleh iman, melainkan mereka memandang keselamatan merupakan ketetapan Allah dari kekal. Alkitab memberikan penjelasan bahwa manusia selamat hanya oleh iman (Roma 1:16-17; Efesus 2:8-9).
Sejak kejatuhan manusia ke dalam dosa Allah sudah menetapkan (predestinasikan) janji mengenai juruselamat yang akan membereskan dosa manusia (Kejadian 3:15). Janji penetapan juruselamat yang akan datang, pada masa perjanjian lama disimbolkan dengan domba. Allah memerintahkan kepada manusia untuk mengakui dosa-dosanya dan mengorbankan domba sembagai simbol penghapus dosa, barang siapa yang melakukan ibadah domba korban dan mengimani juruselamat yang akan datang akan diselamatkan.
Penetapan akan datang juruselamat itu telah dinubuatkan dalam nubuatan kitab-kitab perjanjian lama, dan tidak satu nubuatan pun yang gagal mengenai kedatangan Juruselamat. Sehingga dengan Allah menetapkan janji kedatangan juruselamat, maka melalui ketetapan Allah itulah manusia beroleh selamat, sesuai yang dituliskan Roma 8: 29-30. Setiap orang yang telah dipilih dan ditentukan menjadi serupa dengan gambar AnakNya (siapa yang percaya pada penetapan janji penyelamatan mereka yang dipilih Allah).
Alkitab mengajarkan bahwa, keselamatan manusia sudah ditetapkan Allah (mereka yang selamat adalah mereka yang percaya pada Yesus Kristus yang sudah mati tersalib melunasi semua dosa manusia, dan mereka yang tidak percaya adalah mereka yang binasa Yohanes 3:36) dan penetapan keselamatan manusia hanya melalui satu anuggerah yakni anuggerah penebusan Yesus Kristus di atas kayu salib Kisah Rasul 2:36 tidak ada jalan lain untuk manusia dapat diselamatkan, hanya melalui percaya kepada Yesus Kristus yang telah mati untuk dosa-dosa manusia dan bangkit dari kematian (1Korintus 15:2-3).
Jadi orang-orang yang diselamatkan menurut Alkitab ialah mereka yang percaya dengan iman bahwa Yesus Kristus sudah ditetapkan mati dan bangkit untuk dosa-dosa manusia, tidak ada jalan lain selain daripada anuggerah salib ini untuk mendapat kasih karunia keselamatan. Tidak dengan perbuatan, amal, ibadah melainkan hanya dengan kasih karunia penebusan Yesus Kristus. Jelas hal ini bertolak-belakang dengan konsep supralapsarian Calvinis, yang percaya manusia telah ditetapkan tanpa syarat apapun untuk diselamatkan dan tidak adapenolakan untuk binasa.
Dapatkah Konsep Calvinis Menyelamatkan?
Alkitab mengajarkan bahwa, hanya Injil yang merupakan kekauatan Allahlah yang dapat menyelamatkan semua orang (Roma 1:16). Jadi apakah Injil itu? Injil adalah kabar baik yang tentang pemberasan dosa manusia oleh juruselamat kita Yesus Kristus yang mati tersalib menanggung dosa manusia (Ia sendiri tidak berdosa 2 Petrus 2:22; Ibrani 4:15). Orang-orang percaya dengan iman dan mengakui dosa-dosa mereka terhadap karya keselamatan ini, akan memperoleh hidup yang kekal (Roma 1:17).
Paket Injil yang menyelamatkan adalah paket Injil yang tidak ditambah dan yang tidak dikurangi, secara garis besar paket Injil yang sempurna tercantum dalam Amanat Agung Matius 28:19-20 . Dimulai dengan mendengar dan berseru kepada nama Yesus juruselamat yang membereskan dosa-dosanya, kemudian memberi diri menjadi murid dengan dibaptis, serta melakukan segala ajaran Tuhan.
Pada prinsipnya hampir semua kalangan Kristen berseru dan mengakui Yesus Kristus sebagai juruselamat, tetapi pada kenyataannya banyak sekali orang kristen yang tidak melakukan ajaran Tuhan Yesus. Bagaimanakah orang Kristen yang tidakl melakukan ajaran Tuhan? Jawaban adalah binasa! Hal ini sama dengan orang-orang yang percaya kepada paket Injil yang ditambahkan dan dikurangi, mereka pun akan binasa.
Salah satu pembelajaran yang Alkitab ajarkan mengenai konsep Injil yang ditambahkan terjadi pada jemaat Galatia. Pada waktu Rasul Paulus memberitakan Injil di kota Galatia, ada orang-orang yang percaya dan menerima Injil sehingga terbentuklah jemaat di Galatia. Sesudah itu Paulus meninggal jemaat di Galatia, ia mendengar bahwa ada sekolompok orang yang mengajarkan bahwa iman yang menyelamatkan tidak hanya percaya Yesus, tetapi harus ditambah melakukan hukum taurat salah satu bukti ialah dengan disunat. Dan dengan tegas Paulus mengatakan bahwa, Siapa yang menyunatkan dirinya dan hidup di bawah hukum taurat lepas dari kasih karuni (Galatia 5:3-4) artinya binasa karena tidak ada seorangpun yang selamat karena melakukan hukum taurat.
Oleh karena itu Injil yang menyelamatkan adalah paket Injil yang utuh (tidak dapat ditambahkan dan tidak dapat dikurangi). Dari pemahaman kosep supralapsarian Calvinis yang mengabaikan aspek iman dan kehendak bebas manusia untuk memilih, jelas bahwa konsep supralapsarian Calvinis tidak menyelamatkan, karena secara jelas konsep ini mengurangi karya penebusan Yesus Kristus dalam diri manusia.
Dua Karya Ilmiah yang sudah saya tulis; tinjau theologis tentang prdestinasi dan Sintesis Noumena Atribut Allah.
Diposkan oleh Agaphe Baptis Church di 21:33
Sejak Jacob Hermann Arminius (1560-1609 AD) seorang Reformed Calvinis di Belanda memberikan reaksi yang keras terhadap pemikiran John Calvin mengenai soverign grace of God, yang termuat dalam bukunya Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin mengatakan;
God does not indiscriminately adopt all into the hope of salvation but gives to some what he denies to other God he also predestinate the fall into sin. (John Calvin, Institute of Christian Religion, ed. John T. Mcneill. (Phil: The Westmister Press, 1973). Hal. 921)
Hal ini membuat Arminius membuat reaksi yang keras dengan mengeluarkan “Declarations to the Lords of the state of Holland” pada tanggal 30 oktober 1608. Isi dari deklarasi ini berupa peringatan terhadap gereja-gereja Reformed di Belanda tentang kesesatan konsep Supra-Lapsarian. Sejak saat itu banyak tulisan yang bermunculan menyerang pemikiran John Calvin mengenai predestinasi, hingga sekarang. Bahkan beberapa tulisan bersifat membabi-buta dan bersifat spekulatif.
Tulisan-tulisan yang sifatnya membabi-buta dan spekulatif berusaha membuktikan ketidak-alkitabiahan pemikiran Calvin dan Calvinis mengenai predestinasi, tetapi keseluruhan dari banyak tulisan yang membabi-buta dan spekulatif ini tidak membangun suatu konsep yang Alkitabiah sebaliknya tulisan-tulisan tersebut telihat sangat dangkal memahami pemikiran Calvin.
Konsep supralapsarian (Allah sudah mempredestinasikan nasib manusia sebelum ada kejatuhan manusia dalam dosa) merupakan hasil perumusan Theodore Beza dari konsep pemikiran John Calvin mengenai pemilihan, pemikiran ini dipopulerkan oleh Prof. Gomarus dari Layden tahun 1594.
Arminius menolak pemikiran supralapsarian, sebab menurutnya ada tiga hukum yang Allah berikan secara universal yakni, salvation of all (menghendaki semua orang diselamatkan), Christ’s death for all (Kristus mati untuk semua manusia), dan offer means of salvation to all (tawaran Injil keselamatan untuk semua orang). Ketiga hal ini merupakan penetapan Allah dari kekal.
Ketiga hukum ini dijabarkan menjadi lima pasal pemikiran Arminius, yang mengundang kontroversi di seluruh Eropa. Sesudah kematian Arminius para penganut paham supralapsarian bersidang selama enam bulan (november 1618-mei 1619) yang diikuti delapan belas delegasi dan delapan puluh anggota, persidangan (sinod of Dort) ini menghasilkan lima pokok Calvinis yang dikenal dengan TULIP.
Jika kita mengamati latar belakang munculnya gerakan Calvinis, maka kita akan melihat titik tolak permasalahan dengan jelas. John Calvin dan Calvinis melihat kedaulatan Allah dan iman dari sisi pandang esensi dan mengabaikan sisi pandang eksitensi dari iman tersebut, hal ini terlihat dari konsep pemikiran supralapsarian yang tidak diterima sepenuhnya oleh kalangan calvinis. Beberapa dari penganut Calvinis menolak pemikiran supralapsarian dan merumuskan konsep lebih moderat yang dikenal dengan pemikiran infralapsarian.
Pemahaman John Calvin dan Calvinis mengenai esensi iman itu Alkitabiah
Alkitab menjelaskan bahwa, semua manusia telah berdosa dan dosa telah menyebabkan manusia tidak memiliki daya apapun untuk menyelamatkan dirinya dari penghukuman Allah (Yesaya 64: 6; Roma 3: 23). Dengan rencana dan perbuatan apapun yang dilakukan manusia, manusia tidak dapat merancang jalan keselamatan. Bagi Allah segala rancangan dan perbuatan manusia berdosa untuk menyelamatkan diri merupakan suatu kekejian (Yesaya 64:6).
Allah menuntut kesucian sebagai jalan penyelamatan. Namun kesucian manusia adalah kesucian yang berdosa sehingga bagi Allah merupakan suatu kekejian, apakah yang dapat diperbuat manusia jika dasar-dasar kesucian telah dihancurkan? (Mazmur 11:3) jawabannya tidak ada selain dari kematian yang kekal (Roma 6:23).
Hukum Taurat merupakan standar kesucian Allah. Adakah seorang manusia dapat menjalankan hukum taurat secara sempurna? Jelas tidak (Galatia 3:11). Dasar hukum taurat adalah perbuatan (Galatia 3:12). Dan dari sinilah kita tahu bahwa tidak ada seorang manusia pun yang dapat selamat karena perbuatan.
Inilah sekilas pemahamana yang melandaskan pemikiran John Calvin dan Calvinis untuk meremuskan konsep predestinasi dan doktrin pemilihan mereka. Bukan manusia yang berinisiatif menyelamatkan diri sendiri dan mencari Allah, tetapi Allahlah yang berinisiatif mencari dan menyelamatkan manusia (soverighty of God/ kedaulatan Allah).
Adam dan Hawa yang telah berdosa takut dan bersembunyi ketika mendengar suara Tuhan (Kejadian 3:8), tetapi Tuhan mencari mereka untuk menyelamatkan mereka dari keberdosaan (Kejadian 3:9; 15; !Timotius 2:15). Hal ini terbukti dengan Tuhan menumpahkan darah binatang (domba) dan mengambil kulitnya untuk dibuat menjadi pakaian Adam dan Hawa (Kejadian 3:21).
Dosa menyebabkan manusia takut dan menjauhi Tuhan, manusia yang berdosa memiliki kecendrungan hati melawan Tuhan (Kejadian 6:5), namun Tuhan yang maha kasih senantiasa menunjukkan kesabarannya supaya manusia dapat diselamatkan melalui AnugerahNya (2 Petrus 3:9). Tanpa anuggerah Tuhan manusia tidak dapat selamat (Yohanes 3:16), anuggerah itu dijanji melalui Injil (kabar baik kepada manusia tentang pemberasan dosa).
Kepada Adam dan orang-orang perjanjian lama Tuhan memerintah mereka supaya percaya kepada anuggerah Injil Tuhan mengenai pemberasan dosa. Tuhan memerintah kepada mereka untuk mengorban domba sebagai simbol dari anuggerah penyelamat yang akan datang membereskan dosa manusia, janji ini digenapi oleh Yesus Kristus yang mati tersalib untuk membereskan dosa-dosa manusia. Dan setiap kita yang ingin diselamatkan tidak boleh menolak anuggerah salib Kristus, karena hanya melalui penebusan Yesus Kristuslah manusia dapat diselamatkan dan disucikan dihadapan Allah.
Dan orang-orang yang telah diselamatkan hanya melalui anuggerah Allah hidup dipimpin oleh Roh Kudus (Efesus 1:13-14), dan bagi mereka yang telah diselamatkan Allah memberikan kepastian keselamatan, serta janji pemeliharan melalui Roh Kudus untuk memperoleh seluruhnya, yaitu penebusan yang menjadikan kita milik Allah, untuk memuji kemulianNya. Karena Allah yang membentuk manusia percaya bukan manusia yang membentuk Allah (Yesaya 10:15; 45:9; Yeremia 18:16; Matius 11:25-26; 20:15; Roma 9:17; 19-21)
Dari penguraian di atas kita dapat menyimpulkan bahwa, secara esensi pemahaman Calvin dan Calvinis mengenai esensi iman cukup Alkitabiah. Hal inilah yang menyebabkan orang-orang Kristen yang tingkat pemahaman Alkitab’bisa dikatakan pada level menengah’ tidak dapat melihat kesalahan Calvinis. Sebab mereka tidak dapat mengharmonisasikan bagian-bagian Alkitab secara keseluruhan dan cendrung konservatif dengan pemikiran tokoh-tokoh Calvinis.
Ketidak-Alkitabiahan Pemikiran Calvinis tentang Eksistensi Iman
Allah menciptakan manusia dengan kehendak bebas untuk menentukan pilihan-pilihan dalam hidup, dosa pun tidak menyebabkann manusia kehilangan keinginan untuk memilih. Manusia yang telah berdosa masih tetap memiliki kehendak bebas, hanya kecendrungan pilihan manusia selalu pada hal-hal yang berdosa (Kejadian 6:5).
Pemikiran doktrin pemilihan dan predestinasi Calvinis cendrung dibangun di atas suatu konsep penafsiran yang salah dari ayat-ayat Alkitab. Alkitab tidak pernah mengajarkan bahwa Allah mengikat kehendak bebas manusia untuk memilih (sehingga bukan manusia yang memilih apa yang ia kehendaki tetapi Allah memilih dan menentukkan apa yang Ia kehendaki). Salah satu contoh yang dapat kita pelajari dalam Alkitab yakni, ketika Allah memanggil Yeremia untuk menjadi Nabi. Allah menyatakan kepada Yeremia segala otoritasNya terhadap hidup Yeremia. Namun demikianpun Allah memberikan pilihan kepada Yeremia untuk tunduk kepada otoritasNya atau menolak otoritasNya (jika Yeremia tunduk pada otoritas Allah, maka Allah akan menyertainya, tetapi jika tidak maka Yeremia akanmendapat resiko dari penolakannya. Yeremia 1:17).
Calvinis cendrung melihat doktrin pemilihan dan predestinasi dari sisi kedaulatan Allah dalam hidup manusia secara pribadi, sehingga mereka mengajarkan bahwa Allahlah yang memilih dan menentukan seseorang untuk diselamatkan. Tetapi doktrin pemilihan dan predestinasi yang terdapat dalam Alkitab mengajarkan bahwa, predestinasi dan pemilihan ada pada inisiatif penyelamatannya Allah kepada manusia.
Konsep supralapsarian Calvinis sangat apriori dan sifatnya spekulatif terhadap sifat hakekat kemaha-tahuan Allah. Konsep ini dibangun di atas dasar pemahaman bahwa, sebelum penciptaan dan kejatuhan manusia Allah sudah menentukan orang yang dipilih untuk selamat dan binasa. Jelas pemikiran konsep ini melampui apa yang Allah nyatakan kepada manusia (karena manusia hanya mengenal Allah sejauh mana Allah memperkenalkan diriNya kepada manusia). Saya sangat setuju dengan pernyataan Arminius dalam “Declarations to the Lords of the state of Holland” yang mengatakan;
God’s appointmen of Christ to be a savior, and in this (and not in God’s instrutable will) our salvation rest. Believer’s assurance depends upon the decree the who believe shall be saved. But the doctrin of this predestination (of supralapsarianism) embraces within itself neither the first nor the second number of the sillogism…but the supralapsarianism position can not accommodate such matters. ( James Nichols, Declaration of Sentiment of Armenianism. Work I. London: Logman, 1925, hal. 555)
Dalam hemat saya Calvinis tidak mengakui keselamatan oleh iman, melainkan mereka memandang keselamatan merupakan ketetapan Allah dari kekal. Alkitab memberikan penjelasan bahwa manusia selamat hanya oleh iman (Roma 1:16-17; Efesus 2:8-9).
Sejak kejatuhan manusia ke dalam dosa Allah sudah menetapkan (predestinasikan) janji mengenai juruselamat yang akan membereskan dosa manusia (Kejadian 3:15). Janji penetapan juruselamat yang akan datang, pada masa perjanjian lama disimbolkan dengan domba. Allah memerintahkan kepada manusia untuk mengakui dosa-dosanya dan mengorbankan domba sembagai simbol penghapus dosa, barang siapa yang melakukan ibadah domba korban dan mengimani juruselamat yang akan datang akan diselamatkan.
Penetapan akan datang juruselamat itu telah dinubuatkan dalam nubuatan kitab-kitab perjanjian lama, dan tidak satu nubuatan pun yang gagal mengenai kedatangan Juruselamat. Sehingga dengan Allah menetapkan janji kedatangan juruselamat, maka melalui ketetapan Allah itulah manusia beroleh selamat, sesuai yang dituliskan Roma 8: 29-30. Setiap orang yang telah dipilih dan ditentukan menjadi serupa dengan gambar AnakNya (siapa yang percaya pada penetapan janji penyelamatan mereka yang dipilih Allah).
Alkitab mengajarkan bahwa, keselamatan manusia sudah ditetapkan Allah (mereka yang selamat adalah mereka yang percaya pada Yesus Kristus yang sudah mati tersalib melunasi semua dosa manusia, dan mereka yang tidak percaya adalah mereka yang binasa Yohanes 3:36) dan penetapan keselamatan manusia hanya melalui satu anuggerah yakni anuggerah penebusan Yesus Kristus di atas kayu salib Kisah Rasul 2:36 tidak ada jalan lain untuk manusia dapat diselamatkan, hanya melalui percaya kepada Yesus Kristus yang telah mati untuk dosa-dosa manusia dan bangkit dari kematian (1Korintus 15:2-3).
Jadi orang-orang yang diselamatkan menurut Alkitab ialah mereka yang percaya dengan iman bahwa Yesus Kristus sudah ditetapkan mati dan bangkit untuk dosa-dosa manusia, tidak ada jalan lain selain daripada anuggerah salib ini untuk mendapat kasih karunia keselamatan. Tidak dengan perbuatan, amal, ibadah melainkan hanya dengan kasih karunia penebusan Yesus Kristus. Jelas hal ini bertolak-belakang dengan konsep supralapsarian Calvinis, yang percaya manusia telah ditetapkan tanpa syarat apapun untuk diselamatkan dan tidak adapenolakan untuk binasa.
Dapatkah Konsep Calvinis Menyelamatkan?
Alkitab mengajarkan bahwa, hanya Injil yang merupakan kekauatan Allahlah yang dapat menyelamatkan semua orang (Roma 1:16). Jadi apakah Injil itu? Injil adalah kabar baik yang tentang pemberasan dosa manusia oleh juruselamat kita Yesus Kristus yang mati tersalib menanggung dosa manusia (Ia sendiri tidak berdosa 2 Petrus 2:22; Ibrani 4:15). Orang-orang percaya dengan iman dan mengakui dosa-dosa mereka terhadap karya keselamatan ini, akan memperoleh hidup yang kekal (Roma 1:17).
Paket Injil yang menyelamatkan adalah paket Injil yang tidak ditambah dan yang tidak dikurangi, secara garis besar paket Injil yang sempurna tercantum dalam Amanat Agung Matius 28:19-20 . Dimulai dengan mendengar dan berseru kepada nama Yesus juruselamat yang membereskan dosa-dosanya, kemudian memberi diri menjadi murid dengan dibaptis, serta melakukan segala ajaran Tuhan.
Pada prinsipnya hampir semua kalangan Kristen berseru dan mengakui Yesus Kristus sebagai juruselamat, tetapi pada kenyataannya banyak sekali orang kristen yang tidak melakukan ajaran Tuhan Yesus. Bagaimanakah orang Kristen yang tidakl melakukan ajaran Tuhan? Jawaban adalah binasa! Hal ini sama dengan orang-orang yang percaya kepada paket Injil yang ditambahkan dan dikurangi, mereka pun akan binasa.
Salah satu pembelajaran yang Alkitab ajarkan mengenai konsep Injil yang ditambahkan terjadi pada jemaat Galatia. Pada waktu Rasul Paulus memberitakan Injil di kota Galatia, ada orang-orang yang percaya dan menerima Injil sehingga terbentuklah jemaat di Galatia. Sesudah itu Paulus meninggal jemaat di Galatia, ia mendengar bahwa ada sekolompok orang yang mengajarkan bahwa iman yang menyelamatkan tidak hanya percaya Yesus, tetapi harus ditambah melakukan hukum taurat salah satu bukti ialah dengan disunat. Dan dengan tegas Paulus mengatakan bahwa, Siapa yang menyunatkan dirinya dan hidup di bawah hukum taurat lepas dari kasih karuni (Galatia 5:3-4) artinya binasa karena tidak ada seorangpun yang selamat karena melakukan hukum taurat.
Oleh karena itu Injil yang menyelamatkan adalah paket Injil yang utuh (tidak dapat ditambahkan dan tidak dapat dikurangi). Dari pemahaman kosep supralapsarian Calvinis yang mengabaikan aspek iman dan kehendak bebas manusia untuk memilih, jelas bahwa konsep supralapsarian Calvinis tidak menyelamatkan, karena secara jelas konsep ini mengurangi karya penebusan Yesus Kristus dalam diri manusia.
Dua Karya Ilmiah yang sudah saya tulis; tinjau theologis tentang prdestinasi dan Sintesis Noumena Atribut Allah.
Diposkan oleh Agaphe Baptis Church di 21:33
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)
