Mark Roberts, pastor, author and blogger, is in the midst of a series about Today’s New International Version of the Bible. If you are not aware of the TNIV, allow me to explain. “This translation, though closely related to its predecessor, the NIV, is a new translation based upon the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts from which we get our English Bible. According to Zondervan, 93% of the TNIV mirrors the NIV, while 7% is a fresh translation. The new material ‘clarifies and updates passages and words to provide a more timely, contemporary English rendition for a new generation of Bible readers.’ Yet the TNIV is not meant to replace the beloved NIV, but to complement it. Nevertheless, Zondervan claims that the TNIV is ‘uncompromisingly accurate Bible translation in today’s language from the translators of the most trusted modern English translation, the NIV.’ This claim to accuracy is central to the TNIV's purpose.”

This translation received a lot of publicity when Rolling Stone refused to carry an advertisement for it based on religious grounds. After much outcry, the magazine eventually relented. The Rolling Stone advertisement was an important aspect of Zondervan’s marketing plan, because the TNIV is a translation that is meant to bridge the gap between 2005 the thirty years since the NIV was published.

Allow me to interrupt here with a personal note. I find it inconceivable that people can have such difficulty reading a book that was written only thirty years ago. I, and so many other Christians, continue to read and learn from books written even hundreds of years ago. Sure some words have changed, but if one is truly interested in learning, a gap of even a few hundred years is easy enough to overcome.

The TNIV is supported by a long list of popular Evangelicals, a couple of whom are considered quite conservative. However, there is also a group of well-known Evangelicals who have come out in opposition of this new translation. The issue they object to is gender neutrality. The TNIV is one of the first translations, and certainly the first that is likely to garner a large readership, that is almost entirely gender neutral.

There are gender changes throughout the text. For example, where the original reads “brothers,” the TNIV replaces that with “brothers and sisters.” Because English does not have an easy way of indicating both genders in the form of pronouns, “He,” “him,” “his” and “man” are generally replaced by the plural “they.” A noun like “someone” may be followed by a plural pronoun such as “they.” This represents either very poor or rashly feminist grammar usage (some feminists are trying to legitimize these number disagreements for the sake of gender neutrality). Matthew 18:15-20 provides a clear example:

If a brother or sister sins, go and point out the fault, just between the two of you alone. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they refuse to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Note the change in number. If a (singular) brother or sister sins…if they (plural) listen to you, you have won them over. It also bears mention that they original text says merely “brother” and not “brother and sister.”

It is these alterations in gender that have fueled the controversy over the TNIV. Mark Roberts has dedicated five articles to the background of this controversy. He is an able scholar and one who is familiar with the principles and difficulties of translation. In the coming week he intends to write further about his disagreements with the TNIV, and I look forward to his thoughts on the matter. For now, here is a link to the first five articles.

I had so many great articles I wanted to write this week, but unfortunately my time has been in short supply. The February giveaway ended this week, which required a lot of time, and both of my kids are sick which cuts into my evenings. Also, I currently have nine (count ‘em, 9!) different web designs underway have provided several quotes that could well turn into work. This is not to complain, of course, as I have a rather hefty tax bill I need to address in a month or so. But all this work has sure cut into my blogging time, or more specifically, into my research time.

At the top of the list of my planned articles was one to address Michael Spencer’s article on The inerrancy of Scripture. Michael writes “I don’t believe in inerrancy, a view of how scripture is inspired that means well, but just can’t get traction with me. My problems with inerrancy have been going on for a very long time, and I’ve heard it presented and taught by the best. It’s never sat well with me, probably because I have a lot of literary interest in the text of scripture, plus I don’t like to be bullied. I get a rash.” The article contains seven reasons that he does not adhere to inerrancy. Most of them are quite silly. I did not intend to refute each point, but rather to point out what inerrancy is and why it is inseperable from so many other important doctrines. I will attempt to return to this on Sunday or Monday.

In case you have been hiding under a rock this week (or do not read very many blogs), you should know that Al Mohler wrote a fantastic review of Brian McLaren’s A Generous Orthodoxy. Here is a small sampling of what he writes:

The problem with A Generous Orthodoxy, as the author must surely recognize, is that this orthodoxy bears virtually no resemblance to orthodoxy as it has been known and affirmed by the church throughout the centuries. Honest Christians know that disagreements over issues of biblical truth are inevitable. But we owe each other at least the honesty of taking a position, arguing for that position from Scripture, and facing the consequences of our theological convictions.

Orthodoxy must be generous, but it cannot be so generous that it ceases to be orthodox. Inevitably, Christianity asserts truths that, to the postmodern mind, will appear decidedly ungenerous. Nevertheless, this is the truth that leads to everlasting life. The gospel simply is not up for renegotiation in the twenty-first century. A true Christian generosity recognizes the infinitely generous nature of the truth that genuinely saves. Accept no substitutes.

And while we’re on the subject of Mohler, his thoughts on the newly-discovered homosexuality of Abraham Lincoln are right on the mark. “Andrew Sullivan, a prominent homosexual advocate and political commentator, quickly celebrated the book as a great work of scholarship. Even acknowledging the book’s lack of clear historical evidence, Sullivan is undeterred. “Certainly if you’re looking for clear evidence of sexual relationships between men in Lincoln’s time in the official historical record, you’ll come to the conclusion that no one was gay in the nineteenth century. But of course, many were.” Of course, this is simply not an argument. What Sullivan is really arguing is that the lack of historical evidence should not deter modern interpreters from arguing for a homosexual Lincoln.”

Finally, there is always a lot going on over in the Community Blog, so if you would like to do some interested reading and engage in good conversation, that is the place to be.

Thanks to all who participated in the giveaway of The Reformation Study Bible (ESV) and The Holiness of God by R.C. Sproul.

Unfortunately, as with the previous giveaways, there can be only two winners. Before I announce their names, I would like to let you know that Monergismbooks.com, which co-sponsored this giveaway, has once again offered a great discount to all contest participants who purchase The Reformation Study Bible (ESV). This Bible is already available from Monergismbooks at a price lower than you will find in your local bookstore and even lower than what Amazon offers, but now the deal has been sweetened even further. You’ll have to visit the site to read about it! The deal will not last long, so don’t dawdle!

I am also pleased to say that on March 7th I will announce the next giveaway. The details are not fully in place yet, but it will once again feature an autographed copy of a great book and, in all likelihood, another great item.

And now, without any further ado, I will announce the winners of this month’s prize. As always, they were chosen by a random drawing of all the participants. They are:

Amy Henry
Ryan Hanlon

Congratulations to Amy and Ryan. I have contacted each of you seperately and the Bible and book will be shipped as soon as I receive your information.

As for everyone else, thank you for your participation. Hang in there until March 7th when I will send information about the next giveaway.

And before I close, I would like to extend a personal word of thanks for participating in these giveaways. Enough people are participating now that authors, stores and publishers are beginning to take notice. This can only be a good thing, as I have been asked by many of these people if they would be able to co-sponsor a future giveaway. This ensures that there will be a steady stream of great items available to you!

And now…why not visit Monergismbooks and give him your support!

This post comes from within the Feedback Files. The Feedback Files are the questions I receive from readers via the Contact page. I thought it would be informative to open some of these questions and answers to the community.

Recently a self-professed “Baby Calvinist” wrote to ask, “If a person is “a child of wrath” from birth due to Adam’s sin and unable to choose God because of Adam’s sin, how is he responsible for his actions if he was born this way (and has no ability of his own to choose God)? … If Christ didn’t die for all men, yet all men were condemned for one sin (and by that sin, thereafter, unable to choose good), how is it just of God to condemn all men if they are “determined” to be sinful by the action of Adam?”

This is one of those questions that could be answered in a few short lines, many sermons, or in a few great volumes. I will attempt to strike a middle ground, and hope to answer it satisfactorily, but without going into laborious detail.

It is first important to realize that there is a unity in the human race. Acts 17:26 tells us that “he [God] made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth.” Some of the older translations read “he made from one blood every nation of mankind.” (emphasis mine) Thus all of us are descendents of the one man and we have inhereted his humanity and his attributes. Unfortunately, we have also inhereted his sin.

John Piper writes, “The problem with the human race is not most deeply that everybody does various kinds of sins--those sins are real, they are huge and they are enough to condemn us. Paul is very concerned about them. But the deepest problem is that behind all our depravity and all our guilt and all our sinning, there is a deep mysterious connection with Adam whose sin became our sin and whose judgment became our judgment.” (“Adam, Christ, and Justification: Part I”)

Let’s now try to come to an understanding of how Adam’s sin effected the human race. This is one of the topics Paul addresses in Romans 5, a chapter that deals primarily with justification by faith. We will begin with verses 12 - 14 of that chapter. “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned -- for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.” Read those words once more, for they are difficult to understand. This is something of an awkward construct, for Paul begins a thought in verse 12, and does not conclude it until verse 18. Verses 13 through 17 are parenthetical, yet still crucial to the argument he is building.

We learn from these verses that sin came into the world through one man, and we know this to be Adam. We learn also that death entered the world through sin and that death spread to all men because all men sinned. The meaning of these last words has been in dispute throughout the history of the church. Somehow we need to reconcile the fact that when Adam sinned, every human being also sinned, even though they were not yet in existence. From the moment of Adam’s sin, God regarded the human race as sinful. This is the meaning of verses 13 and 14, for Paul tells us that even before the Law was given, men still died. Thus before God gave the Law to Moses, men were already counted guilty by God on the basis of their forefather’s sin. This is further reinforced in verses 18 and 19 which read “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.”

We see that Adam was more than the father of the human race, but was also the representative head of the human race. God had determined this from before the time Adam sinned. Thus Adam’s actions directly effected us. Consider the metaphor of the President of a nation. When the President of the United States declared war on Japan on December 8, 1941, every citizen of the nation was also at war with Japan. Acting as the head of all those who he represented, the President made a decision that effected each one of them. It is, of course, an imperfect analogy, but sheds some light on how one man can represent others. Adam made the decision to wage war against God, and this affected every aspect of his being.

Just as our physical bodies are descended from Adam, so the same is true with our souls. A child is not given a perfect, sinless soul at the moment of conception, but rather inherets an already sinful soul from his parents and ultimately, from Adam. So when we read in Genesis that Adam “fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth” we know that Adam’s likeness included a sinful body and a sinful soul. Just as Adam had sinned in the whole man, both body and soul, so Seth inhereted that sinful body and soul.

There is a term here we ought to define. To impute is to “attribute or credit to” or, said otherwise, “attribute (responsibility or fault) to a cause or source.” Adam, acting as our representative, sinned on our behalf and his sin was then imputed to us - held on our account. Hodge writes, “Such was the relation, natural and federal, between him [Adam] and his posterity, that his act was putatively their act. That is, it was the judicial ground or reason why death passed on all men. In other words, they were regarded and treated as sinners on account of his sin.” Thus Adam’s sin is regarded as our own. When Adam sinned, we sinned and are justifiably considered condemned in God’s eyes because of this sin.

Naturally, there are many objections against this view. I will outline two responses we can make against these objections:

First, anyone who protests that this is unfair has already committed a multitude of sins, proving his own sinfulness. God does not place an innocent man under Adam’s sin against his will. It is his own sins that will form the primary basis for his condemnation. Romans 2:6 tells us that God “will render to each one according to his works.” Similarly, Colossians 3:25 says, “… the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he has done, and there is no partiality.”

Second, if we deny that men can be declared guilty on the basis of one man’s sin, we will have difficulty with the parallel between Adam and Christ, who is called the Second Adam. “As one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.” Adam stood as the representative head of the human race and sinned, but God sent His Son to stand as the second representative head and through Him provided salvation. We are counted guilty through Adam’s sin, but Christ, standing as the representative head of all who would believe in Him, obeyed God and now God counts us as righteous. To return to the word “impute,” we can now have Christ’s righteousness imputed to us, removing the sin of Adam.

Parenthetically, Wayne Grudem provides a third response, but seems to give it little credence. He suggests the view that any other human would also have sinned had he been in Adam’s place. However, the Bible does not explicitly state this and by Grudem’s own admission, “it does not seem to be a conclusive argument, for it assumes too much about what would or would not happen.” (Systematic Theology, page 495)

So now we turn back to the original question of how it is that God can condemn all men on the basis of one man’s action. Or said otherwise, how can He hold our sins against us when we are so predisposed to sin that we are unable not to sin? As we have seen, Adam’s sin is our own as fully as it was his. Yet this is not something we should regret or despise. Rather, we ought to embrace this, for if this is true, so it is true that Christ stands as our representative and is able and willing to impute His righteousness to our account. There is nothing to be gained in objecting to the imputation of Adam’s guilt, but everything to be gained in accepting it. As G.I. Williamson says, “Explain it, or explain it not, as we may, it remains true. It is also a fact that there is no salvation for such sinners as we are, except by the word of Jesus Christ as the representative of His people.” (The Shorter Catechism Volume 1)