What About the Phrase about Scripture, “Inspired in the Original Manuscripts”?
“Inspired in the Original Manuscripts”
In the last few days, I watched on a podcast someone lecture on dispensationalism. While teaching, he used a phrase to describe scripture, “inspired in the original manuscripts.” That phrase does not sit well with me. For one, it is not itself scripture, and, two, it is not the historic belief of the church. What do people say about half truths? It is, however, a very common and popular phrase in church doctrinal statements today.
Many churches will say like this one does:
We believe that the Bible is God’s Word, that it is fully inspired in the original manuscripts.
The Bible is the Word of God, the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments, verbally inspired in the original manuscripts.
We believe that the Bible, exclusively comprised of the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments is the Word of God, verbally and plenarily inspired, in the original manuscripts.
Only in the Original Manuscripts?
Why is the BIble verbally and plenarily inspired, only in the original manuscripts? Why do people say or write this? They don’t believe that we have every and all words today. They can’t say that we still have what God inspired in the original manuscripts. God inspired the Bible in the original manuscripts, but He didn’t keep the Bible, verbally and plenarily, for His churches today.
The “inspired in the original manuscripts” language is significant for what it does not say more than what it does. The authors of these statements know that we do not have the original manuscripts today. They really are being accurate with what they believe. Even in the original languages, the church does not have a verbally, plenarily inspired Bible. Why? God didn’t keep it. Some words were lost from the original manuscripts. You can’t trust the Bible then to the same extent.
An Explanation
Richard Muller, the historian, talks about when this doctrine of inspiration arose:
A rather sharp contrast must be drawn, therefore, between the Protestant orthodox arguments concerning the autographa and the views of Archibald Alexander Hodge and Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield. . . . Those who claim an errant text, against the orthodox consensus to the contrary, must prove their case. To claim errors in the scribal copies, the apographa, is hardly a proof. The claim must be proven true of the autographa. The point made by Hodge and Warfield is a logical leap, a rhetorical flourish, a conundrum designed to confound the critics—who can only prove their case for genuine errancy by recourse to a text they do not (and surely cannot) have.
Muller writes this in his Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 2, Holy Scripture: The Cognitive Foundation of Theology. This doctrine of inspiration arises with A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield. Muller calls it “a logical leap, a rhetorical flourish, a conundrum.” It’s easy to call “inspired” a text you do not have. This view that originated in church history with Hodge and Warfield differs greatly, Muller says, than what Turretin wrote and said:
Turretin and other high and late orthodox writers argued that the authenticity and infallibility of Scripture must be identified in and of the apographa, not in and of lost autographa.
A Novel Position
What kind of confidence does someone have in scripture that applies inspiration only to the original manuscripts? This person or these people cannot make that application to what believers possessed since then. It was in the 19th century that professing Christians began to make the statements like Basil Manly made on pages 84 and 219 in his book, The Bible Doctrine of Inspiration Explained and Vindicated:
We answer, we gain all the difference there is between an inspired and an uninspired original; all the difference between a document truly divine and authoritative to begin with — though the copies or translations may have in minute particulars varied from it — and a document faulty and unreliable at the outset, and never really divine. . . . The inspiration of the original scriptures is what we affirm; and this an entirely different question from the accuracy with which copies of them have been preserved.
Pastors and theologians did not use together the two words, “original manuscripts,” until the 19th century and then, not much. This increased greatly with rise of modernism or liberalism and the compromise with it. A Hodge and Warfield thought of themselves as protecting the faith of those whom the variants in copies would shake.
God Inspired His Words and Then Kept Them
If you say the verbal, plenary inspiration of scripture and leave out the words, “original manuscripts,” you are saying that God inspired His Words and then kept them. Those words remain inspired, so the copies are also inspired. Through history, believers took the position of the inspiration of both the autographa and the apographa. This is the historic and biblical position of the church.
Repeat this to yourself. Memorize it. “The inspiration of the original manuscripts” is made up. It is not some noble, historic creed. It is definitely. not. old. As Muller said, “a logical leap.” I would disagree only that it’s merely a leap. Not logical.
Wes Huff on Joe Rogan: My Take
History of Huff and Rogan
Professing Christian and Christian apologist Wes Huff appeared on Joe Rogan for three hours. I believe this is the first time Rogan had anyone like Huff on his famous and popular podcast. Rogan was a fan of a man named Billy Carson. Wes Huff dominated Carson in a recent debate. This put Huff on Rogan’s radar, who according to him then watched twenty Huff videos. Huff greatly impressed Rogan.
Before having Huff on his show, Rogan seemed like on a trajectory toward faith in Christ. He is not there yet, but this was a significant jump for Rogan. Other factors affected Rogan in this path, including the faith of some of his friends he interviewed on his podcast. Rogan does not discount historical and even biblical evidence for Christ. It helped him a lot to hear from Huff.
Minimal Facts Approach
Huff took a “minimal facts approach” in his defense of the faith to Rogan. This means he focused on Christ Himself, targeting the historical evidence of the resurrection of Jesus. He presented the most basic or minimal facts about Jesus that unbelieving historians will not themselves deny. Then he connected that evidence with the biblical account. To do this kind of presentation like Huff, someone must study it and practice it. It worked with Rogan, who said, “Wow,” in response to Huff dozens of times.
Rogan is his own fact checker on the show. If he doesn’t think you’re right, he questions you. He challenged Huff, but not in any egregious way. For an unbeliever, he asked good questions. As an apologist, Huff gave him good answers too. He was ready to give them.
Danger
As much as I agreed with most of what Huff said and was glad Rogan had him, I believe it is also dangerous too to overall biblical Christianity. Huff is a non-separatist, culturally liberal Christian of the popular variety.
Huff was not well known at large before the Billy Carson debate. That went viral. He went even more viral with Rogan and now Huff is famous, just that quickly. The trajectory of his entire life now changes because of that. I believe that almost any Christian podcaster hopes for this series of events to occur.
It is easier for pop Christianity to appear on Rogan. It surely must be someone who allows for all sorts of compromise to get to that place. I’m not saying it is impossible for a separatist to go viral, but very unlikely. This is the nature of celebrity Christianity today. Nevertheless, like Paul in Philippians 1, I am glad for the information Huff got to Rogan and his audience.
Huff on Rogan will open up many, many more opportunities for Huff and even for those now connected with Huff. Mark Ward will know that. He appears on Huff’s website first as an endorser, so anyone who checks out Huff will see Ward there. Huff has had him on his podcast. I would say that just by connection, Ward might double his audience. It’s probably already occurred.
Not a “Scholar”
As good as Huff was, I did not hear him as the scholar that people have projected him. He is right now in PhD work, not finished. He’s thirty-three. What Huff did, just ordinary Christians could do. They should, but most can’t. He made obvious mistakes that a scholar would not make. Someone does not need to be a scholar to do what he’s doing. I would say he is a very good student, who is much better, talented in his presentation, the ability to put these podcasts together. This is where we’re at today.
Someone who has technological capacity and knows how to use the medium for communication will move into the scholar category. He is at least a popular scholar because he makes it into the forum. Huff gets through the door with his abilities. He can talk to a Rogan, who also is no scholar. This is the new world in which we live. That too is dangerous, because it really does matter in this world if you have the “excellency of speech” that Paul warned against in 1 Corinthians 2.
The Great Isaiah Scroll
Shot in the Foot
One never knows the ultimate effect of such an interaction as that of Huff with Rogan. I saw negatives to it and I will list them in no given order. One, Huff said that the great Isaiah scroll in the Jerusalem Museum was word-for-word identical to the Hebrew Masoretic Text. This is a Dead Sea Scroll. Since the appearance, Huff has said apparently that when he said word-for-word identical he didn’t mean word-for-word identical. But he said word-for-word identical. How does that mean something different? It doesn’t make sense.
When I heard Huff say that, I knew he overstated his case, and it didn’t make any difference to Rogan, who believed him. Problem though, after the debate all the fact checkers and critics make a multitude of answer podcasts and shows savaging his point. It turns what he said a bit incredible. If you are going to go on a big show like that in front of millions, you have to get it right. You can’t say confident bombastic statements that come back on you.
The Dead Sea Scrolls are helpful. I use them at times when I evangelize. They are a net gain. However, the great Isaiah scroll, which I’ve seen myself displayed in the Jerusalem museum, varies from the Hebrew Masoretic in 2,600 places. That could be why it got buried at the Qumran caves for a few thousand years. It is not the text God preserved for His people. That is the Hebrew Masoretic.
Other Points on the Scroll
The Great Isaiah Scroll, a complete manuscript of Isaiah helps for fulfilled prophecy in Isaiah. The scroll shows Isaiah to be older than the fulfilment of Isaiah’s prophecies. I’ve noticed that the lost have no answer for that. Isaiah has a lot of prophecies and they predate their fulfillment, like any prophecy would.
I believe in word-for-word identical preservation, so that type of language I’m fine with it. However, we can look at the Hebrew Masoretic and compare it to the Great Isaiah Scroll and see that they are not identical, that is, unless someone wants to change the definitions of “word-for-word” and “identical.” I believe Huff shot himself in the foot with that one.
One more thing. Critics, like Alex O’Connor, the famous agnostic in England, the cosmic skeptic, he jumped on Huff’s statement on Isaiah and made hay over it. O’Connor overreacted though. The Great Isaiah Scroll is very, very close to the Masoretic text. That is still great evidence. O’Connor reacted with glee to a mistake that really doesn’t help his cause. That scroll shows that we have a preserved text that predates the fulfillment.
Four Hundred Witnesses?
Two, Huff said that four hundred witnesses saw Jesus ascension in 1 Corinthians 15. How could a scholar get the wrong number there? That was extremely curious. I don’t know where Huff got the four hundred number, but missing it was an unforced error on his part. If an ordinary Christian did that, I would not say it was a big deal. Someone purporting to be a scholar like Huff does, he can’t do that.
Stolen Body
Three, when Rogan asked Huff if there were any early examples of people rejecting the resurrection account, Huff jumped hundreds of years forward and absolutely missed the biblical account at the end of Matthew when the Jewish religious leaders made up the stolen body theory. That should have been instant recall of attempts to discredit the resurrection. It’s a perfect story and it’s in the Bible. Huff missed it there. It’s hard to explain how he could do that. My brain was screaming that passage to him as I watched.
The stolen body story shows what critics will do to discredit the resurrection, knowing how important it is. This began a long line of those trying to debunk the resurrection. The cover-up works as a force multiplier for the resurrection. They knew how important it was and rather than believe it, they tried to cover it up. And the cover-up is part of the record.
I liked that Huff used Jordan Peterson to discount moralism. He showed how that Peterson’s rejection of the bodily resurrection, viewing as a mere archetype undermined the gospel. Peterson explains the resurrection like a Phoenix rising from the ashes. That misses the point of a true, actual, bodily, and historical resurrection of Jesus Christ. Jesus is alive today in a glorified body. Huff gave some respect to Peterson and then exposed that untruthful, unbelieving approach of Peterson. I was happy with that.
Better at Preaching the Gospel
Last, Huff could do better with preaching the gospel. He could have done better at going on the offensive and doing that. I’ve been in hundreds of similar situations as Huff, and an evangelist should preach the gospel. I get planting the seed and I’m glad he did. Also, I’m not saying he didn’t preach the gospel at all. He got some of it in. So many people were watching and it was three hours. He could have done better at going on the offensive with the gospel. Someone can do that in a respectful way and weave it in, if he knows what he is doing.
I could write far more than what I’m writing. Don’t get me wrong. Huff did good things. I rejoiced in those and still do. The issues I addressed needed addressing.
The Huff interview was so big nationally in the realm of Christianity. I don’t mean this at all like click bait. It is an opportunity for input on such an event and commentary on what happened.
Two Popular Doctrine of Salvation Ditches
Maybe the road and two ditches is an overused metaphor. I would contend it’s a helpful visual. When you take a road somewhere, you don’t want to drive into a ditch. Let’s say the road is a narrow one with a ditch on either side.
Just today, I dropped my wife at an airport and it was a heavy snow with slick conditions. I noticed on the way to the airport, long backups going the other way. Probably for that reason, my GPS sent me a totally different route. It’s not always good. There’s a reason maybe in the Winter why no traffic on the back roads, and that reason came true. I was alone on remote country roads, including hilly ones. I drove very, very slowly so I wouldn’t find myself in a ditch in the middle of nowhere. When I arrived back into town, I breathed a sigh of relief.
The Road of Salvation and Its Ditches
The road of salvation is narrow. Let’s again say that it is narrow with ditches on either side. This is the situation I think you should imagine on this. One ditch on one side takes a steep decline and then off a cliff to destruction. Quite a ditch. The ditch on the other side of the road is less dangerous, but still very harmful. It is more shallow, but it will tear up your vehicle and maybe worse.
Now you get the picture. The ditch on the side of the narrow doctrine of salvation, which turns into a deadly destructive cliff, is the teaching of conditional security. In other words, someone once justified could still lose his salvation. A believer doesn’t have eternal security. Historically one could call this ditch, Arminianism. One description of this is the following: A person believes in Jesus Christ, but because of persistent, unrepentant sin, he loses the salvation he once had.
Alright, what about the other ditch, the probably less destructive one, but off narrow road of the true doctrine of salvation? In the other ditch is predetermination. It is the other side of the road, because losing salvation and predetermination are in diametrical opposition to the other. They aren’t the same ditch, but they are both in separate ditches. Both are bad.
The Ditch of Losing Salvation
I hear theologians, preachers, and other professing Christians very often criticizing the other ditch. Those who believe you can lose your salvation will say to predetermination that too many verses in the Bible treat salvation security as conditional. Those who believe in predetermination will say to losing salvation that predetermination is the only way for salvation to be by grace and not by works, the only salvation someone can’t lose. The narrow road of the doctrine of salvation is neither losing you salvation nor predetermining your salvation. Those are both wrong detours.
If someone can lose his salvation, then who is doing the saving? If Jesus is doing the saving, He can and will keep saving. Someone could only lose his salvation, if he himself is doing the saving. Since he himself can’t save himself, this is a path to eternal destruction.
The Ditch of Predetermination
On the other hand, if someone believes in salvation by grace alone through faith alone, that does not imply predetermination of salvation. “Foreknowledge” means “to know ahead of time.” God knows whom He will save. He does not predetermine whom He will save. God does predetermine, but not whom He will save and whom He will not. As predetermination relates to salvation, God predetermines that those He saves will conform to the image of His Son (Romans 8:29-30).
I have seen a doctrine of losing one’s salvation send someone toward predetermination. Also, I have seen a doctrine of predetermination send someone toward losing salvation. God operates before time concerning someone’s salvation, but that operation of God is foreknowledge. He knows and elects based upon that knowledge, which is why scripture says that God elects according to His foreknowledge. God does not elect according to predestination or predetermination.
Ditches Not In the Bible
Neither the idea, concept, or teaching that you can lose your salvation or that God predetermined you saved or lost are in the Bible. You will not find one verse or even phrase that teaches either. Someone may say, prove that. The only way to prove it is not to fined one verse or even phrase in the Bible that teaches either of those.
Surely people see something in the Bible that they think sends them into these ditches. They do. I can go to passages where they think they see what they see. Even though losing salvation is not scriptural and far more dangerous than predetermination, there are many more possible proof texts for losing salvation than predetermination. I don’t have one iota, one speck of belief in losing salvation, but I can more easily see how people get that from the Bible.
The scriptural view of salvation, that doctrinal narrow road between the ditches, depends on the whole Bible, every individual verse and all of them. It compares scripture with scripture. Whatever the Bible teaches will not contradict any other part. It will also fit with meaning of words based on how they’re used. Both losing salvation and predetermination do not follow that understanding of the scriptural view of salvation.
Conditional Sentences and Small Sample Sizes
The main category of verses in the Bible that could sound like they teach you can lose your salvation are the conditional sentences. These are very often the if-then sentences. One part of the sentence might start with “if ye” in the King James Version. “If ye” occurs 162 times in the King James Version. One can easily twist these sentences into losing salvation. I picked this one at random (John 15:10):
If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love.
Here’s another one, random too (Mark 11:25):
And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.
The first one sounds like that someone could lose the love of God if he doesn’t keep the Lord’s commandments. The second seems like someone won’t receive forgiveness if he still has ought against someone. There are many of these kinds of sentences in the Bible, especially the New Testament. God does all the saving and He keeps whom He saves, so we can’t lose salvation. Many verses teach that. Those fit with these conditional sentences. They don’t contradict them.
Predetermination or predestination is a very small sample size, unlike the conditional sentences. The key with those few verses is seeing what exactly God predetermines. Nowhere says He predetermines individual salvation. Many, many passages then read like God doesn’t predetermine. They contradict predetermination. This does not affect salvation by grace through faith. Grace through faith does not require predetermination.
The Microcausation and Macrocausation of the Grooming Gang Scandal in England
Grooming
Apparently for fifteen or so years, certain people have sounded a warning or alarm about so-called “grooming gangs” in England. “Grooming” speaks of “sexual grooming,” essentially training children to accept rape or assault as a way of life. They would become then ready facilitators for the predilections of adult perverts.
I had heard the term “grooming” before in years past to push boys toward a future in homosexuality. They do not by nature want or desire that behavior, but through suggestion and promotion in propaganda style, they become increasingly more accepting. Even the federal government talks about this activity in the first paragraph of a presentation:
To keep their conduct secret, perpetrators coerce and “groom.” That is, as sexual contact escalates, they methodically increase the attention and rewards they give to their targets (Robins, 2000). Grooming allows perpetrators to test their targets’ silence at each step. To nurture the relationship, perpetrators make the target feel “special” by, for example, brandishing gifts and/or spending extra time with the target in nonsexual ways, all in an effort to learn whether the target will keep silent (Robins, 2000).
Grooming Gang Scandal
The grooming gang scandal in England I had not heard until less than a week ago, and I was astounded and even shocked by the news. In England it involves mainly adult immigrant males (they are not from England) repeatedly raping young white girls. Apparently there is a racial component to it. It is also socio-economic, because these girls are middle class or lower.
Since I first read about this scandal this last week, I have seen a figure from 10,000 to a million young girls. People actually do not know the number of victims, but I heard Jordan Peterson use the top number, a million. The population of England is about 58 million, so this is an astounding figure. How could a culture, a society, allow this to happen? Why is there not more of an outrage?
The scandal reaches to the present Prime Minister of the UK, Keir Starmer. He was the Director of Public Prosecutions in the Crown Prosecution Service when this criminal activity was rampantly occurring in England. Starmer made a controversial decision not to prosecute certain cases due to perceived issues with victim credibility (this article might also get you up to speed).
Microcausation
As someone diagnoses such a horrific scandal, what is the cause of it? This issue is so gigantic and so deplorable that it signals deep cultural decline that reaches even lower lows than ever. That’s why I’m writing about it. Elon Musk points to authorities who didn’t do enough or tried to cover it up. I would call these types of explanations, microcausation. They are a reason, but not the foundational reason. The microcausation matters, but it isn’t the most significant. The most significant are the macrocausation, which doesn’t change overnight.
The realm of microcausation points to many different causes. The political pressure in England could cause the nation to deal with these. A big voting bloc is angry about this situation. It could even sink the career of Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister.
Leadership
The first and most obvious reason is a lack of courage from a leader. I had not heard of this situation. Maybe you hadn’t either. How? This is kept low profile. Powerful leaders did not want it to become big in England. The media was also complicit. It reminds me of the Roman Catholic Church doing something similar with its priests and their massive number of sexual assaults of children.
Even as I write about Roman Catholicism, I believe the numbers of sexual problems like these are as great or greater in the public school system. It just doesn’t get the attention, because the public schools hold more levers to cover these situations. I’ve seen this first hand.
Absent Parent or Parents
I’m sure, like the United States, England is rife with single parent homes and absent fathers. Even so, do fathers really have the divine right to protect their daughters, even though the state takes away that right. Daughters go running out on their own and parents sit and allow it. I remember a popular fundamentalist preacher in a family conference joking about this: “Where are you going?” Answer: “Out.” Where is “out”? Especially Gen Z think “out” is an appropriate amount of freedom for girls. “Just be careful!”
Part of feminism and women’s rights is the right that moms and girls claim not to listen to the father. They’re big and smart and don’t need to listen to almost anyone. The government very often defends a girls right to become sexual early and then have a secret abortion. They start them young on some kind of pregnancy prevention, anticipating their sexual activity.
This one is the closest to a macrocausation of the microcausations, the break down of the family, but it still is an outgrowth of something more fundamental. Included in this reason is moms outside of the home, so they don’t know what’s happening either. Sadly, some of the moms are at home attempting to self-medicate. Or mom does her hobbies while the kids do who knows what. The first time the mom gets upset is when she happens upon this months later.
Media and Multiculturalism
So the third microcause is the media covering for its political allies. The opportunity for a story is there, but it is punted because it doesn’t help the correct people. The media allows the victims to languish and perish because it doesn’t serve the right political motivation.
Fourth, there is a religious, ethnic, and immigration component that doesn’t harmonize with leftist values. This fits into the leftist DEI agenda. Related to this is multiculturalism, a comfort with perversity, and globalism. White middle and lower class girls become victims of these corrupt viewpoints.
Islam
Fifth, England is 6.5% Moslem. That might seem like a low percentage, but it is very high when it comes to an invasion of Islam. Islam is not natural to England, but the country allowed this to occur because of its leaders warped views. I’ve read that Islam needs only 25% of the population to take over a country. Seventy-five percent of this 6.5% would be happy with Sharia Law taking over all of England. The other twenty-five percent moderates capitulate like they do in most of the Moslem world. The Moslem communities do not stop this behavior.
I still consider these five and several others (I could have written more) to be microcausation. They are serious, but by far not the most serious. In many ways, they are just a bandaid on what’s the most significant causation.
Macrocausation
A culture that allowed grooming gangs to operate almost unfettered in England also exists in the United States. I see two major macro causes for the grooming gang scandal and these causes also are here in the United States. The United States didn’t make a huge jump to transgender men dominating in women’s sports. Somehow homosexual children are the coolest kids in school. No one can or will criticize what’s happening. It’s much more foundational than that.
Elimination of Objective Righteous Culture
One, the elimination of an objective righteous culture. This is our Father’s world, but the culture is Satan’s. He is the Prince of this world, and the churches capitulated on this long ago. It’s easy to see all over. So many examples exist.
There are some weak intermural skirmishes about the culture. That’s it. Generally, the skirmish is over who can get to the weakest possible position the fastest on cultural issues. I’m talking about everything cultural: music, dress, male and female roles, art, beauty, alcohol, appearance, lifestyle, recreation, entertainment, and more. The grooming scandal is in the realm of a deteriorating, crumbling culture. Hardly anyone will say anything about this in public, because that ship has sailed.
The culture will get worse. It will still only get worse. The culture will not get better. It won’t and it can’t. Not until there is an admission that there is such a thing as a Christian or godly culture, a country will keep going down. New technology and inventions will not improve this.
Grooming Scandal a Cultural Issue
The grooming scandal is a cultural issue. A nation could allow its little girls to be raped by men and do almost nothing about it, because very few are serious about the culture. Look at this as a basic in England. They allow men to rape young girls every day, but they arrest a woman praying silently in front of an abortion clinic. That tells you the condition of the culture.
I could just leave that one macro cause and it would seem like enough, but it actually comes out of something that is even more fundamental.
Loss of Authority and Certainty of Scripture
Two, God’s Word has lost its authority and certainty to people. The cultural issues go away, because people don’t think they can make applications of scripture to the culture. Why? If they’re going to do that, they have to be certain, and they’ve lost that certainty for many reasons.
The Bible is there for people as a kind of therapy. It really can make you feel good, buoy you through bad times as you essentially live for yourself. People overall don’t see the Bible as sure enough any more. The seminaries training pastors go along with this. Churches have lost it too.
Seventy-five years ago, almost all churches made application to cultural issues. They were strong and dogmatic. Preachers could and did apply the Bible. Not long before that, almost everyone would agree on these cultural issues.
Non-Essential
So called preachers today turned the cultural issues into non-essentials. This is not a hill to die on. They would say, keep it on the gospel, even though they’re also watering that down.
Much of this capitulation on truth also relates to pragmatism. How can or will a church grow, while taking a stand on cultural issues? People don’t want to hear it. You’ve got to pick and choose your issues. Today, you can still get away with saying a woman is a woman and a man is a man, and bury your stake right there. That’s today’s culture warrior. Be careful not to stray too far from that though.
The grooming gang scandal is shocking. Don’t think it’s going to get better just because you can identify and maybe complain about the microcausation. It will still get worse unless the priority is the macrocausation of such a scandal.
From the Work of Beza in 1598 to Modern Skepticism and the Greek New Testament
F. H. A. Scrivener showed 190 differences between his printed text, representing the underlying text of the King James Version, and that of Theodore Beza‘s printed edition in 1598. This was eighty-two years after the first printed edition of the Textus Receptus (TR) in 1516 and thirteen years before the publication of the King James Version (KJV). Beza had more manuscripts than Erasmus did in his first edition, including Codex Claromontanus and Codex Bezae. He did not overhaul the received text, making some corrections while keeping much of the editions of Erasmus and Stephanus already established within and by church usage.
The number of words different are much greater between Beza 1598 and Erasmus 1516 than Beza 1598 and Scrivener’s, something like 1500 to 190. Scrivener’s, the representation of the text underlying the King James Version, is not Erasmus 1516, as much as critics use Erasmus 1516 text for their Textus Receptus criticism. The KJV translators relied on Beza 1598, which agreed with earlier printed editions of the Greek New Testament, but corrected errors based on words in available Greek manuscripts. The progress between 1516 and 1611 followed the creed, a mistake made in one copy was corrected by another.
The Approach of Theodore Beza
The small number of corrections in the 16th century printed editions of the Greek New Testament showed the consensus among Bible believing and practicing churches for the completion of this work. The doctrine of preservation guided the thinking that this would not continue as an ongoing, never-ending work. Theodore Beza approached his biblical text work with a strong theological conviction that God had preserved His Word through history. He indeed believed that the TR represented a divinely preserved text.
For Beza, the work of Erasmus and Stephanus was a heritage of the divine transmission of Scripture. Beza recognized this and aimed to keep intact the familiar readings embraced by the churches. The reception history played a crucial role in Beza’s decisions. Keeping these was a reliance upon divine providence. By accepting and printing familiar readings, he aimed to ensure that his edition would be embraced by those already accustomed to earlier versions.
Theodore Beza’s theological perspective influenced his textual choices. He believed that certain readings aligned with doctrinal truths central to an orthodox biblical theology. This belief led him to retain readings and make adjustments only when absolutely necessary.
The cessation of further printed editions of the Greek New Testament after the Elzevir Brothers 1633 arrived almost entirely because of the acceptance of the standardization of existing translations of the text. The text should reflect what people read. People in churches read translations, not printed Greek editions. This revealed the settling of an underlying Greek text in the nature of the canonization of scripture. The internal testimony of the Holy Spirit decided the end of this period through the unified testimony of the saints.
The Settling of the Text of Scripture
Samuel P. Tregelles in his An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament writes (pp. 33-35):
Beza’s text was during his life in very general use amongst Protestants; they seemed to feel that enough had been done to establish it, and they relied on it as giving them a firm basis. . . . After the appearance of the texts of Stephanus and Beza, many Protestants ceased from all inquiry into the authorities on which the text of the New Testament in their hands was based.
According to Tregelles, in the early 18th century, Richard Bentley wrote that the text of Stephanus could not have claimed greater authority if “an apostle had been the compositor” (p. 29).
The reception of the churches indicated a settled text. The saints in the churches understood God’s warning neither to add or take away from the words of this book (Revelation 22:18-19, Deuteronomy 4:2). The text of the Bible was not a personal playbox for the fiddling of scholars. Churches also trusted the providence of God. He was at work in the perfect preservation of scripture.
Changes from “the Enlightenment”
New changes of the text of the Bible did not again arise until what historians call “the Enlightenment.” The late 18th and 19th centuries, almost two hundred years later, brought the rise of skepticism towards traditional authorities, including religious texts. This cultural shift brought a new view as to how biblical texts were viewed and utilized. The rise of modernism, a different world view from previous centuries, introduced methodologies steeped in a critical approach to science and history. This rejected reliance on faith, supernaturalism, highlighted by a denial of miracles.
Scholars such as Jean Astruc and Julius Wellhausen introduced critical methods that questioned the previously accepted understanding of textual integrity. For instance, Wellhausen’s documentary hypothesis suggested that the Pentateuch was composed from multiple sources rather than being authored solely by Moses. This perspective led to a reevaluation of all original texts, suggesting they were not divinely inspired but rather products of historical and cultural contexts.
Secular Methodologies
Scholars began applying secular methodologies to analyze the scriptures. A new approach fostered an environment of interpretation through a historical-critical lens, resulting in conclusions that diminished spiritual significance. The adoption of modernist principles in seminaries blended scriptural beliefs with contemporary critical methods. It was a different epistemology, knowledge no longer attained by faith or at least primarily by faith, but mostly through human observation and reasoning.
Modernism’s focus on empirical evidence encouraged scholars to pay closer attention to textual variants found in different manuscripts. The rise of higher criticism during the modernist movement also played a crucial role in shaping how scholars approached biblical texts. This analytical lens affected how critical texts are constructed. It started with a rejection of the doctrine of providential, divine preservation and a bias toward naturalistic explanations. Scholars began integrating insights from fields such as linguistics and anthropology into their analysis of biblical texts, leading to new methodologies for understanding language use and cultural contexts within the New Testament.
Conclusion
The critical text of the New Testament did not arise from the heritage of the Textus Receptus. These represent two entirely different worldviews, epistemologies, and methodologies. Progress from Erasmus, Stephanus, to Beza represent supernaturalism, divine providence, orthodox biblical belief, and certainty. The Bible stood as final authority for faith and practice.
Modernism gave birth to the critical text out of a cradle of skepticism. It started with doubt in the work of God and the veracity of providential preservation. Human empiricism supersedes belief in God. For this reason, the text of scripture never stops changing with a hopeless future for a settled text. This undermines the faith of God’s people and hardens the hearts of the lost.
The Tension in Scripture Between God’s Covenant with and Chastisement of Israel
Theological Tension
Theological tension refers to the concept in Christian theology where seemingly contradictory truths coexist and must be held in balance without reducing their complexity. Tension acknowledges that the Bible presents multifaceted truths that, although appearing to conflict, are, in fact, complementary. Sometimes men use other terms, such as antinomy or paradox, to communicate the same truth.
To uphold tension requires not oversimplifying doctrine. Another way of describing tension is by saying that the truth sits on a razor thin edge, where shifting to one side or another means doctrinal error. Choosing one side over another when tension exists between two truths risks falling into a false belief and/or creating unnecessary division. The inherent tension in the Bible encourages genuine believers to think deeply about their faith and engage less superficially with the text of God’s Word.
Biblical Framework of Premillennialism
As the example of tension, which is the subject of this post, is the biblical framework of premillennialism: God keeps covenant with Israel and at the same time chastises her. I like to say that God intended for us to keep more than one idea in our head at one time. The chastisement does not revoke the covenant, but it enhances it, very much also like the continued salvation by God of saints (Hebrews 12).
God made a promise, agreement, or covenant with Israel, which includes land, descendants, and blessings (Genesis 12:1-3, Genesis 15). The nature of the covenant by God is according to the biblical accounts both unilateral and irrevocable, meaning that God establishes it and it is not dependent upon Israel’s actions. The covenant with Israel depends on God keeping it, not Israel.
Reality of Human Agency
The unconditional covenant with Israel does not preclude chastisement or discipline by God upon her. God even uses these means to guarantee the fulfillment of the covenant. The Old Testament has numerous examples where God disciplines Israel for disobedience, which serves multiple purposes. It calls Israel back to faithfulness, demonstrates God’s holiness, and ultimately prepares her for restoration.
Human agency plays a significant role in the unfolding of God’s plan. While God’s covenant remains intact, Israel’s failure to uphold her part—faithfulness to God—leads to consequences. This does not negate the covenant but rather highlights the dynamic relationship between divine sovereignty and human responsibility.
Tension Between Chastisement and Covenant
Despite periods of chastisement, God’s ultimate plan involves restoration for Israel. Prophecies in books such as Ezekiel (Ezekiel 36-37) and Isaiah (Isaiah 11) speak of a future time when Israel will be restored spiritually and physically. This restoration aligns with the belief in a literal fulfillment of God’s promises during the Millennial reign of Christ.
The tension between chastisement and covenant can be seen as part of a larger narrative about sin, judgment, grace, and redemption within scripture. Understanding this tension helps believers appreciate both God’s justice in dealing with sin and His mercy in fulfilling His promises. While discipline may occur due to disobedience, it does not nullify God’s irrevocable commitments. It rather sets the stage for eventual restoration.
Even though God’s covenants with Israel (Abrahamic, Davidic, and New) are unconditional, obedience still plays a significant role in the fulfillment of them. Disobedience does not nullify God’s covenants, but disobedience or obedience can affect an individual Jew’s experience of blessings associated with those covenants. The end of Deuteronomy outlines blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience. Israel’s failure to obey can and has lead to temporal consequences such as exile or suffering. This continues to this very day.
Purpose of Chastisement
Prophetic texts such as Ezekiel 36-37 and Romans 11:25-27 speak of a time when Israel will turn back to God and experience His blessings as a nation. This will bring to consummation what God promised. Central to this restoration is Jesus Christ. Enough individual Israelites will turn to and believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior to make up an entire nation that God will save. Christ will return to establish His kingdom on earth, during which time He will reign from Jerusalem for a thousand years on earth and then into the eternal state (Revelation 20-22).
In the biblical narrative, God used surrounding nations to subject Israel to oppression and punishment. This chastisement served multiple purposes: it was a means of discipline intended to bring Israel back to faithfulness and obedience (as seen in Jeremiah and Isaiah), and it also demonstrated God’s sovereignty over all nations.
God Uses and Then Punishes Nations
God can and use even those who oppose Him or His people for His divine purposes. Nations acting out of their own motives, often by power or greed, still fulfilled God’s plan. Despite being instruments of God’s will, these nations faced repercussions for their actions against Israel. This fulfilled God’s covenants. He cursed them who cursed Israel. This included even the relatively light opposition of a weaker nation like Edom in the book of Obadiah. These nations are accountable for their own actions despite God using them to chastise Israel.
The nature of this judgment varies; it can manifest as military defeat, exile, or other forms of national calamity. The overarching principle is that God holds all nations accountable for how they treat His chosen people. This reflects both justice and mercy within God’s character—justice in punishing wrongdoing and mercy in offering opportunities for repentance.
Even though the chastisement inflicted on Israel by other nations may have been part of God’s sovereign plan, those same nations faced punishment for their actions against Israel. The Gentile nations that move Israel toward their repentance during the time of the Gentiles will also face God’s punishment for their role. This again expresses the tension between Divine sovereignty and human responsibility.
Eschatology Is Affecting the Foreign Policy of the United States
Premillennialism and Foreign Policy
A large percentage, I would say 35% of the population, of Americans is premillennial. Almost 100 percent of those were Trump voters in the 2024 election. Premillennialism takes literally the Old and New Testament promises to Israel. Amillennialism and postmillennialism are growing in the United States, but it is still a small, albeit loud, percentage of professing Christians.
Premillennialism takes what is called an Old Testament priority. The characters of the Old Testament, as God revealed His Word to them, understood what they heard. For instance, the promises concerning the Messiah were literal and fulfilled that way in the first coming of Jesus Christ. A very low percentage of Jews believed that, but Christians did and do.
Abrahamic Covenant
I point to the Abrahamic Covenant of Genesis, which repeats itself multiple times in the book, starting with Genesis 12:1-3, but with an allusion in Genesis 3:15 and the seed of the woman. God promised a seed, a land, and a blessing. It was a unilateral, unconditional, and irrevocable covenant with an ethnic people. You can add to that the Mosaic, Davidic, and New Covenants by God that apply to Israel.
In the present war in the Middle East, a large part of the support of the Israel comes from premillennialists. You can add to that especially the orthodox Jews and then the Messianic Jews. If you went to an orthodox synagogue in Florida, almost 100 percent would have supported Donald Trump. The two ideas coincide. The Messiah is Jesus Christ, even if the orthodox Jews deny that. However, they both look for a Messiah, who will set up a kingdom.
A Division
How are the eschatological positions applying to foreign policy right now? A division exists in the Republican foreign policy. The neo-conservatives are a very small minority now in the Republican Party. Many went Independent or Democrat.
When I talk about the small minority, I’m saying The Lincoln Project, The Bulwark, the Bush/Rove/Cheney/Condoleezza Rice Faction, and the Romney/Murkowski/Collins/Nikki Haley/Mitch McConnell/(now) Mike Pence contingent. Some still hang with the Republicans because they support more Trump ideas than the new Democrat Party. Much of this side on foreign policy wants to keep sending billions or a trillion more to Ukraine and try to defeat Russia and Putin in a proxy war.
The same conflagration of new-conservative types support Israel in the Middle East, but they want a new world order with a muscular U. S. intervention overseas. They still support the idea of nation building, perhaps going to back to an old NATO philosophy after World War II. These are typically the classic free-traders and dollar diplomacy to force the spread of capitalism and democracy across the world.
MAGA and Historical Republicanism
The MAGA, American First foreign policy, as I see it, is split, but an avenue of cohesion exists. The biggest group would take the following position and this fits Premillennial eschatology. I would be in that thinking. First, they reject the war in the Ukraine. They want a diplomatic end to that war with the hope of better relations with Russia. This includes ending NATO expansion into Eastern Europe, threatening Russian sovereignty. This is not support of Putin.
The historical Republican foreign policy prioritizes America. It secures the borders of the nation and strengthens the national economy. Included in this is greater fairness in trade in combination with freeness and a return of strong American industrialization and business. China makes less of the stuff America needs for a secure future. This means less foreign intervention more in the spirit of George Washington in his Farewell Address.
Israel
A second aspect of the MAGA foreign policy relates to Israel. The split exists here, because there is an anti-Israel faction in MAGA. It’s also antisemitic. You can find this also in the Christian nationalism movement. It is not so totally innocent. The amillennialists and postmillennialists abide here, a few premillennialists too, but with what I’ve read as a very odd sort of premillennialism. The latter says that future support of Israel and trust in the promises of God do not necessitate, and could even preclude, present support of apostate Israel.
The premillennialist branch, the bigger one, of MAGA foreign policy can work with the smaller faction, which I believe includes now a name such as Tucker Carlson. They might agree that the United States should allow Israel freedom to win in the Middle East. The United States will continue as a supportive ally without its own military involvement, no more boots on the ground.
Premillennialists like myself would support a one state solution in Israel and an expansion of Israel territory. This mirrors a belief that the Palestinians are in practice something like the Canaanites of the Old Testament. They have no interest in cohabitation or peace with Israel in the land. Israel can’t continue to live like this. A one state solution is the most popular one in Israel today. I think Israel should be allowed to form one state with the integration of like-minded Palestinians.
Conclusion
Peace in the foreign policy of the American First Movement revolves around an anti-interventionist approach. The United States does not force its own foreign policy on Israel. It supports an Israel First Movement in Israel. At the same time, it neither sends financial aid to either Israel, Palestine, or any other Middle Eastern country. These countries can trade freely and fairly with no advantage to either side.
What I’m writing fits a premillennialist approach and, I believe, it represents the present foreign policy in the United States. It occurs in the most major way because of a belief in the promises of God to Israel. It is also optimistic. With the United States advocating for a literal approach to scripture even in its foreign policy toward Israel, it gives a greater opportunity for blessing on the country.
You’ve heard the mission credo, the church whose light shines the furthest shines the brightest at home. I agree with the same credo for the United States. Let’s stop intervening everywhere and get our own house in order. We are not ready to spread a corrupt Americanism. Only intervene against a direct threat to the security of the United States. If an African country wants to outlaw homosexuality, the United States should not punish that country, but respect its sovereignty. This will have a greater long term affect on the rest of the world, just being that original idea of a bright light shining on a hill.
The Problem of the Problem of Suffering
Perhaps top at the list of reasons for agnosticism or atheism is what people call “the problem of suffering.” What is the problem? Apparently the problem is for the idea of the existence of God, whether it is plausible that God and suffering coexist. The agnostics or atheists would say that if suffering exists like it does, then God must not or should not exist. They would say that it is not credible or conceivable, that if there was a God, that He would allow for suffering. They don’t know if there is a God, but they do know this with their great, superior knowledge.
What’s the Problem?
I could ask, “Why is suffering a problem?” Or, “Why does the existence of suffering contradict the existence of God?” As I see it, God is who He is, which is also, He is who He says He is in the Bible. Someone may not like who He is, but that doesn’t eliminate His existence. Genuinely receiving God is receiving the truth. Knowing God, suffering makes sense. Suffering being a problem is the actual problem of suffering, or the problem of the problem of suffering. It’s a problem that people judge suffering the way that they do. They’re wrong.
Why do people or should people think it’s a problem to suffer? I contend that it would be a problem if there was not suffering. People deserve to suffer and God created a world with the potential of suffering. Men are not more righteous or of greater justice than God. He defines righteousness and justice. God is the measurement of righteousness, the standard. Mankind falls far, far short of the righteousness of God. Let’s consider suffering though, and see if that consideration will help everyone reading here.
Explaining from the Beginning
The only world that exists, the one God made, He records in the Bible. That book says a lot about suffering and is sufficient to understand it. Sure, people will reject what it says for their own ideas, but it is the truth about the subject. Someone who thinks he has a better idea than God is very proud and his rejection of the truth about suffering is evil. It is rebellion against God.
God created a good world. He said again and again in Genesis 1, it is good, and finally, it is very good. The man, male and female, that God created was very good the way He created him. He created him with a choice. Adam and Eve could choose evil, just like the angels could choose evil. Consequences came with this choice.
The biggest critics of suffering reject what God did, even the idea of what He did. Apparently, if they were in charge, had that power, they would have done it differently. What would make their way right? Would it be right to do it a different way than God? God said it was very good. They say, no, because if they were in charge, they would have done it in a different way. However, there is no different way.
God’s way is the only way. And He said it was very good, so it was very good. People created by God can’t have a better way than God. They can’t even think without Him and they are not by nature superior to Him.
Critics of God
Critics of what God did are inferior to Him in numbers of ways. God knows everything and He has and had the knowledge to create and sustain everything. People can copy some of what God did, using the materials and the laws He created and sustains. Still, people are limited to something already here and the limitations of natural laws. We know from the Bible that God does not function outside of His nature, but He can operate outside of natural laws.
For instance, man, God’s creation, unless God gives him special power, performs within the bounds of natural laws, ones God created. God works outside of those bounds. As an example, He is not bound by time. He created time, and His creatures act within the limits of time, but He does not. God is supernatural. With supernatural love, wisdom, and power, God maintains everything.
God’s Superior Knowledge and Justice
Knowledge
Natural laws limit man to one place at one time. He can go searching under every rock he can search, but only one at a time and at one moment of time. He can’t be under every rock at every moment. Because of that, he cannot deny what or what doesn’t happen. He doesn’t know. God is everywhere at every moment both past, present, and future, so He does know.
Whatever God says, He has this superior basis of knowledge. He already knows it all. When we criticize Him, we can’t say we really know, except based upon what He said, the final authority for all judgment.
Justice
When Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden, disobeying God’s commandment, God punished them. He alone is Just. God defines justice. If you read the account of the Fall in Genesis 3, you see that when Adam and Eve sinned, they hid from God. They also blamed God. They did not immediately repent. Sure, they said, “I did eat.” They confessed that, but they did not take responsibility right away for their disobedience to God.
Adam and Eve’s saying that they were in this predicament because of God was not true. The truth was more in line with something David confessed in Psalm 51, that against thee and thee (God) only have I sinned. None of the suffering in the world is because of God. He allowed it, but He was not the cause of it. Even though deserved, God alone alleviates suffering. He also has a plan of redemption, a plan of salvation, that covers everything into eternity future for those who will have it. He provides a way of escape from a world of suffering.
God also confined Himself to suffering for man to save Him from his own sin. The Divine took wholly upon Himself human form. He became a man to taste death for every man, Hebrews 2 says. Jesus suffered, the Just for the unjust. He who knew no sin became sin for man. This is the love of God, so that even when man gets what He deserves, God provides a means for Him to receive what He doesn’t deserve. God gives mercy and grace to mankind for salvation. This is what critics should receive and believe. It’s true.
Arguments from Atheists and Agnostics
Bambi Argument
The Problem on Animals
I have read two main lines of argumentation from atheist or agnostic critics in recent days. One common tack of the unbelieving critic is pointing out the undeserved suffering of animals. It is an old argument. One could call the animal, Bambi. I might call it the Bambi argument. The critics say that, even if the suffering of humans is just, the suffering of animals is not.
It’s tough to argue animals in a world rife with feelings of sentimentalism and nostalgia. I contend that’s what makes this a good argument. It connects emotionally with people, because they think of their own animals. During any political campaign year, some story arises about a politician who maybe mistreated an animal.
An Answer on Animals
B. Kyle Keltz wrote about animal suffering and said this in his conclusion:
While many aspects of the problem of animal suffering seem intuitive and sound at first, upon further investigation, the problem falls apart. Pain feels bad, but it is not intrinsically bad because it needs to be unpleasant for animals to survive. It is bad for humans to experience pain because this is against their will, but non-human animals cannot will to be free from pain nor are they able to be aware of their pain. The only thing that is infinitely perfect is God, so any world He will create to communicate His goodness will be finite and will entail the possibility of non-human animal pain and suffering.
My main point of including the paragraph is to exhibit thoughts on the difference between the pain of people and animals. Skeptics might agree that people deserve pain and suffering, which is another reason for the effectiveness of the animal argument. One should consider that animals don’t suffer like humans and can’t because they are not rational creatures. Like with people, redemption of a sin-cursed earth will also bring relief to animal suffering. God is righteous and He allows suffering. It is allowable.
Canaanite Genocide Argument
A second major line of argumentation is the God ordained annihilation of the Canaanites and mainly Canaanite children. Skeptics use the term, “genocide,” the God of the Bible allows for genocide.
God is a just God. With His superior knowledge and love, His creation should accept His will. God knows better about the slaughter of the Canaanites than we do. If He ordered their death, they deserved the death. In ethics, this is God wanting the greater good. Everything operates from the baseline of a sin-cursed world that will last only for awhile. Death is not the end for any of us either. God could save a Canaanite like He saved Ruth the Moabite and Rahab from Jericho.
God attaches the annihilation of people to sin. Everyone deserves to die whenever they die. This so-called “genocide” brings a mass of people to their death at a time appointed by God with His superior knowledge, love, and justice.
The Book of Lamentations justifies the suffering of Jerusalem in a Babylonian siege. God was faithful to chastise His people. If Israel had a problem with its suffering, that was the problem of suffering. Like Lamentations 3:22 says:
It is of the Lord’s mercies that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not.
The Gospel, If It Was a Product, Is the Greatest One on Earth
Tesla Template
Elon Musk apparently does not have an advertising or marketing budget for Tesla. Tesla does not pay for endorsements. Instead, Tesla uses its money to make its product great. It assumes that customers, who buy Tesla cars, will champion the brand and promote the vehicles.
The electrical vehicles of Tesla are nothing compared to the biblical gospel, the one and true, only gospel. Individual components of the gospel and that which contains the gospel, scripture, surpasses a Tesla or anything like Tesla, in an immeasurable way. Musk banks on his product.
Nothing Better
If biblical salvation, eternal life and such, are true, then just talking about that is enough. Would the following question be accurate as an opening? Here it is in a block quote.
Could I tell you about something that is immensely better than anything else on earth and in the entire history of mankind? And I’m not selling it. I just want you to have it.
Not only does this life reach its greatest value, but it moves into the next life, which is eternal. That’s if it’s true. And why would we even talk about it if it were a falsehood? We wouldn’t. But it is true.
You could also say that the Bible defines success. You will have succeeded in life if you sort out what God says in His Word, believe it and then do it.
What Churches Do
Churches today or just religious institutions put much into advertising and marketing, trying to concoct programs that will attract interest. The fundamental message of a true church, the gospel and then all that it entails, is the greatest attraction. A church shouldn’t replace the number one attraction with things boundlessly less attractive, as a supposed means of greater attraction.
Let’s even take all the various facets of the Christmas story as an example. It’s just again a matter of whether it is true or not. Even the enemies of the story know that. They try to undermine the veracity of the story, attack its credibility. As it is, infinitely valuable nuggets fill the birth narrative of Jesus Christ.
A faithlessness exists in either remaining silent or staying relatively quiet about the gospel message. If Tesla’s electric vehicles mere existence is enough of a sales strategy, then so the gospel is too, even more so. People put a lot of effort into things a great degree less important than the gospel. They have their priorities out of whack, when they do so.
Recent Comments