Can Restorationist Churches Be or Are They True?
This post provides a good accompaniment to the last three posts I’ve written here (one, two, and three). I’ll return to the first two of those posts, as they are the beginning of a continuing series.
************************
Successionism or Restorationism
The choices are not apostolic succession or no succession of churches. Apostolic succession is bogus, a lie, and a fraud. Apostles did not continue after John. Succession itself though is a biblical concept. True churches continued. Jesus promised that and enough history exists to validate it. If you don’t believe in succession, then you believe in restorationism, which is a commonality in cults. Look at all the religions of the 19th century that started in the United States, claiming to restore the lost church: Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormon), Churches of Christ (Campbellism, today also the Christian Church), Seventh Day Adventist, and Jehovah’s Witnesses.
The Charismatic Movement is also a restorationist movement. It says that the church lost its true or full relationship with and to the Holy Spirit. Charismatics speak of the “latter rain,” this era with a fresh outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
For someone to start a false religion, he needs a kind of blank canvass. He must take his religious etch-a-sketch, shake it, and start over. He starts from scratch, inventing something that almost always includes extra-scriptural revelation or authority of some kind.
“Total Apostasy”
Grounded in restorationism is “total apostasy.’ Everyone everywhere turned from the truth with perhaps a few exceptions imbedded in something of a false church. Wikipedia uses the terminology, “Great Apostasy.”
Protestants, which include Baptist English Separatists, take up the mantle of restorationism themselves. They at least wobble between a couple of competing ideas. Included in their restorationism is the terminology, “the reformed doctrine of justification,” as if the world lost justification for a period of time, enveloped in darkness and coming out in the light of the Protestant Reformation. Supporters have to say that the true church or the truth itself was in Roman Catholicism or that it was free floating on the planet somewhere maybe or maybe not.
The latter of the two explanations for lost Christianity or non-existent New Testament churches for an undetermined period of time, perhaps over a thousand years mainly turns into mysticism. A mystical church existed somewhere. It’s a tough one to admit, but they would say that mainly mystically within Roman Catholicism some kind of true church existed in a spiritual way. It’s a tough view to support.
What’s Left
Those who won’t believe in successionism are saying that the true church existed in a universal, visible apostate church that preached a false gospel. These apparent believers did not separate from that church. The “true believers” stayed in the church in defiance of the biblical gospel, meanwhile practicing multiple forms of false worship and taking everyone around them with them in this journey. It’s no wonder they get angry and just don’t want to talk about it.
I asked AI about the doctrine of justification and it concluded: “The doctrine of justification was indeed lost or significantly distorted for several centuries prior to the Reformation.” AI also reports: “Protestants generally do not believe in a formal succession of true churches from the first century until now.” Concerning restorationism in Protestantism, AI adds: “During the Reformation in the 16th century, Protestant reformers sought to return to what they viewed as the original teachings of Christianity as found in Scripture.” AI says that Protestants themselves are restorationists.
Support for Perpetuity
Matthew 16:18 and 28:20
One of the primary verses cited in support of the church’s perpetuity is Matthew 16:18, where Jesus states, “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Jesus says that His church will endure against all adversities, implying a continuous existence throughout history.
In Matthew 28:20, Jesus promises His disciples, “And lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.” This assurance indicates that Christ’s presence would accompany His church until the end of time, reinforcing the belief that there would always be a community of believers—His church—on earth. AI says: “Based on biblical texts and theological interpretations, the Bible does teach the perpetuity of true churches through history in every generation, affirming that there will always be a faithful remnant who adhere to Christ’s teachings.”
Other Reasons
On the other hand, scripture teaches against a total apostasy during the church age. 1 Timothy 4:1 says, “Some shall depart from the faith.” Some. Not all. All depart from the faith would contradict the promises of Christ. Like He preserves His Words, the Lord preserves His churches. Restorationism is a clear signal or cue of a false religion, denomination, or church.
Other arguments and reasons for a visible succession of true New Testament churches exist. Scripture does teach authority. Christ gives all authority to His church to baptize (Matthew 28:20). Jesus himself affirmed John’s authority when he asked the religious leaders about it, stating, “The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? answer me.” (Mark 11:30). The implication here is that John’s baptism had divine backing, which was essential for its validity. Those who accepted John’s baptism were seen as accepting God’s purpose for their lives (Luke 7:29-30) and recognizing his role in God’s plan.
Jesus Himself traveled 70-90 miles for baptism by John. Surely He could have had someone dunk Him under water or baptize himself. Jesus recognized the importance of authority in baptism. Baptism requires legitimate authority to be legitimate in practice.
I’m not advocating chain link authority, but the principle of authority as a matter of faith. This is how churches understood the authority for baptism. Roman Catholicism does not have this legitimate authority. Neither did Protestants receive legitimate authority from Roman Catholicism. Where did authority lie? It comes through churches independent of the state church with a true gospel and Christ as their Head. Scripture says they would continue and they did. Attacks on perpetuity and succession are tantamount to an embrace of restorationism, admitting that Jesus did not fulfill His promises.
English Reformation?
The English Reformation, a famous religious and political movement in England, almost anyone here reading knows started with King Henry VIII separating from Roman Catholicism because he wanted an annulment from his wife, Catherine of Aragon. The English Reformation itself for whatever its benefits begets religions or denominations clearly with no authority. It essentially impersonates Roman Catholicism with some slight tweaks. Then other groups spin off of it equally with no authority. This is painfully obvious and something rather to block out of the imagination.
Despite the truth about the English Reformation, many Baptists today embrace English separatism themselves like restorationists. It would have to go like this. Roman Catholicism was apostate so Church of England started something over anew, and then the Church of England wasn’t legitimate, so English Baptists dissented and began themselves something novel, fresh, and disconnected. They were against trying to restore something lost. They embrace that concept by saying nothing of perpetuity or succession exists, except, probably said in a whispery tone, within Roman Catholicism.
Bogus Attack on Successionism
I understand the attack on successionism. It’s akin to throwing the game board. If you can’t win, then nobody wins. The harsh and vitriolic attack on the Trail of Blood idea found in the pamphlet, The Trail of Blood, irks those with no perpetuity, no succession, and no authority. They don’t want anyone embracing it, so they deny it all and then leave scorched earth behind it. And what do these men leave everyone with? It’s not pretty.
Our church will not fellowship with restorationists. We cannot legitimize that view of the world or reality. Based on presuppositions and suitable enough history, restorationism can’t be true. I believe it is a different Jesus, because their Jesus couldn’t keep the church intact and could not. How does that fit a biblical view of God’s sovereignty? With His love, wisdom, and power, He just allowed true churches to die everywhere. How did they come back? In most instances, they would say from infant sprinklers who embraced a state church and much other doctrine and practical error. None of this is biblical or true.
What Does the Apostle Paul Mean When He Says “One Body”?
The Terminology “One Body”
The Apostle Paul uses the two words “one body” eleven times in his epistles. Theologians, teachers, and others have perverted the meaning of the expression, “one body,” through the years, reading into it something not there. They over complicate it to see one of their presuppositions and twist it like a gumby doll.
The word “one” does not always mean “numeric one.” Very often, especially in the New Testament and in Paul’s writings, it means “unified one.” Let me give you an example of numeric one, such as a single or singular person, place, or thing, and then a unified one. One can express unity. The people were one, means they were completely together. I am not a Phillies fan, but if I said the Philadelphia Phillies were one team, I am not saying that there is a single Phillies ball club. I’m saying that the team has unity. That’s how Paul uses the term. It’s obvious he uses it that way.
Usage of “One”
In the English, the word “one” is used 1,967 times in the Bible. In Matthew 5:17, Jesus says:
Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
That is a usage of numeric one. He is saying, not a single jot or tittle will pass from the law. That incidentally is the first usage of “one” in the entire New Testament. Luke writes in Acts 19:34:
But when they knew that he was a Jew, all with one voice about the space of two hours cried out, Great is Diana of the Ephesians.
This does not mean that this crowd of people had a single voice. They had several voices, but unified voices, so one voice. The Apostle Paul writes in Romans 15:6:
That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
To the church at Rome to whom Paul wrote, he says, “ye,” referring to its plural members, excluding himself. He says that these many, plural people have “one mind” and “one mouth.” Do you think that only one, single mind and one, single mouth existed in Rome? No. Of course not. Yet, you don’t have people saying that there is a universal, invisible mystical mind or a universal, invisible mystical mouth. Maybe they do in a mind science cult, but this does not exist in the actual, real world.
Usage of “One Body”
Colossians 3:15
Now let’s consider the terminology “one body,” which expresses the unity of each church in its context. I want us to consider Colossians 3:15 first, because it eliminates the concept that “one body” is one universal, invisible body. Paul writes:
And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful.
The Apostle Paul does use the pronoun “we” sometimes and includes himself, but one should not assume that he is saying that he is in the same one body as his audience. When he uses “ye” here, he excludes himself. He says, “your hearts,” “ye are called,” and “be ye thankful.” He could have phrased all this with “we” in it, but he didn’t. Instead, he says, “ye are called in one body.” If this was singular “one body,” referring to a big universal church to which all believers were members, he should not exclude himself, and yet he does. Why? He is addressing the church at Colossae. The “one body” was their church.
The context of this statement in Colossians 3:15 goes back a long ways to say that the church there is neither Greek nor Jew, bond nor free, etc. In other words, they are now no longer separate tribes, but all one there. Paul says, “be merciful, kind, longsuffering, etc. (v. 12), forbear, forgive, don’t quarrel (v. 13), put on charity, which is a bond (v. 14), so that peace rules in your hearts (v. 15). All these factors lead to unity — in other words, “one body.” Paul instructs them in having a unified body, a church with unity, which God and he both want.
1 Corinthians 12:12
The context of 1 Corinthians 12 is that the church at Corinth has many members and, therefore, many varied offices and gifts. The one Holy Spirit (which is numeric one with an allusion to unity, the one Holy Spirit causes oneness) actually creates this diversity in the church by dividing up or assigning varied spiritual gifts to the members. With this kind of variation, how is there harmony, oneness? Well, first there is one Spirit. He can bring oneness, since He isn’t going to contradict Himself.
As an analogy, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 12:12:
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
“The body is one.” Here he speaks of the actual human body in a generic sense. “The body” is the human body. Question: Is the singular “the body” here particular or generic or is it an invented usage of the singular, “mystical”? It isn’t particular, because Paul is not speaking of a a particular person’s body. It is generic because every body has members or body parts. Each body on earth has always been one, a defining or true aspect of what it means to be a body. It isn’t a body any more when a finger is over here, an ear is in another zip code, and each toe finds itself in a different county.
The Human Body as a Metaphor
I want to emphasize again. Please pay attention here. “The body” is the human body. Human body. Think anatomy and physiology. The “ankle bone is connected to the leg bone, the leg bone is connected to the knee bone.” The skeleton does not do the skeleton dance if the ankle bone is not in fact connected to the leg bone. All those joints must connect for the body to work in unity. (Take a deep breath.)
What Paul writes actually contradicts the idea of a universal body. Part of a body being a body is proximity. It is all together in one location. “The body” is not a particular human body, but speaks of any and every human body in a generic fashion. Not only is the human body one, but the human body has many members or body parts. “Members” means “body parts.” Paul uses the human body to illustrate the unity and diversity of a church. Even though the body has many members, it is still one, that is, it is still unified. Every member works together. They must because it is one body. This is not teaching a universal church.
Not Singular One, But Unified One
For being such a prominent doctrine among evangelicals, Paul doesn’t ever mention a universal church. If it existed, he could have easily clarified it. What universal church proponents do is take these “one body” passages and the like, which are unity passages, and they read into them a universal church. This messes up the interpretation or meaning of the entire passage by forcing this non-existent concept into the passage. People will very often do almost whatever it takes to get their doctrine into the Bible, that isn’t there on its own.
When Paul implies, “Christ is one body,” there is a sense of “numeric one,” but it still communicating “unified one” as the primary usage here. Body parts still unify, still operate as one, function together, because of the oneness, the unity of the body. The church at Corinth divided over its gifts. Get this. The church at Corinth divided over its gifts. It’s like a body dividing over its various body parts. That doesn’t happen with a body even though it has various body parts. It still works together. That is what Paul is saying!!
Paul is saying nothing about a universal, mystical body of believers. He is talking about the unity of the church at Corinth and in a generic fashion, the unity of every church. Even though each church has many members, it is one body. That is the reality of a body. Each body is one.
People Will Still Argue
I really do assume that people will still argue over this, because their universal body concept is so precious to them for whatever reason. They want to keep that Platonic “all believers” concept intact. It has no practical ramification at all and doesn’t fit what Paul is teaching, but they still call it the prime meaning of these unity texts. While there is no biblical unity (like that of a human body) between all professing believers, they still begrudgingly use it. Meanwhile, they ruin what’s in the text itself to help out a church. Churches lose an important unity text to preserve a false doctrine.
Why do people need to keep this false concept of a universal body? I believe there are a lot of reasons. It isn’t grammar or syntax or the plain meaning of the text. No, it is something outside of the Bible. The chief reason, I believe, and this is an opinion, but with a large sample size, is that people can live freely without constraint to an actual church. They become a free-floating entity beholden to no one and without authority. It is a good vehicle to take for rebellion. It means not submitting to anything but a mystical Christ, who they shape into the Jesus they want Him to be.
I’m going to stop here, because I believe you get the message. This is what each of Paul’s “one body” texts are about. They are about the unity of individual churches. They all happen the same way, just like the unity of a human body in the body metaphor that Paul uses.
The Historical Story of External Factors Perverting the Meaning of Church (part two)
The Part Played By Religious Persecution
Under Roman auspices, Judaism persecuted the church at Jerusalem right after its beginning in the first century. Both were Jewish, the religion of Israel and the church, and the Roman Empire didn’t distinguish between the two. To Rome, the church was a mere sect of the Jewish religion. With more conversion to Christ and the spread of churches across the then-known world, Rome began persecuting churches across its Empire.
Subservience to Jesus Christ threatened allegiance to Rome. This replayed in future centuries under nations and other governments where states required devotion and sought to eliminate their competition. The Roman Empire became steeped in polytheism, including worship of the Roman emperor. This clashed with New Testament churches of the first century, threatening the Roman view of the world and presaging an uprising.
As Christianity began to spread, it faced increasing hostility from both local populations and the Roman state, which viewed it as a challenge to traditional religious practices and societal norms. The need for cohesion became paramount as churches sought to protect themselves from external threats. The decentralized nature of early and biblical Christianity, characterized by local congregations each led by a single bishop, seemed inadequate to address the challenges posed by the power of the secular government.
Consolidation of Power and Pragmatism
Leaders of churches consolidated power into prominent pastors and churches, leading to a hierarchy among churches and their elders. This resulted in the emergence of bishops who could oversee multiple congregations and coordinate responses to persecution, thereby fostering a sense of unity across different regions. They reinvented church government by adding layers of extra scriptural authority, in part so they could disseminate information more efficiently regarding threats across regions to cope with persecution.
Newly conceived extra-scriptural and hierarchical networks organized mutual support among churches to share resources, send aid to persecuted members, or coordinate collective actions against oppressive measures imposed by local authorities of the Roman Empire. The idea here was that New Testament government wasn’t suitable to face its opposition. This new type of government was superior and more efficient. Rather than biblical, it was pragmatic. To defend this pragmatism with scripture necessitated reassigning new definitions to the already plain meaning of the text of the New Testament.
Altering Scriptural Roles
The term “bishop” (from the Greek word episkopos, meaning overseer) began to be used to describe leaders who had authority over multiple congregations. This altered the scriptural role of the bishop over only his congregation, not other pastors and churches. Nothing substantial in the first two centuries in historical writings advocates for something more than local leadership of pastors in separate churches. Since Rome was the capital of the Roman Empire, the church at Rome took on prominence in this new iteration of ecclesiological organization.
Skilled and successful pastors, actual ones, shepherding their congregations according to the New Testament could become marked for higher authority in these newly devised positions. Bigger is very often thought to be better. Seeking for greater things meant something beyond local only, even if that’s what the Lord Jesus Christ started and the New Testament taught. Men rationalized these new offices with a need to help the churches. They could both complement and supplement the churches in a protective and helpful manner. This meant though also deferring to these more powerful offices.
Human government doesn’t tend toward shrinking. The tendency is toward something bigger and even intrusive, exerting power over people. Many suggest that Nicolaitism represented an early form of clerical hierarchy where church leaders exercised dominion over laypeople. Etymological analysis supports this notion. When breaking down “Nicolaitan” into Greek components, it means “conquering” (nike) and “people” (laos), implying a conquering authority over the laity. Revelation 2:6 and 15 chronicle the rise of Nicolaitism in the first century.
Defenses of New Positions and Perverting Doctrine
New theories emerged about the nature of the church to justify innovations in governance of churches. All of this, men deemed, would work better, but it meant finding this in scripture too. The Petrine theory emerged from passages in the New Testament, particularly Matthew 16:18-19, saying that Jesus referred to Peter as the rock upon which He will build His church. This presented Peter with a unique role among the apostles.
The concept of apostolic succession began to develop, suggesting that Peter, as one of Jesus’ closest disciples, passed on his authority to his successors in Rome. Early ecclesiastical leaders such as Irenaeus and Clement of Rome acknowledged a connection between Peter and the bishopric of Rome. They deemed regional power over churches like the apostles. In his writings, Against the Heretics (3:3:2), Irenaeus writes:
We point out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that Church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition.
Irenaeus held up Polycarp as an example of apostolic succession. By the late second century, figures like Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged the special status of the church in Rome due to its association with Peter and Paul. This recognition laid groundwork for later claims about papal authority.
More to Come
The Historical Story of External Factors Perverting the Meaning of Church
The New Testament Meaning of Church
God revealed His Word, which is the special revelation of every and all of His Words by God the Spirit through human authors. Those words communicate plainly the will of God to man, including the nature of the church. The church is what scripture says it is through its cumulative usages in the New Testament. What the Bible says the church is, is what it is, regardless of what occurs in the world or what men may say or have said that it is.
The New Testament shows that in its rudimentary sense, the church is local only. The underlying Greek word, ekklesia, means “assembly.” The church is an assembly. It is always an assembly and that’s what the word means. Even if the New Testament addresses the doctrine of the church in a generic way, a church is still what it is, an assembly. And yet today, people will say and have said that the church is mainly not an assembly, but a mystical or spiritual universal entity, not local or visible. How did this happen? It didn’t start out that way.
Historical Theology
Historical Theology or the History of Christian Doctrine can show the changes in the meaning of words and doctrine. The meaning of ekklesia and the doctrine of the church changed from its usage and teaching in the New Testament. The church changed into something it was into something it was not and is not. More than changing, outside influences through history actually perverted the meaning of church and the doctrine of the church.
The history of Christian doctrine tells a story of external factors. One of the values of historical theology is chronicling the culture of the world, governments, and other societal elements that affected the beliefs of Christianity. External factors have affected the interpretation, meaning, and doctrine of God’s Word. Instead of reading out the plain meaning of the text of the New Testament, people read into the text something not in it. This is another attack on scripture by Satan and the world system.
How Changes Occurred
One of the benefits of studying the history of Christian doctrine is investigating the changes in doctrine and how they occurred. Outside circumstances affected how people understood the biblical writings and their teaching. False teaching also begets more false teaching. A major component to change is fear. The Roman Empire opposed Christianity in the first three centuries and people adapted their belief and practice out of fear. Scripture reveals how that fear can and will modify what people will believe.
In addition, teachers of scripture mix biblical teaching with human philosophies, such as Platonism and mysticism. Through the decades and centuries since Christ, students of scripture allowed the influence of other writings to affect their understanding of the Bible. Traditions sometimes took precedent over sound exegesis of the biblical text. Predominant teachers held greater sway in the minds of people. Powerful men put their thumb on the scale of their preferred scholars and instructors, giving them an oversized impact on contemporary thinking.
Once John finished writing the book of Revelation in the late first century, which completed the New Testament and the canon of scripture, apostolic authority ceased. Scripture stood as the final authority. Also, authoritative leaders were in individual churches, not anything greater than that. The New Testament shows no hierarchy. Pastor and deacons were the only church officers. The pastor presided over their prospective, individual churches, each under Jesus Christ. Individual churches would fellowship with other churches of like faith and practice.
Just Individual Churches
The New Testament shows that churches cooperated with one another in non authoritative ways. They passed around the New Testament books (Galatians 1:2, Colossians 4:16). Churches met together to settle disputes with one another (Acts 15). A church would host and provide hospitality to those traveling from other churches (3 John). Several different churches might send funds to help out another church (1 Corinthians 16:1-3). An individual church would send support to a missionary from another church (Philippians 4).
According to the New Testament, no other church had authority over another church. Jesus was the Head of each church and accomplished that headship through scripture. The demarcation between churches could and did impede the spread of false doctrine. No evidence exists in the New Testament of one church having authority over another. The spirit of the New Testament is serving one another (Philip 2:1-5, Eph 5:21, Matt 20:25-28), not domination over one another.
Authority in Individual Churches
God gives authority to pastors over individual congregations and nothing greater than that (Hebrews 13:7,17, 1 Peter 5:1-3, Titus 2:15, 1 Timothy 5:17). Even the pastors with authority over their individual, separate churches (assemblies) also are themselves under the authority of their churches (1 Timothy 5:19-20). After the end of the apostolic era, this is all someone sees in the New Testament. Apostles had authority greater than one church, but no one else. The apostle Paul still submitted to church authority though, the authority of the single church at Antioch (Acts 13:1-3).
What drew together the churches of the New Testament into unity was having the same Head, Jesus, the same source of authority, scripture, and an identical gospel, means of salvation. Jesus calls His church, “my church,” in Matthew 16:18. He congregation distinguished itself from other assemblies by the means expressed by Him in the Gospels and then through His inspired followers in the rest of the New Testament. Churches could become something less than or other than a church or a true church, like the church of Laodicea in Revelation 3:14-21.
Separate Churches Protecting Doctrine and Practice
When Jesus wanted to bring back a church toward Him, so that it didn’t become a Laodicean church, He worked through individual messengers through an inspired message. He didn’t operate through a greater hierarchical system. One can understand how that having a so-called catholic church with hierarchical authority could bring immediate and widespread false doctrine, heresy, and apostasy. With the head corrupted, everything below it would corrupt too. The autonomy of individual churches could protect the truth using the means given only to individual churches.
Separate churches could protect the doctrine and practice of the church through separation. God gave each church pastors to protect the separate church and church discipline. Church discipline could not operate through anything greater than a single church. It was designed for one church. The Lord’s Table was given to a separate church, which had accountability with its own membership. Body parts function in one location with the witness of all the other parts. Parts of a body do not work together outside of a single locale, which is what “body” itself communicates.
Body, Local
The Apostle Paul in defining the body, didn’t say “we are the body,” but “ye are the body,” excluding himself (1 Corinthians 12:27). That didn’t mean Paul wasn’t himself in a body. He was, even as he says in Romans 12:5. The oneness of a body though is in a particular body, not in bodies spread out all over the globe. Unity occurs in churches, which were given by Christ the means to do so.
With the plain understanding of church in the New Testament, how did other teaching develop through the centuries? This is a story and strongly relates to a few significant factors. Judaism and then the Roman Empire persecuted the first church and then the churches proceeding from that church. Judaism crossed regional boundaries and the Roman Empire was itself spread over the then known world. The Roman Empire was mammoth and with tremendous military and political power. It threatened the very existence of the first churches that started across its empire.
More to Come
Globalism and Relativism Run Amok in the Courts
Two Recent District Court Cases
Two recent United States district court cases provide a case study on globalism and relativism run amok in the courts of the United States. These offer another example of the disintegration of the West. I expect criticism for even addressing this issue, which dovetails with the actual issue itself. Globalism and relativism are biblical content to which scripture provides guidance. It is not out of my apparent area of expertise.
For the first example, the Trump White House invoked the Alien Enemies Act for removing alleged members of Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang members to an El Salvadoran prison. Washington DC district judge James Boasberg, Obama appointee, ordered the deportation planes turned around in order to give these illegal immigrants their due process rights. Legal experts call these injunctions. Courts have issued thirty of these injunctions so far, which is more than they issued against the first forty-two presidents of the United States combined.
In the second example, the U. S. government detained in New Jersey with the purpose of deporting the immigrant Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University student activist, before it moved him to an immigration facility in Jena, Louisiana. Judge Jesse Furman in Manhattan, a district judge of the Southern District of New York issued a court order blocking Khalil’s deportation pending a ruling on his petition.
Immigration, National Defense, and the Executive Branch
Immigration Policy
The defendants in the two cases have in common that neither the alleged gang members nor the Hamas supporting Khalil are citizens of the United States. ABC News reports concerning the Khalil case:
The government has claimed that Palestinian protester Mahmoud Khalil intentionally misrepresented information on his green card application and therefore is inadmissible to the United States.
According to recent court filings, President Donald Trump’s administration said Khalil failed to disclose when applying for his green card last year that his employment by the Syria Office at the British Embassy in Beirut went “beyond 2022” and that he was a “political affairs officer” for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees from June to November 2023.
The executive branch of the United States enforces its immigration laws. Immigration policies directly impact national security by regulating who enters the country. Effective immigration control helps prevent individuals who may pose security risks for the United States.
National Defense
The establishment of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2003 was a significant restructuring of the United States federal government aimed at consolidating various agencies and functions related to national security, particularly in response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Following the events of 9/11, it became clear that there were gaps in communication and coordination among various federal agencies responsible for national security, immigration enforcement, and emergency management.
The United States Constitution assigns the power of the President for national defense. A Department under the President, the Department of Defense (DoD) is primarily focused on military operations and defense against external threats. However, its role in homeland security became increasingly relevant post-9/11. A key goal in forming the DHS was improving information sharing between agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and DoD regarding potential national security threats.
Rights of Citizens
Immigrants in the United States, who are even here legally, do not have the same rights of due process as American citizens. They have certain rights provided by the fifth amendment of the Constitution based on the precedent of decisions of the Supreme Court. No decisions of the Supreme Court have excluded the executive branch from deporting immigrants that are in the United States illegally and especially a threat to the United States.
A Supreme Court case in 1896, Wong Wing et al. v. United States made the simple ruling that protected aliens in the United States from cruel punishment. Another one in 1886, Yick Wo v. Hopkins, Sheriff, etc. and Wo Lee v. Same, said that the United States could not discriminate against aliens in law enforcement because they merely are here as immigrants. Most of you reading know that we should not treat non-citizens exactly the same as citizens.
The Viewpoints of Activist Judges Run Amok
From where or what does the viewpoint come, which would believe that aliens and even illegal ones have the same rights in the United States as its actual legal citizens? These two activist judges abdicate the authority given by the United States Constitution to the executive branch. You can see this occurring at an increased rate and only by a certain category of judges with a particular worldview. Two beliefs or concepts that undergird the injunctions or court actions of these activist judges.
Globalism
One, the above activist judges reveal their globalism versus and superior to nationalism. Globalism refers to an ideology that advocates for the interconnectedness of nations, economies, and cultures, prioritizing international cooperation over national sovereignty. In the context of judicial actions, a globalist agenda manifests when judges interpret laws or make rulings that align more with international norms than with domestic constitutional principles. This can lead to decisions that undermine the traditional separation of powers established by a nation’s constitution.
Nationalism asserts national boundaries, the United States versus other nations. For the United States to keep its national identity, it must protect itself against the intrusion of the rest of the world. The United States operates under its own unique standards and norms. Globalists, on the other hand, make decisions that eliminate national distinctions, opting instead for a broader, more inclusive culture. This also dovetails with multiculturalism, which deems every culture equal with the other, a political form of multiculturalism.
Outside Constitutional Framework
Judges operating outside the constitutional framework interpret laws in ways that extend beyond their original intent. They adopt expansive interpretations of laws that align with global standards or human rights conventions, even if such interpretations conflict with national statutes. They also reference international law or foreign legal precedents as authoritative sources, which can dilute the application of domestic law. When judges prioritize globalist perspectives, it leads to erosion of national sovereignty.
International norms then take precedence over national laws. Based on global standards, courts assume roles traditionally reserved for either the executive or legislative branches. The separation of powers is designed to prevent any one branch of government from becoming too powerful. When judges operate under a globalist agenda, they create policy rather than simply interpreting existing laws. Judicial decisions influenced by globalism challenge executive actions, especially those related to immigration and foreign relations, thereby disrupting the balance intended by the separation of powers.
Moral Relativism
Two, the above activist judges embrace some form of moral relativism. They are unwilling to distinguish between Venezuelan criminal gangs and a Hamas supporter. Without objective truth, a judge cannot judge between lies and truth. Truth, goodness, and beauty is merely in the eye of the beholder. These judges make these issues about power. Something is true, good, or beautiful because the powerful say it is and make it to be so. They must use their own levers of power to reconstruct their own opinions or feelings.
Enforcing the borders violates globalism and moral relativism. A government that stops someone’s admission into its country is asserting its national distinction. This offends a globalist view. It also says it can judge something to be better than something else. One culture is worse than another one. But truth and goodness are a construct of power, not absolute and objective. If these judges can continue to act in this way to irrationally stop the rightful function of the nation, this will disintegrate the nation further into chaos.
The Relationship Between Truth and Reality
Collapse of Western Civilization
Many people are asking whether the West or the Western world, once mostly called Western civilization, is on the verge of collapse. I believe people stopped using “Western civilization,” because they question the civilization now of the West. Maybe the West isn’t civilized any more. But why? What happened to the West? It relates to God and the Bible for sure, but in a more rudimentary form, truth and reality.
For many decades the leading intelligentsia of the West called Western civilization bad, because of its origins, they would say, in colonialism, racism, exploitation, and having white skin. They treat these ironically as even the sins of the West. This necessitated a kind of repentance and transformation, led by the elites of the West into something vastly different than what it once was.
The changes in the West from what it once was, from its foundational and fundamental values, resulted now in an inability to defend itself. It has no basis for its own existence, giving a good argument for those who wish to destroy it. The military defenses of the West also withered away because it spent its money on globalism, welfare programs, egalitarianism, and diversity, equity, and inclusion. They sucked up revenues like quick sand.
Inclusion or Exclusion
Someone recently said that the West embraced John Lennon’s song like an anthem, that there is nothing to live or to die for, the world that they imagine. They prefer the world of their imagination, rather than the real world, the actual one in which we and they live.
The attack on nationalism combats exclusion. Nations by nature exclude, not include. This is the cause of division that gives people something to live or to die for. An irony of it is of course that it caused the rise of various groups that receive their identity from victimization. They are oppressed in many various ways by a sundry of oppressors. What proceeded is instead a fight for power all of the time.
Objective Truth or Feelings and Opinions
Powerful intellectual elites of the West started telling us decades ago, and this has only become worse, that there is no objective truth. To get there, they had to eliminate God, the supernatural origin of heaven and earth, a first cause. The belief in God was unsophisticated and again of course resulted in exclusion. The truly sophisticated said, there is only opinion. Everything is relative or only opinion. What I feel is what is.
Feeling in the new and deteriorating West trumps all facts. This is to say that the subjective is superior to the objective. If no objective truth, then also no lie, so you can’t know the difference between truth and lies. You can’t know, so you also then become very gullible to lies. Not knowing the difference between truth and lies means you also have no reason. Everything becomes irrational. A hyper-rational society, an intellectual one, becomes irrational, which is a paradox.
Reality and Truth
What really happens, happened, and will happen is reality. That is also truth. Denying reality is also denying the truth. I like to refer to the reality of the world represented in the hymn, This Is My Father’s World. The world really is the Father’s and He also wrote the Bible. The Bible, which is the truth, matches with reality. Scripture is a guide to reality.
Reality is the state of things as they actually exist. It refers to the actual state of affairs, facts, or conditions that are present in the world, independent of our perceptions or beliefs about them. A statement or belief that is true will however correspond to a fact in reality. When we deal with the truth, we are also dealing with reality. The two do not separate from one another.
Today truth and reality seem, and I say “seem,” not to correlate with one another. They diverge in this world in which we live. In that sense and in others, we live in a post-truth world. That should not surprise someone, when he reads the Apostle Paul in 2 Corinthians 4:4, when he calls Satan, “the god of this world.” Jesus had said in John 8:44 that Satan is the father of lies. What Satan says does not correspond to reality. He lies about reality. For instance, he told Eve, “Ye shall not surely die.”
Both heaven and earth, everything there is, operate on absolute truth. You can test if it is true, like defying the law of gravity, and find out. Whether you believe it or not, it still holds true. It’s as simple as falling from a cliff and then hitting the ground.
Truth and Power
The chief enemies of the truth today lead a pervasive population that holds to, promotes, and even enforces the unreal and false. Sometimes they defend their cause by saying that truth, which is reality, is a mere construct of power. With truth as a construct, they reconstruct a different reality and call it their truth.
Today the most consequential governing authority, the education system between kindergarten and postgraduate in the United States. won’t allow the teaching or propagation of the truth or reality. That’s not the primary interest any more if not any interest. Many other authoritative and influential institutions or entities cooperate with the bias against the truth and reality, including the legal system (courts) and the mainstream media. One entire political party is against truth or reality, the Democrat Party.
Effect on Churches
Churches succumb to this death of truth and reality. They do it mainly by questioning their own authority. The churches and their leaders undermine scripture and its interpretation, and call it humility or a basis for unity. In part this is a fear of power.
Without truth, everything becomes about who has power. Truth is not objective, so one must have power to assert his own opinions. Nothing is truth, it is only the construction of power. This goes back to the victim and oppressor narrative. Empowerment is the ability or freedom to assert ones self.
The premier institution of truth, the church, literally the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15), acceded to power over fear. Churches don’t want to victimize anyone with the truth, or even just most truths, so they acquiesce to lies, which, yes, distort reality. People do not know the truth about the world God created, because of churches that fear man more than they do God.
Pushing for and Not Apologizing for Bringing Back the Bible into the Public Square
At some point, the United States ejected from the Bible as several things: evidence, truth, history, science, facts, objective moral reality, and authority. Some might consider the Bible an authority for a church, but not anywhere else. Even churches now find the Bible as passé or at least lacking in relevance as an authority. At least true believers need to use scripture with confidence, trusting it as absolute truth. It is absolute truth and believers need to talk that way.
Very often interlocutors will attempt to rely on peer reviewed research papers, statistics, apparent observations of the animal world, government studies, cultural and historical writings, and anecdotes. If they even believe the Bible, they at least stay away from it, because it counts as equal to or perhaps something less than opinion. However, as the song goes, the Bible stands:
The Bible stands like a rock undaunted ‘Mid the raging storms of time; Its pages burn with the truth eternal, And they glow with a light sublime. . . . The Bible stands like a mountain tow’ring Far above the works of man; Its truth by none ever was refuted, And destroy it they never can. . . . The Bible stands every test we give it, For its Author is divine.
Bible Final Authority
Not only is the Bible truth, like Jesus said (John 17:17), but it is the final and supreme authority for truth. It doesn’t matter what other people say about the Bible and its authority, because it also stands over them as an authority.
The Bible is not the only authority. There are others, but it is the final authority. People can refer to other sources of truth, but the Bible is still superior to all those as an authority. I’m saying that professing believers need to either start or continue relying on and then using the Bible in public forums like school classrooms, interviews, debates, podcasts, papers, books, speeches, and government assemblies, conferences, or congresses. They shouldn’t budge when someone questions their reliance on and usage of scripture as a source for their presentation.
Foundational to Western Civilization
Law and Human Rights
The Bible has played a foundational role in shaping Western civilization, influencing its legal systems, moral values, cultural practices, and social structures. The roots of Western Civilization trace back to ancient Greece and Rome, but Christianity, which proceeds from its sacred text, significantly transformed these foundations. Concepts such as “the rule of law,” asserting that no one is above the law arises from biblical teachings.
Deuteronomy 17:18-20 emphasize that kings must adhere to the law, promoting equality before it. Leviticus 19:15 advocates for equal treatment under the law for both rich and poor individuals. These principles echo in foundational documents like the Magna Carta and the U.S. Constitution. Belief in human dignity as created in God’s image (Genesis 1:26-27) established a foundation for human rights concepts that are integral to modern democratic societies.
Culture and Science
The Bible shaped Western culture through literature, art, music, and philosophy. Artists and composers drew inspiration from biblical narratives. The literary canon resulted from biblical themes as seen in works by authors such as John Milton and William Shakespeare, who reflected deep engagement with biblical texts.
Christian theology was the impetus for scientific inquiry. Belief in a rational Creator who designed an orderly universe encouraged early scientists to explore natural laws through observation and experimentation. A predominant scientist such as Isaac Newton exemplified this connection between faith and science; he viewed his scientific work as a means to understand God’s creation better.
Crucial to Meaning
The meaning of words in the English language spring from the King James Version of the Bible, where they first appear. When someone says “love,” “mercy,” and “hope” among many other vital words, the Bible was the lingua franca for the culture. The United States should revert back to the idea of a melting pot, where new citizens assimilate into a national identity. The Bible was the centerpiece of that national identity. Professing believers today should talk like that is true and not apologize.
Scripture provides the right view of history with its Old and New Testaments. American society at least should keep that structure, if not everybody and every nation. God created time and history revolves around redemption. Mankind moves toward an irrepressible ending in the kingdom of Jesus Christ. He is the most important figure in history and professing believers should keep Him there.
More to Come
The United States and the War in Ukraine (Part Two)
As an issue, the war between Ukraine and Russia is a very complex, complicated situation. I hear both left and right criticizing the Trump administration on its handling of the war. When you listen carefully, you hear something about support for Ukraine. What in fact is support for Ukraine?
Support for Ukraine?
People often use “support” in a very loose manner. I find that the word “support” lacks significant commitment. Support means a small percentage of a nations gross domestic product (GDP) toward financial aid. Approximately 0.67% of the combined GDP of major European nations has been given in support of Ukraine. If Russia began dominating Ukraine in the war, indicating that Russia would defeat and gain control of Ukraine, would any European nation send ground troops to join Ukraine for the purpose of stopping this?
Instead of future ground troops, European nations could support Ukraine with a present commitment of ground troops, literally joining Ukraine in its war. Not one nation committed to sending ground troops to join Ukraine against Russia. No nation has committed to sending their own soldiers to fight on the ground against Russia.
The issue of the war between Ukraine and Russia reminds me of the commitment to the rise of oceans due to climate change. Those who express future certain dire circumstances in coastal areas refuse to sell their own coastal properties. This signals the truth of their own adherence to their own ideas about the climate change. They do not commit to act upon their own theories even if they expect more financial aid devoted to this cause. Financial aid encourages war in Ukraine and a cataclysmic large number of death and destruction for Ukraine.
Ethnic Russians
The ethnic Russian population in Ukraine constitutes approximately 17.3% of the total population, based on the 2001 census, which recorded about 8.3 million individuals identifying as ethnic Russians. This figure includes both those born in Russia and those born in Ukraine who identify as ethnically Russian. Ethnic Russians are predominantly located in specific regions of Ukraine, particularly in the eastern and southern parts of the country.
The Autonomous Republic of Crimea has a significant Russian majority, with approximately 71.7% of its population identifying as ethnic Russian. Ethnic Russians make up about 48.2% of the population of Donetsk Oblast, 58.7% of Luhansk Oblast, and 52.9% of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast. 13.1% of Kyiv itself are ethnic Russians. 60 plus percentage of the previously mentioned regions are ethnic Russian, making up a Russian bloc of Ukraine.
Russian Language Laws
Ukraine has implemented a series of legislative measures and policies that have significantly curtailed the use of the Russian language, particularly in areas with substantial ethnic Russian populations. These actions are part of a broader effort to promote the Ukrainian language and reinforce national identity. The Constitution of Ukraine, adopted in 1996, establishes Ukrainian as the sole state language while guaranteeing the free development and protection of minority languages, including Russian.
A 2019 language law in Ukraine explicitly excluded Russian from exemptions granted to other minority languages that are also official languages within the European Union (EU). As such, while some minority languages received protections under specific conditions (e.g., Hungarian or Romanian), Russian did not enjoy similar privileges. A large majority of ethnic Russians opposed the law.
Justification for War
I write about the domination of ethnic Russians in a bloc of Ukrainian regions and this 2019 language law to highlight the complexity of the situation in Ukraine. A multiplicity of significant international issues behind the Ukraine and Russia war also exist. The war is not as simple democratic and not democratic. The actual meaning of democracy according to various factions also further complicates the motivations for the war.
Western democracy fails in its moral standing to judge and then criticize others. Do those advocating for Ukraine in war against Russia have suitable moral basis for justification of the war, when weighing all the factors? I don’t hear very good arguments. The biggest argument I hear, and almost exclusively, is that anyone who does not want Ukraine war against Russia supports Vladimir Putin and everything bad about him.
Biblical Prophecy?
I have not heard much on the subject of Russia in biblical prophecy in recent days, especially since the fall of the Soviet Union. In the 1970s a lot of men preached prophetic passages such as Ezekiel 38 and 39 to defend an attack on Israel by Russia as part of the Great Tribulation period. In their system of interpretation at the time, Russia would battle Red China in the final Battle of Armageddon. Related to current events, that doesn’t look as viable now.
Even though I am a premillennialist by conviction, men might and do differ on some of the fine details. Biblical prophecy, I believe, can and should affect American foreign policy. What scripture says is true. However, men make right decisions to conduct the best activities by relying on the plain meaning of scripture. That becomes increasingly more difficult in a world and its leaders not guided by what God says. Everything is better everywhere with a right application of scripture.
No matter what happens in the world previous to the return of Christ, that won’t change what God foretells after it. For premillennialists, whatever occurs right now is not necessarily a prelude for what will occur after the rapture of the saints before the Tribulation period on earth. The United States does not appear at anything at all prophetic in the Bible. The best approach is a broader one that still does take Israel into strong consideration in U.S. foreign policy.
Israel, Wales, and Complexity of the Issue
Israel supports ending the war between Ukraine and Russia, primarily through mediation and humanitarian aid rather than military involvement or outright condemnation of Russia. At no time did Israel send weapons to Ukraine. Through the Ukraine and Russia war, Israel maintained relations with Russia. Over 100,000 Israeli citizens live in Russia and 80,000 in Moscow. 1.5 million Israelis or 17.5% of the Israeli population speak Russian. Over 400,000 pilgrims from Russia visited Israel in 2015-2016.
To understand the complexity of regional foreign wars, one might consider that England forced Wales into the United Kingdom. This occurred in 1283 but by law in the Wales Acts by Henry VIII in 1535 and 1542. England forced Wales into its kingdom by means of military conquest. Wales had and still has its own language. The United Kingdom by law allows Wales to have its own language.
I support diplomatic efforts by the United States to end the Ukraine-Russia War. The other side does not offer any viable or reasonable solutions. Left and right who oppose the diplomatic efforts, including the media, should support the efforts toward peace by not sabotaging the actions of diplomacy with Ukraine and Russia. They should stop hindering this peace process.
Profaning the Name of the Lord: How Can or Do People Do It? (Part Two)
Moses meets the LORD in Exodus 3:1-6 and I’m stopping in verse 6:
1 Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father in law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb.
2 And the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.
3 And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.
4 And when the Lord saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.
5 And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.
6 Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.
Moses is in the special presence of God at the burning bush. God said, “Here am I.” So He’s there. And then there God commands Moses to do something that would treat his proximity to God’s special presence as sacred. God calls this place, “holy ground.”
Holy Ground and Reverence My Sanctuary
What makes the ground holy where Moses stands? It is the nearness to the special presence of God. God is there. Moses knows it.
God gave Moses a symbolic means by which he could set apart this place where he stood, show it to be unique or majestic. Moses could demonstrate respect to God through a physical act, one that had not as of yet been established as a signal of reverence. It wasn’t just in the heart where and how this occurred. God expected and expects more. Later in Leviticus 19:30, God says through Moses to the people of God, “Reverence my sanctuary.” God doesn’t say how, assuming that they would understand how to obey this command.
A parallel elsewhere in the Old Testament for consecrating something is the truth of a “solemn assembly.” God mandated solemnity for holy occasions, again implying the knowledge of an application. By taking his shoes off, Moses could distinguish the occasion of meeting with God at the burning bush. It made the circumstance a more solemn one.
Solemnity
People today do not, as a whole, like solemnity. They want chipper, vivacious, bouncy, funny, and casual, informal, and laid back. Silly most times is better than solemn. I could give more descriptions of the variations of what people want that revolve around self-interest. True reverence in most cases is not even an option any more. It is a deal-breaker for attraction. People are in fact put to sleep by solemnity, because it’s just boring to them. In that sense, the people keeping something solemn lose their audience and ruin the meeting.
Music is a major component for promoting the opposite of solemnity and reverence. Churches choose what people want, which corresponds more to the wants of a majority. Scripture commands, “Abstain from fleshly lust,” and churches accommodate and promote fleshly lust with their music. Music can express solemnity, majesty, and something sacred. It distinguishes itself from the spirit of the age or what some today call a “vibe.”
The lack of reverence and solemnity trickles into many other various aspects of culture, which at one time did more to reflect on the nature of God. Work places and educational institutions among other spheres of authority had dress codes. The organization expected fulfilled standards for language and other forms of conduct. I was recently watching a podcast in which the spokesman used “normalcy” to describe the way it once was, but generally no more.
Put Into Practice
I’ve been alive long enough to remember when opening the top button of the dress shirt signaled a drop in the solemnity of the occasion. Someone had to keep his hair combed and completely orderly to communicate the proper respect. Churches did not look like theaters. No one would want this juxtaposition or association with the profane. The architecture of a building needed a solemn or reverent appearance larger in scale than removing ones shoes, but in the realm of that ideal.
Weddings were a holy convocation. This was a solemn covenant before God. It was not an expression of personality, hipness, coolness, or popularity. Plans revolved around the expression of God’s character or nature. As an activity, it was kept distinct from something common, playful, or vulgar. I’m using the wedding as an example so that you can imagine occasions and how they change in culture away from God.
Someone writing about the exact subject of this series, said the following in 2017:
Implicit in the rejection of the sacred is the idea that there should be no restraints for anything. It is unjust that there be anything set beyond the reach of others. It is wrong that anyone is recognized as being more than someone else.
Thus, in a society that has lost a notion of the sacred, no one stands out, no prizes are awarded, and disordered passions must never be held in check. Everyone must be equal, whatever the cost. There can be no sanctuary for any privileges. Nothing can be withheld from others. Rather, everything must be available to all.
The Separateness of God
God is High. Required solemnity acknowledges the separateness of God. To give Him His proper recognition, protocol must reflect His Highness. This is setting Him apart.
The cherubim around the throne room of God without ceasing treat God with His deserved solemnity. God requires this of these creatures, but He also reveals this scene in many places in the Bible (Ezekiel 1, Isaiah 6, Revelation 4-5). He expects people to mimic this reality. It’s not there in the Bible to ignore. These heavenly creature use two sets of six wings to cover their faces and cover their feet (Isaiah 6:2). This signifies reverence and humility, modesty and respect, ways to give God His proper due and treat Him with appropriate worthiness.
Scripture is replete with means of solemnity and reverence. Either the opposite or some variation that diverts from this solemnity and reverence is then profaning. Some kind of profaning occurs with the diminishing of reverence and solemnity.
More to Come
Answering the “Cultish” Wes Huff Podcast on King James Only (Part Three)
Scripture and Preservation of Scripture
Still in episode one, Wed Huff deals with a man named Gene Kim, who uses Hebrews 10:7 to defend his position on the preservation of scripture, and Huff makes this general statement:
A lot of these people, you know, if you build your doctrine of preservation that you have on taking verses completely out of their context to ignore how they’re read within the flow of the text and the way that the author intended them then there’s probably something very fragile about how you understand preservation.
I would agree here with Huff, that doctrine should come from what scripture says, not read into the text. Saying that, he doesn’t show how that Kim does that with his application of Hebrews 10:7. Men like Huff, I’ve observed, attack the historical and biblical doctrine of preservation, usually by erecting strawmen. I noticed this same tack recently with Mark Ward in an article he wrote, titled, “Does Psalm 12:6–7 Promise Perfect Manuscript Copies of the Bible?”
Strawmen Again
Ward then proceeds to show exactly no one who believes or says that Psalm 12:6-7 promises perfect manuscript copies of the Bible. It is a classic strawman argument, when the title itself provides the strawman. What do I believe Psalm 12:6-7 promises? God will preserve every one of His words of scripture for every generation of believer. No verse in scripture, I would agree, promises that God would preserve a physical hand copy of scripture.
I don’t know what Huff means by his words, “something very fragile about how you understand preservation.” It would have been great if he could have explained that.
The main host of “Cultish” himself then goes on to do the strawman argument, saying that people had something different back then. It seems he meant that a book was actually a manuscript. What seems fragile in his statement is that the text of Hebrews 10:7 doesn’t say the word, “manuscript.” That doesn’t come from “the flow of the text,” as Huff had explained. Just because someone handwrites a book doesn’t make it something other than a book.
None of these men explored at all what Hebrews 10:7 meant when it said, “in the volume of the book it is written of me.” At that point, could that not have been the entire Old Testament completely all together? That is an understanding that does fit with the point Kim makes about preservation found in the entire book. The host’s only answer to Kim was that Paul had not written his New Testament epistles yet. That is an inane argument. When Paul wrote that “all scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16), John had not written Revelation either.
Evidence and the Text of the New Testament
The host refers to the Nestle-Aland text in his next question to Huff. He mispronounces Nestle, like it is the Swiss candy company — think Nestle Crunch. Eberhard Nestle was a German biblical scholar, who died in 1913.
Kim makes a point about the text behind the King James Version having more evidence than the critical text. The critical text does arise from a minority of the manuscripts. The Cultish host asks Huff about this and Huff first says that the King James Version differs from the majority text in 1800 places. That’s his first point, but he doesn’t qualify that answer at all.
The Majority Text
When I started taking Greek in high school, men called The Textus Receptus, “the Majority Text.” At that time, a New Testament Greek Text known as “The Majority Text,” collated by Hodges and Farstad, did not exist. Now the Hodges/Farstad text is called “The Majority Text.” In fact, it isn’t The Majority Text because no one has yet to collate all of the New Testament manuscripts. Still today, no one really knows what “The Majority Text” is. The Textus Receptus came from the majority of the manuscript evidence, what are called the Byzantine manuscripts.
Huff goes on to explain that the later texts, which are in the majority, are a longer text. He says that scribes added words. It was, as he asserts, just natural for them to do that. For instance, instead of writing “Jesus,” they might write “Jesus Christ,” adding “Christ.” Huff does not explain his basis for this assertion. It proceeds from his naturalistic presuppositions. Naturalistic textual critics advocate for the evolution of the New Testament text, that the text evolved, becoming longer through the centuries.
Restoring a Lost Text
Wes Huff goes on to explain that the critical text doesn’t count manuscripts, but “weighs readings.” He instructs the hosts on the eclectic method of the critical text, where men choose a reading based on certain rules of textual criticism. They say, shorter and older is better, even if those manuscripts are in the minority.
If Kim makes the argument that the Textus Receptus is strictly a majority text, he is wrong. I would assume that Kim isn’t making that. He’s probably saying that the Textus Receptus is superior textually to the critical text, the text behind the modern versions. It is found far more in the majority. Truly, if the Textus Receptus represents one hundred percent preservation, the majority text us 98 percent and the critical text is 93%.
Critical Text advocates such as Huff and perhaps these men on Cultish, who interviewed him, believe men lost the text of scripture. They believe it also then is man’s job to restore that lost text. It is an ongoing, really never ending, subject exercise, which leave men with uncertainty about the text of scripture. That isn’t preservation of scripture.
The next episode of this series will start on the second part of the interview with Huff.
Recent Comments