A New Alternative List to the Points of Calvinism (Part Three)
The second point of Calvinism is “unconditional election,” and part two of this series said that election is not predetermined. Instead, God elects according to His foreknowledge (1 Pet 1:2). God knows who will believe in Him and elects them before the foundation of the world. Calvinists get unconditional election out of this by changing the meaning of foreknowledge. They say that term means “forelove,” in the sense that “Adam knew his wife Eve” (Gen 4:1) and Joseph did not ‘know’ Mary until after Jesus was born (Matt 1:25).
Turning “foreknowledge” into “forelove” is one of many examples of how Calvinism contorts the meaning of words to get its five points. It really is tell-tale. This stretching of the truth does not comport with the plain meaning of the text. Changing the meaning of “foreknowledge” opens the door to all sorts of new doctrine not taught in scripture. Rather than knowing who would believe, God makes only certain people to believe and others not. It becomes His will to damn people to Hell rather than knowing who wouldn’t believe. This is a big change in the reading of scripture almost entirely through this manipulation of one word.
The first three points of Calvinism are (1) total depravity, (2) unconditional election, and then (3) limited atonement. I named instead the first two (1) each person’s spiritual bankruptcy and (2) God’s election according to his foreknowledge.
3. LIMITED ATONEMENT
More than Atonement
“Limited atonement” is the historical term for this third point. As a bit of an aside to its meaning, I believe that atonement is an Old Testament concept. Christ’s death was more than atonement. His death and shed blood did more than atone for sin. Jesus’ work on the cross removed, took away, or washed away sin. For instance, Israel had a day every year called, Yom Kippur, which means, “Day of Atonement.” This spoke of something that occurred through the blood of animals, which could not take away sin.
In the context of the point of Calvinism, Calvinists say that God atoned only for the sins of the elect. They mean that Jesus died and shed His blood only for the elect. Calvinists don’t take this from any statement in scripture. The Bible doesn’t teach it. It’s what some might call a logical leap that reads like the following paragraph (I’m going to indent it to indicate it is not my position, so as not to confuse).
The Fit Into Calvinism
No spiritually dead person can believe unless God enables them through regeneration. God regenerates those He selects for salvation before the foundation of the world. Since He predetermined whom He would regenerate, Jesus only died for those He would save. He didn’t die for those He wouldn’t save or else that would save them. Therefore, He limits the atonement to only the elect.
Calvinists would say that God gets all the glory for the salvation, because He did everything, start to finish. Some go so far to say that nothing happens, not a single molecule moves, without God causing it. Calvinists would say that if God is sovereign, then He does it all, what they call “monergism.” Again, some Calvinists take this to the extent that if God isn’t doing it all, then man adds something in the nature of works to grace, which is unproveable and false.
Instead of teaching limited atonement, scripture says that God provides an
3. AVAILABLE SUBSTITIONARY SACRIFICE BY CHRIST
Some Calvinists won’t use “limited atonement,” which is a negative sounding descriptor, but “particular redemption.” Even for me, I could embrace something called “particular redemption,” depending on how it’s explained.
I’ve never seen a four point Calvinist reject any other point than this one, perhaps the hardest for Calvinists to believe. It’s a reason why, I believe, for the replacement terminology, “particular redemption.” To make it easier, I also hear Calvinists say that everyone limits the atonement or else God would save everyone. The limitation doesn’t read, however, as though Christ died only for the elect. At worst, God limits the effects of His death — redemption — to only those who believe, or only to the elect. But the latter is not what Calvinists say or mean about or by limited atonement.
Logical Leap
Like with unconditional election, Calvinists take a logical leap with limited atonement. They do it by framing the argument in a way that only their position can stand. It’s however, not how scripture frames this salvation doctrine. Calvinists say that if Christ wasn’t redeeming with His work on the cross then no one is saved. Since He did save, then His cross work must redeem everyone. The Bible does not state this line of thinking or reasoning. At most, it is an inference Calvinists make from scripture, however, one contradicted by verses in the Bible.
Redemption comes through Jesus’ death alone, but only to those who believe in Him. When scripture says that Jesus died for everyone, it does not mean that He provided redemption for everyone. It means He paid the penalty for everyone, but no one gets the benefits of His death without faith. The inference claimed by Calvinists arises from this philosophy of Calvinism already expressed in this series that does not represent a biblical doctrine of salvation.
Availability of Salvation
If Christ died only for the elect, then how could the Apostle Paul write what he did in 1 Corinthians 15:1-3?
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures.
Paul declared the gospel when he arrived in Corinth. Not everyone received, but those who did receive it (verses 1 and 2) were “saved” (verse 2). However, the message he preached to an unsaved audience, not all of which received it, was “that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures.” By “the scriptures,” perhaps Paul was referring to Isaiah 53:5:
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
This teaches Christ’s substitutionary death. If someone believes that Christ died only for the elect, is he telling the truth in preaching that Christ died for the sins of that audience? This was the typical gospel preaching of Paul and it included, “Christ died for you.” I continue to preach that to everyone and mean it.
Scripture Not Limited Atonement
The combination of many different verses proclaim that Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice is available for everyone.
Romans 5:6, “For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.”
2 Corinthians 5:14-15, “14 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: 15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.
Hebrews 2:9, “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.”
2 Peter 2:1, “But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.”
1 John 2:1-2, “1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”
I agree with the truth from Jesus “that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life” (Jn 3:15). Jesus would preach that message to unbelievers, many of whom never went on to believe (John 12:46). The system of Calvinism clashes with obvious New Testament teaching.
Christ Died for Everyone
Christ died for all men in that His substitutionary sacrifice was available to everyone, if they would believe on Him. And, everyone is without excuse as to believing on Him (cf. Rom 1:20). It would sound like a legitimate excuse from someone, if he said, “Christ didn’t die for me,” if that’s what really happened.
When Jesus explains why people don’t receive salvation, He doesn’t say what Calvinism says: not predetermined, didn’t get irresistible grace, and He didn’t die for them. No, He says things like we see in Luke 13:3, “Except ye repent.” Or, He says the culprit is hard, thorny, or stony hearts (Matt 13). Explaining even apostates, Peter says ‘they deny the Lord that bought them.’ He bought them and they still denied Him. Calvinistic inferences contradict the plain teaching of scripture. Explicit statements outdo, undo, and exceed inferences and even something greater than inferences, implications. If you’re a believer, you’ve got to go with what God says. That’s your doctrine.
Faux Intellectualism
These opaque, murky points of Calvin should recede in the face of unadulterated true statements of God. Their continued embrace seems a desperate grasp of faux intellectualism. The following may trigger some, but it also sounds to me like a kind of virtue signal. It lays out an intricate contraption of theology impressive in the nature of Rube Goldberg. It takes just those types of twists and turns to end a pristine quest of human ingenuity.
The points of Calvinism wilt like day old salad in the face of not many mighty or noble are called, because to wrap your brain around Calvinism requires egg headed genius orbiting in an intellectual satellite thousands of miles above earth. Calvinism has the mighty and noble on speed dial. The foolishness of preaching is not incomprehension and contradiction.
More to Come
Evan Roberts, Jessie Penn-Lewis, and the 1904 Welsh Revival
Some time ago, What is Truth? published a series on the 1904 Welsh Revival and Keswick leaders Evan Roberts, and Jessie Penn-Lewis. This lengthy series, on these important historical figures, who, sadly, helped to destroy a true revival that had been going on and bring to an end the long-term growth of Baptist churches in Wales, instead leading to a many-decade, consistent decline among Welsh Baptists, was published on the old What is Truth? site and then transferred by a computer program to this new What is Truth? site, for example, here. Unfortunately, in the course of the transfer it made the posts here very hard to read, while making search engines de-prioritze the important information in the posts because of their being duplicated.
If you would like to read this material, it can now all be contained in the three part series here:
Evan Roberts and the Welsh Revival, part 1 of 3
The Welsh revival of 1904-1905, part 2 of 3
Jessie Penn-Lewis and the Welsh Revival, part 3 of 3
with links in the soteriology section at FaithSaves.net. I would encourage you to read these studies if you have not already done so, and encourage those who are interested in the history of revival and in the erroneous Keswick theology of sanctification to examine them as well, but to do so at these links instead of the hard-to-read blog posts where computer transfer had made them problematic. Too many Baptists make Evan Roberts the hero of the Welsh revival, when he destroyed it, just as many make Charles Finney the hero of the 2nd Great Awakening, when Finney also helped to destroy that good work of God, rather than contributing to it.
–TDR
A New Alternative List to the Points of Calvinism (Part Two)
Almost required in the world of theology is coming down for one or the other, and only one or the other, Calvinism or Arminianism. I oppose this requirement. Because such a requirement exists, people invent and label a new position such as Provisionism. Or, they dredge up an older, rarely mentioned one, like Amyraldism, very difficult to explain or understand. Such as these seem to attempt to fill a gap between the two poles of Calvinism and Arminianism. Some people will just say, Biblicism, declaring that neither pole represents the Bible. We should admit that everyone thinks they’re taking a biblical position.
For myself, I listen, I hope, through a biblical grid. I want to believe one position or the other is the truth, but I also desire biblical persuading. When I give ear to Calvinism, I’ve got problems, even when I’m trying hard to believe it. When I hear the points of Calvinism, an alternative arises in my mind from biblical exegesis. I’m calling the first point. . . .
1. EACH PERSON’S SPIRITUAL BANKRUPTCY
Another alternative arises in my mind with the second point,
UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION
I’m calling this second point. . . . .
2. GOD’S ELECTION ACCORDING TO HIS FOREKNOWLEDGE
Chosen through Belief in the Truth
Unconditional election doesn’t conform to the Bible. A great verse that expresses the condition is 2 Thessalonians 2:13:
But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.
Paul writes that God from the beginning has chosen to salvation through belief of the truth. Belief of the truth is the condition. God chooses or elects from the beginning and “before the foundation of the world” (Eph 1:4). Ephesians 1:4 also says “elect in him.” That’s another condition. God doesn’t choose those out of him, but in him. 2 Timothy 1:9 says;
Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began.
Before the world began, according to His grace God called those in Christ Jesus. 1 Peter 1:2 says:
Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
Election According to Foreknowledge
God elects according to His foreknowledge. “Foreknowledge” comes from a Greek word, it won’t amaze you, that means, “to know ahead of time.” God knows everything. Nothing occurs to Him.
Among other reasons, God elects before the foundation of the world and from the beginning because (1) He is not bound by time. He exists in what some call “an eternal present,” which is seen in His name, “the I AM.” God just is, and then (2) He is omniscient. He knows everything in eternity past, present, and eternity future.
Who Does God Elect?
Since election is according to God knowing ahead of time who He saves and who He doesn’t, then He can elect before the foundation of the world. This, however, is where the rub comes for Calvinists. God elects whom He foreknows. Who does God elect? Who are the elect?
On this, you should consider Romans 8:29-30:
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
Perhaps you already know this passage. As you work your way through these two verses, you can see that God foreknows whom he justified. Whom does God justify? Those who believe in Jesus Christ. This agrees with 2 Thessalonians 2:13, chosen through belief in the truth. Romans 5:1 says that God justifies by faith. What does God foreknow? He knows who believes in Him before the foundation of the world and those He elects.
What difference does that election make? It secures that person. God knows who will be with Him in heaven forever. That gives security for the believer, the justified person.
The Decider?
What would the Calvinist have as a problem with what I’m writing here? I’ve heard it and read it. Calvinists will say that God is the Decider. They might take that from some place like John 1:12-13:
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
This is a place that says faith precedes regeneration. God gave power to become the sons of God to those who receive and believe on Jesus Christ. Calvinists will say that man deciding is “the will of the flesh or the will of man.” They also say that God isn’t sovereign if man is decider and not God.
Nowhere does scripture make an issue over who is the decider. The way scripture reads, man does decide. The Calvinist very often would equate that to salvation by works. They make the decision a work. Faith is not a work and faith is the deciding factor.
Even with a man deciding by faith in Jesus Christ, God still also decides in advance, because He elects before the foundation of the world. God has also worked much in the life of the person who receives and believes on Jesus Christ through many different scriptural means without which God wouldn’t save him.
Men Made Up Unconditional Election
Men made up unconditional election. It isn’t in the Bible anywhere. I understand that Calvinists will say that God predetermines who He will save. I like to call this, picking people out of the pot of humanity. Scripture doesn’t present salvation like that. God elects those in Christ. He chooses people with a standing in grace. They believe first, but they can’t believe, like I explained in the first post, without the Word of God. A man gets revelation from God and He believes. God foreknows his faith and everything else about him.
If deciding is believing, then deciding isn’t a problem. And deciding is believing. It could only be “believing” because scripture doesn’t use “decider” in its language. Someone can’t believe without God working in him. God is still sovereign and He still gets all the credit.
More to Come
A New Alternative List to the Points of Calvinism
When I listen to a presentation of the points of Calvinism, very often my mind goes to alternative scriptural points to replace them. I think of what the Bible says about the point and I can’t agree with it. Usually I go into a hearing of Calvinist teaching with a desire to agree and believe. Actual scripture gets in the way of my agreeing and believing with the points of Calvinism.
Scripture Challenges Calvinism
Not Biblical
Sure, the points of Calvinism persuade Calvinists. They claim it’s scripture that does it. I don’t see it in scripture, even with my trying to become as persuaded. Calvinism doesn’t do it for me.
What I want to do with this piece is to say aloud what I’m thinking when I hear Calvinism presented. I can’t write everything on it. Hopefully what I’ll do is write down the kind of content I’m thinking when someone espouses Calvinism. My opinion is that Calvinists have their Calvinistic position to defend, much like someone from some religion tries to protect his religion when confronted with scripture. I await presentations that just expose scripture, not read into it.
When I say, the points of Calvinism, I mean what people call, the five points of Calvinism, also known by the acronym, TULIP. All five points of Calvinism interconnect, depend on each other and feed off of each other. I understand when someone says he is one, two, three, or four point, if not five point. To take less than five, someone disconnects one or more from the group. Because of this interconnection, I reject all five points.
Calvinism Unnecessary
I get how someone could question my rejecting every point, since two of them especially make some sense scripturally if taken out of the context of all five points as a group. I mean “total depravity” and “perseverance of the saints.” I could explain those two as the truth, but I don’t believe that Calvinists would agree with that explanation. I’d rather just reject all five points and start over from scratch.
God won’t judge me for not agreeing with a point of Calvin. It’s more important that any one of us believe what God said in His Word about the doctrine of salvation.
Calvinists sometimes attack those who disagree with their position, representing them as not believing certain biblical doctrines. They can easily turn their foes into people who don’t believe in God’s sovereignty or who do believe in some form of salvation by works. I deny these charges. Calvinists often allow these points to define them. The points become consuming and weave into many other of their other doctrines. They often treat those who reject Calvinism as irretrievably messed up in their beliefs.
What should someone make of the points of Calvinism?
TOTAL DEPRAVITY
The Calvinists at Ligonier Ministries say this:
When it comes to total depravity, the inability of which we speak is first and foremost moral inability. In our fallenness, though we have a will and can discern the good, we lack the ability to choose rightly, to exercise our wills in the proper direction of absolute dependence on God and submission to His will.
Total Inability
Total depravity sounds scriptural. The two terms seem right, so what’s wrong? By total depravity though, Calvinists mean, as you can read above, “total inability.”
“Total inability” doesn’t bother me either. It comes down to what Calvinists say about total depravity and then total inability.
Personally I won’t use the words “total inability” because I know Calvinists use them. They are not words from scripture. However, I read lines in the Bible that say the equivalent of total inability. I even like the two words as a description of a lost man’s condition. When Calvinists use those words, they are taking them much further than scripture.
The argument for Calvinists says that men are unable to respond to God for salvation. Men are dead and since they’re dead, they don’t have the capacity at all to receive Jesus Christ. Everything so far I agree with, so what’s the problem? Where Calvinists get into trouble here is their solution to man’s deadness and his inability to respond.
Regeneration Precedes Faith
Many Calvinists teach that God must intervene in the way of regenerating a man so that he then can respond. People have called this, “regeneration precedes faith.” This is not how scripture reads about the doctrine of regeneration. The Bible is clear and plain in many places that the opposite is true. Faith precedes regeneration.
It’s true that men cannot respond. They are dead and they cannot seek after God. Naturally they do not. Something Calvinists get right here is that God must do something to allow or cause someone to believe in Him. Men don’t just on their own stir up their desire to believe in Jesus Christ. God does make the first movement toward man and that’s what scripture teaches. Without God’s working, no one could believe in Jesus Christ.
The other points of Calvinism also describe what Calvinists think of total depravity. A man is so unable to respond to God that God must intervene in the way of what Calvinists call “irresistible grace.” God apparently works in an irresistible way for a man to receive Jesus Christ. These two ideas go together in Calvinism, total depravity and irresistible grace. If God’s grace is irresistible, then also God must unconditionally choose whom He will save and whom He won’t.
God Uses Revelation
The way scripture reads is that even though man is unable to respond to salvation and can’t believe on His own, God does work in his life .God does initiate salvation. Man cannot believe in Jesus Christ without God’s initiation and without His enabling. What God uses is His revelation. He uses man’s conscience, His own providence in history, and the Word of God that is written in man’s heart.
If a person will respond to the general revelation of God, we see in scripture that God ensures he will also get His special revelation, which is God’s Word. Every man is without excuse regarding salvation, because God and His grace appear to all men. Through God’s working through His Word in men’s hearts, they can then respond and receive Jesus Christ. Most do not believe, but the ability from God is available to every man through God’s revelation in order to believe.
An illustration of the power of God that enables a dead man to receive Jesus Christ is Jesus’ raising of Lazarus from the dead. The Word of God is powerful, so the words, Come forth, allowed Lazarus to rise. It allowed for Lazarus to come. This also fits with what Paul wrote in Romans 10:17 that faith comes by hearing the Word of God. Not everyone who hears the Word of God will believe. Yet, a man can believe because of the Word of God.
Salvation Is Of the LORD
You can embrace man’s inability and deadness. It’s true. This does not require a solution of irresistible grace and unconditional election. Jonah was right when he said, “Salvation is of the LORD” (Jonah 2:9). Salvation centers on God. This Calvinistic view of inability does not square with scripture. It is unnecessary for giving God the credit for salvation. I would contend that what scripture actually says is what gives God glory, not an exaggeration or manipulation of what God said.
Evangelists need to preach the Word of God as their spiritual weapon to pull down strongholds (2 Cor 10:3-5). They partly do that because of the inability and deadness of their audience. True preachers proclaim what God said. That’s all that will work for the salvation of men’s souls. It’s like what Paul wrote to Timothy in 2 Timothy 3:15:
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
The Holy Scriptures are able to make thee wise unto salvation, not some mystical regeneration that precedes faith.
Spiritual Emptiness and Bankruptcy
The deadness that Ephesians 2:1 and 5 address might parallel to physical deadness. Someone dead can’t hear. I’ve noticed that when I’ve attended funerals. Men should not turn spiritual death into something so dead that not even the Word of God is powerful enough to allow the dead man to respond unto salvation. Scripture is the way, not an invented mystical and extra-scriptural experience.
God is sovereign. He does it His way. His way is not a novel innovation, which is what this regeneration-precedes-faith is.
Let’s just call it “spiritual deadness,” “spiritual blindness,” or even “spiritually empty or bankrupt” in fitting with Matthew 5:3. I’m fine with “total depravity,” but knowing what Calvinists mean by that, I won’t use those words. This is part of starting from scratch. Everyone sins and falls short of the glory of God. God’s revelation also reaches to those lost souls enabling everyone also to believe, not just those predetermined to do so.
More to Come
Mark Ward / Thomas Ross Videos on King James Version English
As What is Truth? readers may know, Dr. Mark Ward, Bob Jones University graduate and Logos Bible software employee, produced a series of three videos (5/2/2024; 5/9/2024; 5/16/2024–note that I am making it quite easy to find his videos if you want to do so, while he made it difficult to locate the video of mine that he was responding to, which is unfortunate) on his YouTube channel entitled “More New KJV-Only Arguments” in which he responded to my “Is the King James Version (KJV) Too Hard to Understand? James White / Thomas Ross Debate Review 11” video (also here on Rumble, or here at FaithSaves). Here is the video as an embed:
I summarized my argument in the video here at What is Truth? in a previous post. Dr. Brandenburg wrote a post about how Dr. Ward said in these videos, concerning me, “I regard him as an extremist of a particularly dangerous kind, the kind that is super intelligent.” This comment by Dr. Ward definitely made me laugh. But watch out–this post is written by a particularly dangerous extremist. Has Dr. Ward warned about the Roman Catholic, Seventh Day Adventist, theologically modernist, and other sorts of damnable heresy that is published by Logos Bible software for whom he works? Maybe he has called this content that his employer publishes “dangerous” somewhere–I am not aware of it if he has. So I suppose all of that is fine, but saying English speakers should continue to use the Bible that has served them so well for 400 years–that is very, very dangerous. Millions of people are going to hell because of Roman Catholicism and theological modernism, but what is truly dangerous is anyone who would advise English speakers to use the Authorized, King James Version, despite a small number of archaic words it contains.
I pointed out in my video that the KJV’s English fits within the parameters of the linguistic difficulty of the original language texts of Scripture. Thus, since the KJV’s English is not harder than the Greek of the New Testament or the Hebrew of the Old Testament, we have an exegetical basis for concluding that we do not need, at this time, to revise the English Authorized Version. We also have an exegetical basis for determining when it would be appropriate to revise the English of the KJV–if it ever becomes significantly harder to read than the original language texts, then it is time for true churches to come together to produce a revision.
There are some serious problems in Ward’s response to my argument, although I appreciate that he actually offered a response. (James White just ignored it, so good for Dr. Ward.) I am not going to point out in this post all of the problems in his book claiming that the English of the KJV is too hard, or his serious inaccuracies in his three videos. I will, however, share with blog readers a comment I offered to part two of his three-part series. I have italicized my comment below and have added some explanatory words within it in bold.
Dear Dr. Ward,
Thank you for taking the time to review my “Is the King James Version (KJV) Too Hard to Understand? James White / Thomas Ross Debate Review 11” video in two videos (and apparently a third video coming).
In my comment I specified the name of the video he was critiquing so that people could actually watch it instead of just hearing his critique with a very limited ability to even find and hear first hand what he was arguing against.
Someone brought these videos to my attention and so I thought I should take a peek. I hope that both my video–which, of course, was not about anything you said in particular, but about Dr. White’s comments in our debate–and your response will contribute to Christians thinking Biblically about the issue of Bible translation, and evaluating their philosophy of Bible translation from a sola Scriptura perspective, instead of just creating whatever standard they wish. If my video and your responses lead to that happening, then something useful for God’s kingdom will certainly have been accomplished for His glory.
I really do mean that. I am glad that he made his videos, and I hope that people who are anti-KJVO will start to approach the question of Bible translation exegetically. Of course, if they do, they just might end up becoming perfect preservationists who use exclusively the KJV in English.
Lord willing, at some point I will create a response to your videos. You may not be surprised that I have not found your responses especially compelling, although I am looking forward to hearing what you have to say in part three.
Part three was also less than compelling. Brother Ward did not seem, in some places, to even grasp my argument accurately. For example, in part three Dr. Ward argued that if I was right then we should just add in archaic words when we make new translations, but my point was not about making new translations, but about when it is appropriate to revise an already extant translation. The idea that one should randomly decide to add in archaic words for fun has nothing to do with my argument. For the large majority of the time since God has given the canon of Scripture God’s people would have found more rare or hard-to-understand words in the Hebrew and Greek texts than there are in the KJV, but God never instructed His Apostles and prophets to make a revision of the Hebrew or Greek texts.
I was wondering if you would be so kind as to let me know: 1.) If, before I produced my video, you had written or set forth in any setting an exegetical basis for your position on Bible translations, other than your claim that the KJV is in a different language and so violates 1 Corinthians 14 on not speaking in foreign tongues in the church without an interpreter. I must say that I find the idea that 1 Corinthians 14 teaches that we must abandon the KJV, or at least its exclusive use in English, most unconvincing exegetically. I would like to confirm that you view my claim that we should evaluate what is appropriate for English Bible translations based on the level of difficulty of the Old Testament and New Testament Hebrew and Greek texts as a claim that is indeed “novel” or new to you, and thus as something that you never considered before writing your book Authorized?
It is not good if someone has written an entire book arguing that the KJV’s English is too hard to understand and has given a significant part of his life to turning people away from the King James Bible, and yet has never even thought about comparing it with the lingustic difficulty of the text God gave His people directly by the dictation of the Holy Spirit.
Dr. Ward’s argument that because 1 Corinthians 14 forbids utilizing the miraculous gift of tongues to speak Japanese in 1st century Corinth if there were no Japanese speakers present and no translation into the common language–Greek–or forbids miraculously speaking in the tongue of Zulu if there are no Zulu speakers present, therefore we need to reject the KJV because it is really a foreign language. This, to be kind, is less than convincing. To be blunt, it is ridiculous, and a painful abuse of 1 Corinthians 14. However, that is all the Scripture Dr. Ward has for his position that the English of the KJV is too hard. Would his argument prove too much–would it prove that the Jews in Ezra’s day should have revised the books of Moses, or that the Apostles should not have used the LXX, even when it is accurate? Yes. So we can be thankful that his claim from 1 Corinthians 14 is astonishingly off base. It was fine for the Jews in Malachi’s day to just read the Hebrew Pentateuch, even though their language had changed much more than the English language has between 1611 and today.
2.) If you could please also let me know how many times you have read the Greek NT cover to cover and / or the Hebrew OT, as well as what training in the languages you have, I would appreciate that as well. It will help me to be accurate in what I say in response to you, as I am sure we both believe accuracy is very important, as our God is a God of truth.
Dr. Ward never answered this question, and I suspect the answer is “zero” for both how many times he has read through the Greek NT or the Hebrew OT. There are not a few things that he says in his videos that make me rather strongly suspect this. They are not things one would say were he closely acquainted with the original language texts of Scripture.
Thank you very much. Let me say that I also appreciate that you provided a significant quote from my video and appeared to want to accurately represent me. I thank you for that.
I do appreciate that, as far as I can tell, Dr. Ward did not intentionally misrepresent my argument. Did he misrepresent it? Yes, but I think this was a matter of inaccuracy, not intentionality. I also need to keep in mind that his anti-KJVO side does not approach issues like this through exegesis, through looking at Scripture first to see what it says about preservation and Bible translation, so he is rather like a fish out of water here. I am glad he is trying. I wish he had plainly told his audience where they could find my argument so they could go ad fontes and compare what I actually said with what he argued against.
3.) I would also be interested in seeing if you have any grammatical sources for your claim that the difficulty in Luke-Acts, for example, versus the Johannine literature, is mainly because participles are placed in different locations, as well as your other grammatical claims. Some of the claims seemed quite unusual to my mind, and I would like to know if any Greek grammarians make such affirmations as you made.
He never provided any sources for his claims. I suspect that is because there are no such sources, as people who write Greek and Hebrew grammars are likely to be quite surprised by not a few of the arguments that Dr. Ward made. I do not think that those who have actually read Luke-Acts and the Johannine literature in the New Testament would say that the main or even the chief difficulty in harder NT Greek is knowing what adverbial participles modify. This statement sounds to me like the claim of someone who is not very familiar with the Greek of these books.
I may be into having sources for my claims more than most people who make YouTube videos, but I did not notice any grammatical sources cited in your videos.
That is the problem with producing YouTube videos instead of writing things down, or instead of doing face-to-face debate.
4.) When you spoke about a test that you had given to KJVO pastors that definitively proved that they did not understand the KJV themselves, I was interested and took the test, and had some KJVO folk take it as well. I must say that they did much, much better than did the people whom you surveyed. (I myself got a 19 out of 20, and I think that the one I got wrong was a problem with the question.)
I had never heard of his test, which he mentioned in part 1 of his video, until examining his video, part 1. I decided to take his test. One of the questions was:
“Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.”
(Proverbs 22:28 KJV)
This is a poorly designed question, because more than one of the answers fits both the meaning of the Hebrew word and the English translation in the KJV. Commenting on why the word “remove” here is (allegedly) archaic, Ward affirms:
The Hebrew here means “to displace [that is, to ‘cause (something) to move from its proper or usual place’] a boundary mark.” (HALOT/NOAD)
In 1611 “remove” in a context like this meant “to change position; to move a short distance or in a certain direction.” (OED)–just like the Hebrew. That sense, however, is marked as “Obsolete” in the OED.
Today, “remove” means to “take (something) away or off from the position occupied” or to “eliminate or get rid of” (NOAD).
However, the Dictionary of Classical Hebrew defines the Hebrew word here (in the tense used, the Hiphil) as follows:
Hi. 6.0.9 Pf. Q הסיג; impf. 2ms תַּסִּיג (תַּסֵּג); ptc. מַסִּיג, מַסִּיגֵי (Q מסגי, משיגי); inf. cstr. הסיג—1a. remove, move back, <SUBJ> Israel(ites) Dt 1914, seducer of wife 4QInstrb 2.46; subj. not specified, Pr 2228 2310 4QInstrb 2.38. <OBJ> גְּבוּל border Dt 1914 Pr 2228 2310 4QInstrb 2.38 2.46. <COLL> סוג hi. :: גבל set a border Dt 1914.
b. ptc. as noun, one who removes a boundary, <SUBJ> ארר pass. be cursed Dt 2717, דבר pi. speak CD 520, נבא ni. prophesy CD 520, עמד stand CD 520, שׁוב hi. cause to turn CD 520, תעה hi. cause to err CD 520. <CSTR> מַסִּיג גְּבוּל remover of a border Dt 2717, מַסִּיגֵי removers of Ho 510=CD 1915 4QDa 14 CD 520 (הגבול; =4QDa 3.27 גבול) 4Q424 39, משיגי הגב[ו]ל removers of the border 4QDf 12; כול מסיגי all the removers of 4Q424 39. <PREP> לְ of benefit, to, for 4Q424 39; introducing object 4QDa 14; כְּ as, like, + היה be Ho 510=CD 1915.
2. remove, carry away, intrans., <SUBJ> Israel(ites) Mc 614 (or em. תַּסֵּג you shall carry away to תַּשֵּׂג you shall reach, i.e. increase wealth; or em. תִּסָּגֵר you shall be delivered up, i.e. סגר ni.; unless סוג II hi. surround with fence). <COLL> סוג hi. || פלט hi. save Mc 614.
Note that this standard Hebrew lexicon–volume 1 of which was published in 1993–includes the actual English word “remove” in its definition of this word, but, supposedly, the KJV’s “remove” in Proverbs 22:28 is archaic. Has English changed a great deal since 1993, so that this Hebrew dictionary includes this alleged archaism, “remove”? Note as well that more than one of the options in Dr. Ward’s questionnaire would both fit the meaning of the Hebrew word and the English word.
Thus, his survey includes at least this allegedly “archaic” word in the KJV that is not archaic. The word is defined as “remove” in modern times in a modern standard Hebrew lexicon (one that, I might add, is never cited anywhere in Dr. Ward’s quiz–maybe he should have studied the Hebrew text a bit more carefully before producing his test, or at least before publishing it and making claims that are easily shown to be inaccurate.)
I am wondering if it is possible to get more information about who these people are. Are they Baptists? Are they people who believe in justification by works or baptismal regeneration and do not even have the Holy Spirit, as one finds even among various denominational “Baptist” groups if one goes house to house regularly in evangelism? Would they claim to be fundamentalists?
Who these people are is rather important. Dr. Ward said that only 7% of them knew the differences between “thee/thou/thy” as singular in the KJV and “ye/you” as plural. What? Seven percent? Who are these people? In our church the preachers all know, the adults are instructed, the children are instructed, and it is even in Bible study #1 in our evangelistic Bible study series. 93% of those who took his survey did not know this? Are his survey results verifiable, reproducible, and falsifiable–or are they none of the above? Why should we trust them?
Let me note that Mark Ward’s solution to people not knowing the difference between thee/thou/thy and ye/you is not to instruct them in the difference–it is to reject the KJV so that they are reading some modern version where you can NEVER know the difference. Quite a solution, no?
5.) I would be interested if you have done anything to encourage KJVO saints to do something like read KJVs that have the (small number of) archaic words defined in the margin of their Bibles, as do many study Bibles, the Defined KJV, etc.
I would love to find out I am wrong, but I think he has done exactly nothing to encourage saints who are going to cleave to their KJVs to understand them better by having them read editions of the Authorized Version where the archaic words are defined in the margin. I will applaud Dr. Ward when he donates the profits from his book against exclusive use of the KJV to purchasing copies of works that define its archaic words, such as David Cloud’s Believer’s Bible Dictionary, and donating those books to KJVO Christians. But I am not holding my breath.
If not, could you explain why you believe such a solution to your “false friends” idea is insufficient, and why what needs to be done is to replace the KJV with a multiplicity of modern versions that do things like take “hell” out of the Old Testament and replace it with that easy to understand and commonly used word “Sheol,” or attack the classical doctrine of the Trinity by changing the Son from being “only begotten” to being “unique,” or change the Son’s going forth from the Father in His eternal generation from being “from everlasting” to the Arian “from ancient days,” and so on, that would be appreciated. If you do not appreciate such changes in modern versions, I am wondering if you have any written sources or videos warning about them.
I am aware of exactly nothing written or taught by Dr. Ward warning about any of these serious corruptions–really evil “false friends”–in many modern Bible versions. Nor am I aware of Dr. Ward ever explaining why such a solution is more than sufficient to deal with the small number of KJV archaisms–just like there was not one word of criticism of Dr. James White’s inaccurate claims, the ones I was actually dealing with, in my video “Is the King James Version (KJV) Too Hard to Understand? James White / Thomas Ross Debate Review 11.” Only KJVO people deserve criticism, it appears.
I at least would rather have a Bible that teaches Athanasian Trinitarianism but uses “conversation” in an older sense meaning “conduct” than a Bible that has a nice new “conduct” translation but undermines the holy Trinity in some verses (while, thankfully, still supporting it in others).
Wouldn’t you?
Also, please feel free to get in touch with me if you ever change your mind about being willing to publicly dialogue or debate on this matter.
I have offered to debate him multiple times and he has refused. Could it be that his position is not defensible in open debate? Could it be that his whole case would fall apart if he had to do what Christ and the Apostles did in the Gospels and Acts, namely, debate and refute their opponents face-to-face?
I happen to think there would be more profit from a face-to-face encounter where we both have equal time to present our case than there is in your producing videos on your YouTube channel that are mainly preaching to your choir while I do the same on my KJB1611 channel with videos that will mainly be watched by people who are already convinced of the perfect preservation of Scripture. Finally, thank you for complementing me as being “super intelligent.” That was very kind of you. The “very dangerous” part, maybe not so much, but I suppose we can’t have everything. I am not planning to respond to any comments here, as I am not convinced that YouTube comments are the best place to engage in scholarly discussion, but I will look forward to hearing from you if you are able to answer my questions. Thanks again, Thomas
Dr. Ward did respond to my comment as follows:
Ross has said he won’t reply here. So I’ll reply to just two items for the sake of my viewers. (No reply on nos. 1, 2, and 5.)
Why do you think he does not want to answer questions #1, 2, and 5? It isn’t because I won’t reply on his YouTube channel in the comment section. Doesn’t he want me to have the best and most accurate information for when I actually respond to him, God willing? Surely it is not because he does not have a good answer to those questions. Right?
3. I mentioned in the video that I was offering my thoughts as a reader of the Greek New Testament; I self-consciously chose not to cite authorities here.
Does he cite authorities somewhere else, then? Where? Anywhere? I thought it was interesting that after I asked this question in part 2 of his three part series, in part 3 he mentioned that he had started reading a book on Hebrew discourse analysis. Great, good for him. He never said a word about my actual question–how much of the Hebrew Old Testament itself, and Greek New Testament itself, has he actually read?
4. All of the information I am able to release publicly about the participants in the study is available at kjbstudyproject.com, on the Demographic Data page that is linked in the main navigational menu. I refer interested viewers there.
The demographic data seems to indicate that the people who took his survey were not Mormons or Oneness Pentecostals, if the people who took the survey told the truth. So that is useful, and I appreciate that he pointed that out. But there is still something very wonky with his survey results. And, of course, we have no way of verifying, corroborating, or falsifying that whatever people said in the survey is actually the truth. Dr. Ward claimed his survey was “definitive,” when it is incredibly far from anything of the kind. But I do appreciate him pointing to that “Demographic Data” page, even though I wish he had taken the time to make sure that words like “remove” are actually archaic by spending just a bit longer looking at standard Hebrew lexica before putting his survey out.
Let me end this blog post by reiterating that, while his attempt to deal with my Biblically-based case for the English of the KJV is solely reactive, in that he never thought of actually seeing what God’s objective standard is for Bible translation by looking at the language level in Scripture until I brought this to his attention, by the grace of God, I am thankful if his videos at least get people to start to thinking that way.
Also, again, this is by no means a comprehensive response to his three videos or to his book–just a few thoughts to whet your appetite.
Finally, let me point out that this exchange illustrates why those who believe in the perfect preservation of Scripture and the Authorized, King James Version should learn the Biblical languages, especially if they are spiritual leaders. The large holes in his argument are much more easily visible if one knows Hebrew and Greek.
–TDR
New List of Reasons for Maximum Certainty for the New Testament Text (Part 6)
ANSWERING AGAIN THE “WHAT TR?” QUESTION
Part One Part Two Part Three Part Four Part Five
1. God Inspired Specific, Exact Words, and All of Them.
2. After God Inspired, Inscripturated, or Gave His Words, All of Them, to His People through His Institutions, He Kept Preserving Each of Them and All of Them According to His Promises of Preservation.
3. God Promised Preservation of the Words in the Language They Were Written, or In Other Words, He Preserved Exactly What He Gave.
4. God’s Promise of Keeping and Preserving His Words Means the Availability of His Words to Every Generation of Believers.
5. God the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity, Used the Church to Accredit or Confirm What Is Scripture and What Is Not.
6. God Declares a Settled Text of Scripture in His Word.
THE APPLICATION OF THE PRESUPPOSITIONS, PRINCIPLES, AND PROMISES OF AND FROM SCRIPTURE (Part Two)
In five parts of this series, I first declared the scriptural presuppositions, principles, and promises that buttress the historical and biblical position. Then I stated the positive conclusion of the provided model, paradigm, or template that followed the six truthful premises. The underlying original language text of the King James Version is, as Hills asserted, its own “independent variety of the Textus Receptus.” It is essentially Beza 1598, but not identical to that printed edition. This conclusion fulfills the model, the biblical premises.
The Other Side Does Not Follow Scriptural Presuppositions
The other side, the critical text and multiple modern version position, does not follow scriptural presuppositions. It proceeds from naturalistic and relativistic ones. This is especially seen in the hundreds of lines of Greek text for its New Testament with no manuscript evidence. Critics pieced together lines of text that never existed in any copy anywhere and anytime. On the other hand, they commonly still make the claim that the underlying text behind the King James comes from just a “handful of manuscripts available at the time.”
A very common attack, which I anticipate again on this series, will skip all the presuppositions, principles, and promises and go directly to and then quote the concluding statement out of context. It would sound something like this: “Kent Brandenburg says, The perfect preserved text of scripture is ‘the underlying original language text of the King James Version.'” I took that from the above first paragraph of this post.
The opposition then treats that statement like it stood alone with no explanation. The enemies of the scriptural and historical position will provide strawman arguments. They won’t be the actual ones in these posts, and if they provide any of them, they’ll misrepresent them. You can count on this. I take this bow shot or preemptive strike as a warning.
Scripture reveals presuppositions, principles, and promises about God’s preservation of scripture. I could faithlessly ignore those. Instead, I could focus on the existence of textual variants and the relatively few variations between the printed editions of the textus receptus. Also, I could obsess over a couple individual words that critics say have little manuscript evidence. Those challenge the presuppositions, principles, and promises. I consider those minor challenges outweighed again by the presuppositions, principles, and promises.
Faith and the Model of Canonicity
Two verses that mean a lot to me related to the perfect preservation of the Greek New Testament is Romans 4:20-21:
20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; 21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
The same type of challenge occurs with the belief in twenty-seven books. No verse says, “Twenty-seven books are in the New Testament,” just like no verse says that Noah’s ark is still on Mount Ararat. Do I have faith that Noah’s ark is up there? I believe it landed there and stayed.
Why the twenty-seven that we call the New Testament? Some disagree. Other opinions exist. The presuppositions, principles, and promises are the same for twenty-seven New Testament books. These were the ones the churches accepted, a testimony of the Holy Spirit through believers.
The Unacceptable Alternative
The alternative to this position I espouse here is unacceptable. It rejects these presuppositions, principles, and promises. Also, it leaves the church without verbal, plenary perfection of scripture. The position I take, as I see it and very strongly, is the best and really only position for a perfect scripture, what believers should expect. Because of that, I take it.
Through the years, I have considered the arguments for the other side. What I’ve seen is a regularly changing, morphing attack. It’s as though they just throw anything and everything, the proverbial kitchen sink. Their conclusion is the same: uncertainty, doubt, the denial of scriptural and historical teaching, loss of authority, an ever changing and mutating scriptural text, and the ultimate apostasy that goes along with what they consider reality.
Certainty Versus “Confidence”
You can hear professing evangelicals attempt to fortify against the problem they create. They can’t say “certainty,” and even mock “certainty.” I hope you have a hard time even imagining this. It does happen and is happening, but they ratchet down expectations with words like “confidence.” It’s not even scriptural confidence, just confidence falsely so-called. They create uncertainty and can’t be certain, so they adjust people’s mindset to a form of probability at a higher level of probability that they falsely label “confidence.” It should be sued for false advertising.
From where does this confidence come for professing evangelicals who embrace confidence rather than certainty? It comes from naturalism. Yes, naturalism. They think they can give a high level of proof from naturalism and rationalism. It’s like trying to convince people that the vaccination is safe. Yes, they rushed it out, but look, they’re even vaccinating the president. Evangelicals mock certainty in a nasty manner and then they focus on confidence.
Compare again confidence to a vaccination drive. Can you get confidence from something at 95 percent? We know God wants jot and tittle obedience. Jesus said that in Matthew 5:17-20. These evangelicals don’t offer jot and tittle certainty as the grounds for jot and tittle obedience. This is also why they accompany their confidence with scaled down obedience. Since their adherents can’t be sure of scripture, they emphasize non-essentials. No one should separate over eschatology, ecclesiology, and a mounting stack of teachings. Why? No one can or should ensure certainty. That’s not who we should roll with God’s Word.
What God Desires
The alternative to the truth also evinces the truth itself. The truth stands. Scripture teaches perfect preservation, availability, a settled text, and all the other of the six principles I listed in this series. These form the basis for a sure, certain text of scripture that results in the kind of obedience God proposes and desires.
Is what God desires extremism and dangerous? The side of uncertainty and doubt uses this kind of tactic, name-calling, labeling faith in scriptural teaching as extremist and dangerous. Don’t worry. That’s what they said about Jesus and the Apostles too.
I call on everyone reading to reject a critical, naturalistic text of scripture and the substandard probability, called “confidence,” that it engenders. Those pushing that view are part of the downward trajectory, the steady decline, seen everywhere today. They are part of what’s not getting better.
On the Lord’s Day, Turn Apps & Email Off On Your Cell Phone
On the Lord’s Day, consider turning off apps, email, and whatever else you can on your cell phone. The first day of the week, Sunday, is not the Sabbath, but there are principles from Israel’s Sabbath that are appropriately applied to the first day of the week, the day of Christian worship, the Lord’s Day (Revelation 1:10; Acts 20:7). How does the Lord’s Day relate to your cell phone? We discussed this issue previously in the post Social Media and Electronics: Addictive Drugs for Christians?. I want to say a bit more about it now.
The Westminster Larger Catechism gives a good summary of principles that are appropriate to set the Lord’s Day apart from the other days of the week (although it improperly equates the Sabbath with the Lord’s Day, as did the Puritans). Please consider the following statements thoughtfully and prayerfully:
What is required in the fourth commandment?
The fourth commandment requireth of all men the sanctifying or keeping holy to God such set times as he hath appointed in his word, expressly one whole day in seven … [since] the resurrection of Christ … the first day of the week … (Deut. 5:12–14, Gen. 2:2–3, 1 Cor. 16:1–2, Matt. 5:17–18, Isa. 56:2,4,6–7) … in the New Testament called The Lord’ s day. (Rev. 1:10)
How is … the Lord’s day to be sanctified?
The … Lord’s day is to be sanctified by an holy resting all the day, (Exod. 20:8,10) not only from such works as are at all times sinful, but even from such worldly employments and recreations as are on other days lawful; (Exod. 16:25–28, Neh. 13:15–22, Jer. 17:21–22) and making it our delight to spend the whole time (except so much of it as is to be taken up in works of necessity and mercy (Matt. 12:1–13) ) in the public and private exercises of God’ s worship: (Isa. 58:13, Luke 4:16, Acts 20:7, 1 Cor. 16:1–2, Ps. 92, Isa. 66:23, Lev. 23:3) and, to that end, we are to prepare our hearts, and with such foresight, diligence, and moderation, to dispose and seasonably dispatch our worldly business, that we may be the more free and fit for the duties of that day. (Exod. 20:8,56, Luke 23:54, Exod. 16:22,25-26,29)
Why is the charge of keeping the [principles of the] sabbath more specially directed to governors of families, and other superiors?
The charge of keeping the [principles of the] sabbath is more specially directed to governors of families, and other superiors, because they are bound not only to keep it themselves, but to see that it be observed by all those that are under their charge; and because they are prone ofttimes to hinder them by employments of their own. (Exod. 20:10, Josh. 24:15, Neh. 13:15,17, Jer. 17:20–22, Exod. 23:12)
What are the sins forbidden in the fourth commandment?
The sins forbidden in the fourth commandment are, all omissions of the duties required, (Ezek. 22:26) all careless, negligent, and unprofitable performing of them, and being weary of them; (Acts 20:7,9, Ezek. 33:30–32, Amos 8:5, Mal. 1:13) all profaning the day by idleness, and doing that which is in itself sinful; (Ezek. 23:38) and by all needless works, words, and thoughts, about our worldly employments and recreations. (Jer. 17:24,27, Isa. 58:13)
What are the reasons annexed to the fourth commandment, the more to enforce it?
The reasons annexed to the fourth commandment, the more to enforce it, are taken from the equity of it, God allowing us six days of seven for our own affairs, and reserving but one for himself in these words, Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: (Exod. 20:9) from God’ s challenging a special propriety in that day, The seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: (Exod. 20:10) from the example of God, who in six days made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: and from that blessing which God put upon that day, not only in sanctifying it to be a day for his service, but in ordaining it to be a means of blessing to us in our sanctifying it; Wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath-day, and hallowed it. (Exod. 20:11)
Why is the Word Remember set in the beginning of the fourth commandment?
The word Remember is set in the beginning of the fourth commandment, (Exod. 20:8) partly, because of the great benefit of remembering it, we being thereby helped in our preparation to keep it, (Exod. 16:23, Luke 23:54,56, Mark 15:42, Neh. 13:19) and, in keeping it, better to keep all the rest of the commandments, (Ps. 92:13–14, Ezek. 20:12,19–20) and to continue a thankful remembrance of the two great benefits of creation and redemption, which contain a short abridgment of religion; (Gen. 2:2–3, Ps. 118:22,24, Acts 4:10–11, Rev. 1:10) and partly, because we are very ready to forget it, (Ezek. 22:26) for that there is less light of nature for it, (Neh. 9:14) and yet it restraineth our natural liberty in things at other times lawful; (Exod. 34:21) that it cometh but once in seven days, and many worldly businesses come between, and too often take off our minds from thinking of it, either to prepare for it, or to sanctify it; (Deut. 5:14–15, Amos 8:5) and that Satan with his instruments labours much to blot out the glory, and even the memory of it, to bring in all irreligion and impiety. (Lam. 1:7, Jer. 17:21–23, Neh. 13:15–23) (The Westminster Larger Catechism: With Scripture Proofs. (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996), Questions 116-121)
Let’s consider how these principles relate to your cell phone. While there are many people who spend all day long trying to figure out how to keep you on your phone as long as possible, people who do not make money from such things know that our over-use of the cell phone is bad for us. For me personally, I want to make sure that I am not programming myself to constantly look at my phone whenever I have a free moment, like the average American who looks at his phone 344 times a day. I have therefore used a setting on the phone to make it so that on the Lord’s Day the vast majority of the apps on my phone and Ipad–including my Gmail e-mail app, YouTube, and browsers like Safari or Chrome, –are not accessible:
These apps–again, including Gmail, YouTube, and browsers–are not accessible in the morning before I have time to spend in God’s Word. I want to hear from the Lord before I hear from everyone else.
The only sorts of apps that are accessible on the Lord’s Day, before I am at work in the morning every day of the week, and after a certain time in the evening every day, are those like my Bible apps, Accordance and Logos, my calendar to remind me of responsibilities on the Lord’s Day, the map app for something like getting to church in case there is traffic, and such like. I don’t need to find out what the world news is by going to conservative political websites on the Lord’s Day. I don’t need to find out who just posted a new video on this or on that. Spending that time meditating on Scripture instead is far better for my spiritual health (and far better for my family and nation as well). If you need to reach me, you can call me.
It is a blessing to have these apps turned off. I am glad to do it. I would encourage you to think about doing something similar. You do not need to to exactly what I do–maybe having email turned off would prevent you from hearing from someone you would pick up for church, for example–but I would encourage you to consider the principles in the 4th Commandment and elsewhere and make the Lord’s Day distinctly different. Use God’s Day as a special opportunity to resist and fight back against all the app developers who spend big bucks and many hours doing everything they can to keep you on their app and on your device, not so that they can help you pursue or follow after holiness (Hebrews 12:14), but so that they can make merchandise of you. (They also could not care less if they turn the brains of your children into mush–worldly mush, at that–but you should, and so should keep real books in their hands, and devices out of their hands. The rod and reproof will give your child wisdom, Proverbs 29:15, but you just gain temporary quietness if you allow their brains to be sucked out through electronics.) Lay aside not only the sin which can so easily beset you, but also every weight (Hebrews 12:1) and run with patience towards your risen Lord, Jesus Christ.
–TDR
New List of Reasons for Maximum Certainty for the New Testament Text (Part 4)
ANSWERING AGAIN THE “WHAT TR?” QUESTION
1. God Inspired Specific, Exact Words, and All of Them.
2. After God Inspired, Inscripturated, or Gave His Words, All of Them, to His People through His Institutions, He Kept Preserving Each of Them and All of Them According to His Promises of Preservation.
3. God Promised Preservation of the Words in the Language They Were Written, or In Other Words, He Preserved Exactly What He Gave.
4. God’s Promise of Keeping and Preserving His Words Means the Availability of His Words to Every Generation of Believers.
5. God the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity, Used the Church to Accredit or Confirm What Is Scripture and What Is Not.
Introduction to Point 6.
I hear many, what I would call, dishonest arguments. Those occur all the time from proponents of the critical text or multiple modern versions. Let me give you a couple, three, but with my focus on one in particular. One of these is the usage of the KJV translators for support of the critical text and modern versions. I agree the translators made room for improvements to their translation. They didn’t see the translation as the end of improvement in translation. They weren’t talking about improvements on the underlying text. That’s either incompetent or dishonest as an argument.
How can I be the dummy version of KJVO if I agree with the translators on the issue of improvement? I can’t be, yet this is what critical text or modern version people do all the time. Their posing as non-confrontational and with a cheery Christian spirit is nothing more than a ruse. They will treat you well if you budge to a significant degree toward their positions. That’s all. If you don’t, you get sent down the garbage disposal.
Pavlovian
There’s something Pavlovian to these modern version advocates. Young fundamentalists so want their favor, that they salivate to their positive reinforcement. This corresponds to turning on the light. The favor acts as a lure to behavior adjustment. Favored treatment is not an argument, yet is is the most convincing one in a feeling oriented world.
Can someone say the King James Version is inspired and support the 1769 update? I ask Ruckmanites this question all the time. Modern version advocates won’t acquiesce because they want to keep this second faux argument alive. If I approve a 1769 update, why would I not approve another one? Not doing an update is not the same as not approving of one. I’ve said often recently that King James Version advocates won’t update the King James Version under the pressure of modern version adherents, who don’t even use the King James. This really should be the end of this, but it won’t.
Latin Vulgate or Church Hierarchy Attack
The third bad argument from modern version proponents, the one on which I focus, has several layers. They say the King James is the Latin Vulgate to KJVO like the Latin Vulgate was to Catholics. This is to smear KJVO with Roman Catholicism. One of the layers is that it puts Roman Catholic-like power to the textual choices, putting the church over scripture. This is a category error.
Scripture, the authority, teaches that the Holy Spirit uses the church as the Urim and Thummim. God directs God’s people to the books and the words of the scripture using the church. The church is not taking preeminence over scripture by obeying scripture.
These false arguments remind me of the flailing of a losing boxer at the end of a match. Or, a basketball coach clearing the bench at the end of the game and the substitutes treating the final three minutes like they’ve won the game. No, they’re losing. These are not landing a single blow. They are what experts call “garbage time.” It’s just stat padding and not contributing toward winning at all.
6. God Declares a Settled Text of Scripture in His Word.
Settled Word
Scripture is not amoebic. Its boundaries don’t shapeshift like the Stingray nebula. The Bible doesn’t ooze and alter like the Hagfish. God declares in His Word a settled text of scripture. The Bible is a rock, not shifting sand.
God describes His Word as forever settled (Psalm 119:8-9). Deuteronomy 4:2 says:
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
Proverbs 30:6 instructs: “Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” At its very end, the Bible says in Revelation 22:18-19:
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
One cannot take away or add a word to a text that isn’t settled. No possibility of guilt could come to a person for adding or taking away from something unsettled. These warnings assume the establishment of the words. All the principles, presuppositions, and promises from scripture relate to the settlement of the text of the New Testament.
Considering the Nature of God
What God says in scripture about scripture should make sense, considering the nature of God. In Malachi 3:6, God says: “For I am the LORD, I change not.” The immutability of God, one of His attributes, provides a basis for trusting Him. God communicates the trustworthy nature of His Words with relations to His preservation of them in Isaiah 59:21:
As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth,, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.
Isaiah 40:8 says something similar: “The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.”
Received Text Mindset
Modern version and critical text advocates know that printed editions of the received text of the New Testament in the 16th and 17th centuries have few and minor variations. When I say “few and minor,” I’m not making a point that those variants do not matter. They do. The attitude at the time sounded like what Richard Capel wrote:
[W]e have the Copies in both languages [Hebrew and Greek], which Copies vary not from Primitive writings in any matter which may stumble any. This concernes onely the learned, and they know that by consent of all parties, the most learned on all sides among Christians do shake hands in this, that God by his providence hath preserved them uncorrupt. . . .
As God committed the Hebrew text of the Old Testament to the Jewes, and did and doth move their hearts to keep it untainted to this day: So I dare lay it on the same God, that he in his providence is so with the Church of the Gentiles, that they have and do preserve the Greek Text uncorrupt, and clear: As for some scrapes by Transcribers, that comes to no more, than to censure a book to be corrupt, because of some scrapes in the printing, and tis certain, that what mistake is in one print, is corrected in another.
The variation did not yield an unsettled nature. No, “what mistake is in one print, is corrected in another.” They knew errors could come into a hand copy or even a printed edition. However, that did not preclude the doctrine of preservation and a settled text. God would have us live by every Word that proceeds from the mouth of God.
More to Come
Recent Comments