2 Thessalonians 2:3 & Pre Trib Rapture: “Day Shall not Come”
People that deny the pre-Tribulation Rapture of the saints sometimes use 2 Thessalonians 2:3 to argue for their position. Let us examine this verse in its context:
1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
Opponents of the Biblical doctrine of the pretribulational, premillenial Rapture of the saints may argue that “the day of Christ” cannot be “at hand,” that is, it cannot be about to take place, until there “come a falling away first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.” That is, the Antichrist has to be revealed before the Rapture can take place, according to this argument.
However, this argument against the pre-trib Rapture is clearly invalid. The phrase translated “the day of Christ is at hand” in 2 Thessalonians 2:2 comes from the Greek hoti enestēken hē hēmera tou Christou. The word enestēken comes from the Greek enistēmi, meaning “to be present”; the sense in 2 Thessalonians 2:2 is that “the day of the Lord has come” (BDAG). Some at Thessalonica thought that they were already standing in the time of the Day of Christ; they thought they were already in the Tribulation period, and so they were doing things like no longer going to work at their lawful employments. Paul explains that if they were already standing within the Day of Christ, if they were already present in the Tribulation, then they would see the Antichrist ruling the world, as he is the one who takes power immediately after the Rapture (Revelation 6:1-2). No Antichrist ruling the world? Then they were not in the Tribulation, argues Paul.
The other texts in the New Testament with the verb enistēmi verify this interpretation:
Rom. 8:38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
1Cor. 3:22 Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours;
1Cor. 7:26 I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.
Gal. 1:4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:
2Th. 2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. [“the day of Christ is present.”]
2Tim. 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come [Greek future tense: “perilous times shall be present in the future.”]
Heb. 9:9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
While in English we use the phrase “at hand” in a variety of ways, the Greek word in 2 Thessalonians 2:2 and its uses elsewhere in the New Testament demonstrate that Paul was warning that if one was actually in the Tribulation period, he would already see the Antichrist in power. Paul was not saying that the Antichrist would arise and then the Day of Christ would start at some point afterwards. Indeed, in the following context, Paul identifies the Holy Spirit as the Restrainer who is holding back the Antichrist until He is taken out of the way (2 Thessalonians 2:6-7). Notice that the Holy Spirit is referred to with a neuter (KJV, “what” withholdeth, to katechon) in 2:6 and a masculine (KJV, “he” who now letteth/restraineth,” ho katechōn) in 2:7. The neuter is used because pneuma, “Spirit / breath / wind,” is grammatically neuter word in Greek (as are all words ending in –ma), but because the Holy Spirit is a Person, He is referred to with a masculine form in 2 Thessalonians 2:7. When will the Spirit be taken away? When the saints are taken away in the Rapture–and then the Antichrist, no longer restrained, will be revealed.
Thus, in context, 2 Thessalonians 2 supports a pre-Trib Rapture, and nothing at all in 2 Thessalonians indicates that the Antichrist must start ruling before the Rapture can take place.
Many other passages support the pre-Tribulation Rapture of the saints, and refute a mid-Tribulation or post-Tribulation error, including passages such as 1 Thessalonians 4, which have been discussed in other articles on this blog.
–TDR
Right Applications of Matthew 5:17-20 and Wrong Ones (Part Three)
Jesus Is Scriptural
Everything that Jesus said in His sermon from Matthew 5:1 to 5:16 was a scriptural concept. Nothing Jesus taught contradicted God’s Word. Jesus is God. On the other hand, the religious leaders in Israel were “making the word of God of none effect through [their] tradition” (Mark 7:13). If anyone was destroying the belief and practice of the Old Testament, that is, the fulfilling of the Old Testament, it was them, not Jesus.
Believing and practicing the Old Testament was letting light shine before men. Jesus did that and He called upon kingdom citizens of His to do the same. Proof that He didn’t arrive to earth to destroy the scripture He inspired, Jesus promised perfect preservation of every letter of it.
If Jesus would preserve every letter of written scripture, surely He also expected His people to do all of it too. His teachers would also teach men to do everything scripture said. One could say at this point: in other words, you’ve got to be better than the Pharisees. The righteousness of the Pharisees is not saving righteousness. It is their own version of righteousness that comes from human effort. They couldn’t produce the righteousness that would get them into heaven. That righteousness comes from above.
Righteousness and Saving Faith
Righteousness, which is from above and by the grace of the Lord, exceeds the faux righteousness arising only from man’s works. It doesn’t rank scripture into majors and minors, because it can’t keep everything that He said. Like Jesus, it fulfills written scripture. James in his epistle later says the same. True believers are both hearers and doers of what God said.
Saving faith comes by hearing the Word of God. Someone is begotten by the Word of Truth. It would follow that He would also be a keeper of scripture, like Jesus said. That supernatural righteousness of God produces obedience to scripture. You can detect the unrighteous servant of unrighteousness by His diminishing of scripture.
Here is a professing teacher of God. Someone disobeys scripture. He doesn’t want to offend that person by saying something. He lets it go. This is not doing the least of the commandments and teaching men so.
Ranking Doctrines or the Triage Approach
The Pharisees of Jesus’ day ranked doctrines. Their unity revolved around a triage approach. Instead of following the teaching of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, they pervert into just the opposite of what He taught. Unity on the least commandments, what they call, non-essentials or minors. These teachings are not a “hill you want to die on.”
Left-Winged Legalism
Professing Christians especially today practice a left-winged legalism more often than the more commonly highlighted right-winged type. The left wing calls its legalism, “grace.” It is turning the grace of God into lasciviousness. Since you can’t keep everything scripture says on your own, reduce its teachings to what you can keep. This is left-winged legalism.
Those practicing left-winged legalism relish pointing out more consistent practice of scripture than theirs as legalism. They do it all the time. How you know they aren’t legalists in their estimation is by their inconsistent practice of scripture. People who try to follow everything like Jesus taught and teach others to do likewise, they aren’t the greatest in the kingdom to left-winged legalists. Instead, they’re “legalists.” Again, it’s in reality just the opposite.
As Jesus moves on in His illustrations in chapter five, you can see how much a truly righteous person strives to love God and His neighbor. It’s not the get-by-ism of the Pharisees and modern evangelicalism, so they can keep their crowds. They’ve dumbed down scripture so that it is unrecognizable as Christianity. This follows the same tack of the Pharisees. There is nothing new under the sun.
Right Applications of Matthew 5:17-20 and Wrong Ones (Part Two)
Jesus came to elevate scripture, not overthrow it. The scribes and Pharisees had devalued actual scripture for their own traditions. The religious leaders thereby made themselves the standard of righteousness. They were not God’s light, glorifying Him by shining in a dark world.
Heaven and Earth Passing Away and Not His Words
Not only did Jesus not destroy the law, but He promised, first, not one letter of the Old Testament text would pass away until He fulfilled it. Second, He promised to fulfill all of the Old Testament. The audience of Matthew 5:17-18 could count on the perfect preservation of the text of the Old Testament and the fulfillment of its teachings. Matthew gets started providing the account of that occurrence and its continuation in the future in His writing of Jesus’ words and works.
The Lord Jesus refers to heaven and earth passing away in verse 18, an event He states again in His Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24:35:
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
Jesus uses the Greek word for “pass” or “pass away” several times in Matthew and then the other Gospels. BDAG says this most common usage means, “come to an end and so no longer be there.” That premier lexicon includes these very usages as examples of that meaning. Regarding the text of scripture, being “there” means being available.
A Written, Hebrew Text
The reference of the jot and tittle by Jesus underscores the written text of the Old Testament. The written text of scripture would not pass away. It also emphasizes the responsibility to perform all of it to the very letter.
Jesus says heaven and earth are going to pass. They will come to end and so no longer be there. On the other hand, the jots and tittles of the Old Testament will not come to an end and so no longer be there. He uses the same Greek verb in the negative to contrast the two occurrences, one happening and the other not.
Jots and tittle are also Hebrew. God breathed Hebrew letters and words. The original language text would not pass away. This doesn’t apply to the preservation of a translation, English or otherwise. Translation is great, but the promise of Jesus goes to the original language text. Preservation of scripture is the preservation of the words originally written down.
Scripture Never Obsolete
The teaching of Jesus was not time-sensitive. It applies still, because heaven and earth are both still here. Men can count on this promise of Jesus for all time. All of scripture is permanently important. It will never become outdated, obsolete, or too archaic to keep.
The passing of heaven and earth is not metaphorical. It is a real future event. Where people very often put their greatest investment of time and energy will not survive. Second Temple Judaism was turning its audience away from scripture through its traditions. As a teacher, Jesus was doing the opposite.
Matthew 5:19
Jesus said in Matthew 5:19:
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
“Therefore” looks back to the previous two verses. Jesus committed Himself to the fulfillment of the entire Old Testament. Unlike the preservation of heaven and earth, He guaranteed the perfect preservation of the written text of scripture. These two statements stressed the conclusion that the greatest in His kingdom would both do and then teach everything in and from scripture.
Earlier Jesus quoted to Satan in the Wilderness of Temptation (Matthew 4:4):
Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
While Satan would tempt men not to live every word of scripture, Jesus expected the opposite. Elevation in His kingdom meant living by every Word.
Debunking Ranking Doctrines, Not Endorsing
The tradition of the Pharisees ranked scripture by importance. Since they were not keeping all of it, partly because they couldn’t, they opted for classifying God’s Word from the least to the greatest commandments. This is why they often asked (Matthew 22:36), “What is the greatest commandment?” Rather than keep all of it, they argued over what was important. Someone might keep everything if everything was only what they deemed important, an increasingly shorter list.
The Pharisees would add their traditions, but they would also minimize or diminish actual scripture to what they could keep. They sorted teachings into essentials and non-essentials. Since they so depended on their own labor, this became their chief form of legalism.
Modern interpreters buy into the Pharisaical tradition of ranking doctrines by using this text to advocate for lesser and greater commandments. The whole point of mentioning jots and tittles was to propose the belief and practice of everything in scripture, down to the smallest details.
Hyperbole? No
No doubt men today will use the expression “jot and tittle” as a way to express the exactness of something in an hyperbolic way. Nothing in the text gives us a reason to say that Jesus used those words as a type of hyperbole.
In response to those who say the words jot and tittle are hyperbolic, Paul Feinberg writes: “I see no such proof” (Paul D. Feinberg, “The Meaning of Inerrancy,” in Inerrancy, ed. Norman L. Geisler [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980] 284.). He explains the great caution needed for labeling any portion of scripture as hyperbolic, reserving it only for instances where the literal meaning brings an unjustifiable meaning to the text.
Matthew ends his Gospel with a Great Commission text in which Jesus says (Matthew 28:20), “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” Is that hyperbole? No. Jesus intended His followers to keep everything He taught, every jot and tittle. This is what the Apostle Paul called, “all the counsel of God” (Acts 20:27).
More to Come
The Textus Receptus: Based on a Handful of Manuscripts? (Debate Review 13)
Are the Textus Receptus and King James Version based on a mere handful of late Greek manuscripts? In the previous several parts of my review videos about the James White / Thomas Ross debate, we examined James R. White’s astonishingly historically uninformed claims that the KJV translators would be “completely” on his side, and the side of modern Bible versions, in our debate over the preservation of Scripture. In part 13 reviewing the James White / Thomas Ross debate on:
“The Legacy Standard Bible, as a representative of modern English translations based upon the UBS/NA text, is superior to the KJV, as a representative of TR-based Bible translations.”
I examine Dr. White’s amazing assertions that modern versions like the Legacy Standard Bible “utiliz[e] far, far more manuscript evidence than was even dreamed of by the KJV translators,” (16:00) while the King James Version and the Textus Receptus is “based upon a handful of manuscripts.” Indeed, Dr. White said that the LSB had “access to manuscripts a solid 1800 to 1200 years older than those used by Erasmus for … the New Testament.” Are these claims valid? They are simply false, and they redound upon his own minority text, which is ACTUALLY based upon a handful of manuscripts—and sometimes far less than a handful!—far more than they are effective against the Textus Receptus or the King James Bible. Find out more by watching the thirteenth debate review video at faithsaves.net, or watch the debate review on YouTube or Rumble, or use the embedded link below:
Lord willing, after looking at all the variants in an entire chapter of Scripture to evaluate how the Received Text and the Textus Rejectus do in them in review video #14, we will then move on to evaluate James White’s arguments against the KJV and TR from Acts 5:30, after which we will continue to his arguments from Ephesians 3:9 and Revelation 16:5 in subsequent review videos.
–TDR
Right Applications of Matthew 5:17-20 and Wrong Ones
Defend or Support the Textus Receptus?
Recently I read someone who started his essay on Matthew 5:17-20, and he called it ‘quoted to defend an understanding of preservation that supports the Textus Receptus and the Hebrew Masoretic.’ Nope, that’s not how it works with passages. I’ve preached through the whole book of Matthew. I’ve begun again, and I’m right now in Matthew 5:17-20, spending two weeks on that text so far.
In its place in Jesus’ sermon there on the north slope of the Sea of Galilee, Matthew 5:17-20 has several applications. It’s not a matter of finding passages to defend the Received Text of scripture. No, as one of its applications, even its interpretation, it teaches the perfect preservation of scripture. This teaching in Matthew 5:17-20, as well as other places in the Bible, supports the Textus Receptus and the Hebrew Masoretic. That’s not all it teaches, but it does at least that.
Those who deny God’s perfect, providential preservation of scripture are the ones who seem to go to these passages with purposeful elimination of that interpretation and application. They must not see perfect preservation of scripture and its general availability and accessibility anywhere in the Bible. It becomes a scorched earth activity, as if Jesus really said, “I am actually come to ensure the destruction of the law or the prophets.”
Matthew 5:17-20
Here is Matthew 5:17-20:
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Let’s get started. Religious leaders in Israel expected the Messiah to destroy the law or the prophets. As part of His fulfillment of the new covenant, He would abolish the old. Jesus said, “Think not that.” They were obviously thinking that.
How does this section fit into the previous context of this sermon? The light that shines before men from those who inherit the kingdom of heaven is not something arbitrary (cf. Matthew 5:1-16). It is scripture. The light shines through the keeping of scripture. Jesus elaborates on this. First, he debunks this misnomer that the Messiah would do away with “the law or the prophets.”
The Law or the Prophets
First, what is the law or the prophets? This is crucial for understanding what Jesus says in Matthew 5:17-20. The article I read by the aggressive non-preservationist, who myopically attacks the doctrine of perfect preservation, says:
The aspect of this purpose most relevant to our discussion is the fact that Matthew intends to address the major issue of how Jesus and his teaching relate to the Law of Moses.
That interpretation is false, but it is also typical of those who cannot, must not, see the doctrine of preservation in Matthew 5:17-20. He continues:
Since Gentile inclusion in the Great Commission forms the climax of the Gospel, explaining the specifics of Jew/Gentile relations is a major part of what Matthew intends to do.
Is that what Jesus is doing? Dealing with Gentile inclusion in the Great Commission? I would call that eisegesis. You do not see that in Jesus’ sermon.
Not Just the Law of Moses
“The law or the prophets” is not isolated to the law of Moses. That expression refers to the entire Old Testament text, what was all of written scripture at that time.
God couples law and prophets ten other times in the New Testament (Matthew 7:12; 11:13; 22:40; Luke 16:16; 24:44; John 1:45; Acts 13:15; 24:14; 28:23; and Romans 3:21). The joining of these two refer to all of the Old Testament scripture. Sure, “the law” refers to the first five books, but “the prophets” refers then to the rest of the Old Testament.
In the next verse (verse 18), Jesus says, “the law,” without “the prophets.” That doesn’t mean He is referring to just the law. Actually, He must continue meaning all of the Old Testament. The Greek conjunction gar (“for”) at the beginning of verse 18 connects “the law” in verse 18 to “the law or the prophets” in verse 17. The fulfilling in verse 17 is not distinct from it in verse 18. They’re identical. The conjunction starting verse 18 require “the law or the prophets” and “the law” to be the same.
Fulfill?
“Fulfill” also points to the whole Old Testament with an emphasis on Jesus’ Messianic fulfillment of the Old Testament. In the sermon, Jesus made a statement about the fulfillment of the entire Old Testament. Luke 24:44 is especially a clue about this, a parallel passage:
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
The Mosaic law-only view is very difficult to prove in this context. I would say, impossible.
“These commandments,” whether least or greatest, must reflect the meaning of the previous two verses. Jesus says, “therefore.” In other words, based on what I just said. Based on what Jesus just said, He makes the conclusion of verse 19.
The Gospel
All written scripture is the light that shines before men through those receiving the rule of King Jesus in their lives. Those who acquiesce to Him as King will live a life according to scripture, all of it, not just the so-called “least” of it. This does debunk the Pharisees and also relates to the gospel. The gospel changes someone’s life so He can live what God says, all of it. This isn’t legalism. This is what Jesus taught. Matthew Henry writes on this:
The rule which Christ came to establish exactly agreed with the scriptures of the Old Testament, here called the law and the prophets. The prophets were commentators upon the law, and both together made up that rule of faith and practice which Christ found upon the throne in the Jewish church, and here he keeps it on the throne.
More to Come
A True View of the World: Inside or Outside?
Anthony Kennedy and Casey
In the Supreme Court decision “Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania V. Robert P. Casey” in 1992, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his opinion:
At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.
Is that statement by a Supreme Court justice true? Can someone define his own concept of existence, of meaning? Everyone defines his own meaning? I say “no” to that, but it relates to how anyone obtains an accurate understanding of the world.
Anthony Kennedy wrote that personal preference, which originates from a person’s feelings or opinions, arising from the inside and not the outside, would override objective meaning. Therefore, objective truth contradicted freedom and essentially then America itself. Something is true as long as it corresponds to someone’s desires.
Authenticity and Relativism
Even more so, when truth is your truth, then it’s also authentic. Count that for goodness and beauty too. Stephen Presser writes about Kennedy’s line:
It undoubtedly owes a lot to Freudian psychology, to Rousseau’s notion that civilization places us in chains, and, most of all, to the concept usually associated with Abraham Maslow, “self-actualization.” The core of this philosophy seems to be that each of us has an authentic “self,” and the goal of life ought to be to maximize individual opportunities to express and develop it.
I read someone, who called the statement, “the epitome of relativistic thought.” Obviously, when applied to abortion, to which the Casey law was written, a baby is anything the person feels it to be, who wants the abortion. It is an invader of the mother or just a clump of cells or cancer.
Outside, Not the Inside
Before the 19th century in the United States, almost everyone saw truth as received from the outside, not the inside. God was separate from His creation. Truth, goodness, and beauty, which came from Him, outside of His creation, were transcendent. Hence, people called them the transcendentals.
On the outside was evidence. Revelation is the declaration of God. This is premodernism. Everything starts with God. But even modernism said evidence on the outside was necessary. As Ben Shapiro very often says, “Facts don’t care about your feelings.” Man’s observation falls below revelation though. Modernism assumed that absolutes existed, but their testing came through man’s reasoning.
Predmodern, Modern, Romanticism, Postmodern
Between Christ and the 19th century, this very long period is premodern. Sure, 1500 to 1800 is an early modern period. I don’t want to get into when modernism started. It depends on how you define it. Theological modernism started in the 19th century. That’s the time of the worldview shift reflected also in the Romantic Movement of the 19th century.
Modernism connected truth to man’s experience, his observation. Romanticism moved modernism all the way to the inside, where truth, goodness, and beauty were not longer transcendent, but completely immanent. New religions exploded in the 19th century. Truth lost objectivity. People’s opinion, their feelings, increasingly become more important to decide truth, goodness, and beauty. The movement toward truth is your truth is postmodernism.
God’s Word is the final arbiter of truth, but it isn’t the only one. 1 Timothy 3:15 calls the church the pillar and ground for the truth. Still, however, that’s outside of your opinion, your thinking, and your feelings.
Even modernism depends on man’s thinking or reasoning. This continues to influence even conservatism in the world. Modernists confirm God’s revelation to man’s thinking, what one could call, rationalism. Scripture stands above man’s reasoning, what Peter calls the pure mother’s milk (1 Pet 2:2). It circumvents man’s observation and reasoning, coming directly from God, that is, from the outside. What it says is true, good, and beautiful.
Messianic Israel / Jew Evangelistic T-Shirt: Shema & Isa 53
God loves Israel! He loves Israel far more than did the Apostle Paul, who wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit:
1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, 2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. 3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: 4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; 5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. … 1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. (Romans 9:1-5; 3:1-2)
What does God say to those who harm Israel? “He that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye” (Zechariah 2:8). As with the rest of mankind, Jews who do not believe the gospel will be eternally lost (Romans 11:28a), but nonetheless “as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.” (Romans 11:28b-11:29).
What is the greatest blessing Jehovah has ever given Israel? The Messiah, the Savior of the world, God blessed for ever, Jesus! To that end, we have designed the T-shirts pictured below, which have been added to the collection of evangelistic T-shirts and other materials I posted about some time ago. Both sides of the T-shirt reference the evangelistic pamphlet Truth From the Torah, Nevi’im, and Kethuvim (the Law, Prophets, and Writings) for Jews who Reverence the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, which is online at https://faithsaves.net/Messiah/. The front has this evangelistic website as well as the text of the Shema, Deuteronomy 6:4:
שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל יְהוָֹה אֱלֹהֵינוּ יְהוָֹה אֶחָד׃
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
While the back has the evangelistic website and Isaiah 53:8b: “For he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.”
along with, on both sides, the flag of Israel. (We did not see a way to design the shirt so that the vowels and accents could be included, although we recognize the Biblical and historical case for their inspiration and preservation.)
We believe that these shirts can be blessed by the God of Israel for Jews to embrace their crucified and risen Messiah, Jesus, as well as to help Gentiles come to repentance and faith in Him. If you get to evangelize Muslims because of this shirt, Isaiah 53 is good for them also, since Muslims deny the Lord Jesus died on the cross, claiming the Gospel accounts are fabrications. But Isaiah 53, which clearly predicts His death by crucifixion and resurrection, and which we have physical, pre-Christian evidence for in the Dead Sea Scrolls, cannot be so explained away by Muslims. This T-shirt can also help you explain the powerful evidence for the Bible from prophecy for agnostics and atheists and the powerful impact of Isaiah 53 to both Jews and Muslims. Furthermore, God promises to bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel (Genesis 12:1-3). Do you want to be blessed by the living God? Bless Israel!
The immediate motivation for our making these shirts was a pro-Hamas, anti-Jewish rally we saw in Los Angeles. Jew haters there held signs such as “Resistance is not terrorism,” glorifying the murder of 1,200 Jews on October 7, 2023, the largest single-day slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust:
They also promoted “from the river to the sea,” advocating the destruction of the Jewish state and the murder of the Jews:
The protesters were part of the anti-Israel hate group, the A. N. S. W. E. R. coalition, who argue that to say “Hamas is a terrorist organization” is a “lie.” (By the way, if you need more reasons to stop using Google as a search engine, note the pro-terrorism, anti-Israel search results that come up first if you search for “answercoalition.org Hamas terrorism”; compare those results with what you get on Duck Duck Go, where the top result [as of the time I am writing this] is the Anti-Defamation League explaining why Hamas is a bloodthirsty terrorist organization that calls for the eradication of Israel.) The protestors also reproduced lies pumped out by Hamas about civilian deaths in Gaza, while saying nothing about the fact that Hamas wants civilians in Gaza to die and Israel does not. Of course, Islam allows Muslims to lie–after all, Allah is the best of deceivers.
They were blocking the street so that we could not keep going on the bus we were on in Los Angeles. Our destination was not far away–a museum in LA. We decided to get off the bus and walk there. A few blocks away we saw an orthodox Jewish man walking in the direction of the advocates of terrorism. We told him about the protest; he thanked us, and re-routed. After we got home from the museum we designed the T-shirts. It is right to stand against terrorism and for the Jewish people. It is especially right to stand for the greatest Jew of all, the resurrected Lord, Jesus.
We saw posters like the following a few blocks away. The anti-Jewish, pro-Hamas protestors did not say anything about these people.
They also said nothing about United States citizens killed by or held hostage by Hamas. They are also not important, it seems. (Let me add that the large majority of inhabitants in Gaza and the West Bank support Hamas’ murder of Jewish civilians–the large majority “extremely support” terrorism, while in a recent survey only 7.3% of survey participants were “extremely against” such terrorism, combined with 5.4% who are “somewhat against” it, for a total of only 12.7% of the population who are against terrorism; it is certainly possible survey results reflect some bias, but the overall picture is likely to be accurate.)
What about here in the USA? When asked if they support Israel or Hamas, 95% of those over 65 support Israel. The percentages get progressively lower the younger people are. Among 18-24 year olds, only 55% support Israel, while 45% support Hamas. This is a terrible trend, and awful evidence of the anti-God garbage taught in the public school and university systems. Maybe consider getting some of these T-shirts for yourself or as presents for others. Perhaps you are afraid of Muslim violence or anti-Jewish violence if you wear one, since true Islam in America–like all true Islam–is violent and bloodthirsty, not peaceful. Perhaps if you are living in Saudi Arabia or Iran it would be unwise to wear one of these shirts; but if you live in the United States of America, and you will allow threats of Muslim violence to curtail your free speech, something is very wrong. Obviously Christians have liberty to wear or not wear a T-shirt like this, and it is perfectly fine not to wear one, but our decisions must be made out of Biblical principle and for the glory of God, not out of fear. If you say you would have protected Jews in the Holocaust, but are afraid to stand for them and against their murderers now, why should we believe you would have stood were you in Hitler’s Germany? There are Biblical principles here. God’s love for Israel is not saying God loves everything the modern state of Israel does–but God still loves Israel, and Scripture still says to bless Israel. (By the way, if you are born again, God loves you with an infinite and special love, but He still does not love everything you do–He does not love your sin, nor does He love Israel’s sin.) Be salt and light: stand up for righteousness. Do not let the wicked pro-terrorist people be the only ones who are making their voices known. Stand for the God of Israel, for the Messiah of Israel, and for the nation of Israel.
Postscriptum:
As FLAME: Facts and Logic About the Middle East points out concerning anti-Israel, pro-Hamas bias in media reports about Gaza civilian casualties:
[T]he media insist on treating Hamas’s notoriously unreliable information feed as fact. Conversely, they refuse to give precedence to proven, reliable sources of information, such as the Israeli or U.S. governments, the latter of which confirmed Al-Shifa’s use as a Hamas headquarters. Israel presents photographs of Hamas blocking exit highways, so Gazans cannot leave the war zone . . . but Hamas denies it, says NPR. Such is the inane, “he-said, she said” pablum we are fed by the media.
The media also steadfastly refuse to ask the questions demanded by the story—and by any curious reader, listener, or viewer. When reporters interview Palestinians on the street or doctors in hospitals, the viewer cries to know: “Do you ever see any Hamas guys around here? Have you seen any tunnels?” But never does the reporter ask this, let alone questions like, “Do you support Hamas? Do you think there should be a Palestine next to Israel? What do you think about the October 7th attack on Israel?” These are obvious queries that responsible, curious, fact-hungry journalists would and should normally ask their sources. But they never do. Why?
The short answer is that if they asked these questions, the stories they tell wouldn’t fit the narrative they are trying to sell—the narrative in which the Palestinians are an oppressed people, Israel is an evil, colonial aggressor, and Hamas is a product of legitimate Palestinian resistance.
To sell their perverse narrative, international media swallow the wildly inflated death-toll numbers cranked out by the Gaza Health Ministry. For this reason, the media simply repeat the daily growing casualty figures Hamas gives them.
Reuters reports, for example, that as of November 22nd, Gaza’s Hamas-run government says at least 13,300 Palestinians have been confirmed killed, including at least 5,600 children. But Luke Baker, a former Reuters bureau chief who led the organization’s coverage of Israel and the disputed territories from 2014 to 2017, said on X (formerly Twitter), “Hamas has a clear propaganda incentive to inflate civilian casualties as much as possible.”
Moreover, the media almost never give a breakdown of the casualties. They don’t say how many were Hamas terrorists or how many were human shields, killed in residences schools or hospitals where Hamas were hiding. They never tell how many were killed—not by Israeli forces, but by Hamas and other terrorist groups—because of misfired rockets, or by Hamas shooting at Palestinian civilians heeding Israeli orders to evacuate.
In addition, it’s probable that a significant number of the “children” reported killed or wounded by Hamas are youths aged 13 to 18, who were located in Hamas facilities or even took an active part in the fighting.
If you are not aware of the connection between Soviet communist propaganda and modern anti-Zionist lies about Israel as a colonialist oppressor, please read the article here.
Douglas Wilson: “I Am Not A Separatist”
The Moscow Mood
One landscape of the evangelical internet blew up recently when evangelical reformed (Presbyterian?) Kevin DeYoung, leader in The Gospel Coalition, wrote a scathing article against Douglas Wilson and his Christian enterprise in Moscow, Idaho. He entitled it: “On Culture War, Doug Wilson, and the Moscow Mood.” Now Wilson has answered him with an article at his blog: “My Rejoinder to Kevin DeYoung.” Many already have written posts on this highly visible skirmish.
I’m not going to give my assessment on this public conflict. I have a leaning in this intramural fracas, but I choose to center my attention on Wilson, because of something he wrote in his article:
I am a fundamentalist, in that I believe the fundamentals with all my heart. But I am not a cultural fundamentalist, and I am not a schismatic or separatist.
Wilson says, “I am not a . . . separatist.” Historically, fundamentalists are at least separatists, unless someone wants to redefine fundamentalism. Usually in the technical aspects of designation or labelling, removing separation makes Wilson maybe a “conservative evangelical.” Some would argue with even that because of the Federal Vision issue for Wilson. To put the doctrine of Federal Vision (FV) in shorthand, someone wrote last week:
The FV holds that all who are baptized are objectively part of the covenant of grace.
Federal Vision and Wilson
It’s thick, but you might read the article in which that sentence occurred to try to understand the issue. The authors entitled the article: “On Justification, Doug Wilson, And The Moscow Doctrine.” The same post reads in the conclusion:
As we witness and lament the waning of Christianity’s influence in American public life, Doug Wilson’s rhetoric has galvanized conservative and Reformed-minded Christians who, at the very least, are hungry for a vision of the future that has a strong Christian influence on the culture. Some have left faithful and orthodox churches for churches more aligned with “the Moscow mood,” while failing to discern the real danger of “the Moscow doctrine,” especially with respect to FV and its erroneous doctrine of justification.
People should ask what the Wilson doctrine of salvation is. Is it confused? Are paedobaptists such as Wilson preaching a true gospel? In a google supplied definition of the belief of paedobaptism, I can’t say WIlson would disagree:
Inherent in this view is the thinking that baptism is only rightly given to those who are regenerate, but that in light of God’s covenant promises, children of Christian parents may be presumed to be regenerate from birth, and thereby worthy recipients of the sign of the covenant.
Wilson says he is a fundamentalist and defines it as believing “the fundamentals,” whatever those may be. What are “the fundamentals” for someone associating with Federal Vision? Perhaps Wilson read an accusation of fundamentalism in DeYoung’s post. The words “fundamentalist” or “separatist” or even “schismatic” do not occur in DeYoung’s article anywhere.
Fundamentalism and Separation
I am pinpointing the language of Wilson, “I am not a . . . separatist,” perhaps Wilson equaling “schismatic” to “separatist.” True churches, which are true New Testament churches, are separatist. All true churches are separatist churches. Yet, Wilson proclaims, he is not a separatist. Even though he is a fundamentalist, he says, he carves off “cultural fundamentalist.” These are loaded words that Wilson does not define. What does it take to be a “cultural fundamentalist.” Wouldn’t someone be a “cultural fundamentalist” today if he opposed same sex marriage and supported delineated male and female roles.
Wilson argues for the patriarchy even greater or more strict than complementarianism. This is cultural. He criticizes complementarians as too soft or squishy. He defends “toxic masculinity.” He wrote last month:
God has determined that men should occupy the positions of leadership in each of the basic governments that He has established among men. These governments would be those of our civic life (Is. 3:12), our life together in the church (1 Tim. 2:12), and in the family (1 Cor. 11:3). In the first place, He appointed men to take glad and sacrificial responsibility in these areas, and by men, I mean males. In addition to that, He required the males that He placed in these positions of authority and responsibility to act like men, and not simply males.
The distinction, it seems now, between complementarianism and patriarchy is that the former applies only to marriage and the latter to every institution in the world, as represented by Wilson in the above paragraph. If Wilson is a fundamentalist, he’s also a cultural fundamentalist.
Sine Qua Non of Fundamentalism
Wilson can’t be a fundamentalist, because separation is a sine qua non of fundamentalism. Fundamentalists separate over belief and practice. They separate over fundamentals, whether doctrinal or cultural. A historian of fundamentalism, Kevin Bauder, covers this in his article: “The Idea of Fundamentalism.” You aren’t a fundamentalist unless you separate over your fundamentals.
Fundamentalism is a movement that began in early twentieth century United States with institutional separation. The Britannica entry on “Christian fundamentalism,” describing Carl McIntyre, says:
He argued that fundamentalists must not only denounce modernist deviations from traditional Christian beliefs but also separate themselves from all heresy and apostasy. This position entailed the condemnation of conservatives who chose to remain in fellowship with more liberal members of their denominations.
Later the article on Christian Fundamentalism restates this foundational characteristic of fundamentalism:
By the 1980s fundamentalists had rebuilt all the institutional structures that had been lost when they separated from the older denominations.
The Bible Requires Separatism
Be Ye Holy
The Bible teaches separatism all the way through. God separated Adam and Eve from the Garden. He separated Noah and his family from the rest of the world. He separated the nation Israel from all the surrounding nations. Separation verses abound all over the New Testament (2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1, 1 Corinthians 5, 2 Thessalonians 3:6-14). God by nature is holy and holiness is separation. God says to His people, “Be ye holy as I am holy.” He is saying, “Be ye separate as I am separate.”
Wilson defines separatists as both “schismatics” and “cultural fundamentalists,” differentiating from himself. He gives no explanation for that, apparently thinking everyone reading “just knows already.” Of the unscriptural belief and practice of Wilson and his institutions in Moscow, Idaho, I reject his lack of separatism, both from the world and from false doctrine and practice. To explain the catholicity of Douglas Wilson, he advocated for this statement on such:
On this basis we cheerfully recognize the Trinitarian baptisms of Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians, receive them (and all others who confess this ancient faith) to our celebration of the Eucharist, and warmly welcome them into membership in our congregation.
Catholic or Not Catholic
When he says he is not a separatist, ecclesiastically he means he is catholic. He doesn’t like what he sees going on, but he’s not going to separate over it. He’ll sit behind the keyboard and fire away, but that won’t stop him from staying together in a spirit of ecumenism with false doctrine and practice.
I thought Wilson’s statement on fundamentalism and separation to be a good teaching moment. As many readers know, I do not consider myself a “fundamentalist.” I without apology say, “I am a separatist.” God requires separation. Those who obey scriptural teaching on separation are separatists. Wilson says, ‘I am not one of those.’
Salvation and Separation
2 Corinthians 6:17-18 say:
17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.
18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
Jesus said in John 8:44, “Ye are of your Father the devil.” Someone must leave the one family, Satan’s, to join the new family, something shown in Galatians 3 and 4. The Lord says, “I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you,” and who does He say this is for? Those who come out from among them and be ye separate. Wilson says, “I am not a separatist.” Okay. According to scripture, what does that mean for the ultimate outcome for Wilson?
The Capitulation on the Biblical Doctrine of the Perfect Preservation of Scripture
Does the Bible suddenly change its meaning? When God speaks on a certain subject in His Word, do we take what He says as the truth or do we conform it to naturalistic or humanistic presuppositions? I ask these question especially here about the biblical doctrine of the perfect preservation of scripture.
Master’s Seminary and John MacArthur
I was watching an interview of the leaders of the Master’s Seminary about its founding, including John MacArthur, and I came to a crucial, foundational section of the interview. A little after the 15 minute mark, MacArthur said:
Obviously I have a very strong commitment to the Word of God and to its accurate interpretation and to sound doctrine. . . . [We needed] to come up with our own exhaustive doctrinal statement. . . . [A] seminary has to have a unified doctrinal statement. . . . We didn’t have any wiggle room. It was sound doctrine or nothing, and we were going to fight for that at all costs. . . . We tightened everything we could tighten with a very detailed doctrine that to this day is still our statement with some more refinement.
Even now we’re doing some refinement, having it right. It was in order to maintain sound doctrine and have a solid, unified set of convictions all the way from theology proper and bibliology down to ecclesiology and even eschatology, the whole thing. And that’s what’s been defining for us. And here we’ve been doing this since 1986 and nothing has moved.
Bibliology Statement at Master’s Seminary
When I heard MacArthur say this over a week ago, I wondered about the bibliology statement in the seminary doctrinal statement, so I looked it up. Here’s the fundamental part of what it says, the first four paragraphs:
We teach that the Bible is God’s written revelation to man, and thus the sixty-six books of the Bible given to us by the Holy Spirit constitute the plenary (inspired equally in all parts) Word of God (1 Corinthians 2:7-14; 2 Peter 1:20-21).
We teach that the Word of God is an objective, propositional revelation (1 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Corinthians 2:13), verbally inspired in every word (2 Timothy 3:16), absolutely inerrant in the original documents, infallible, and God-breathed.
We teach the literal, grammatical, historical interpretation of Scripture which affirms the belief that the opening chapters of Genesis present creation in six literal days (Genesis 1:31; Exodus 31:17), describe the special creation of man and woman (Genesis 1:26-28; 2:5-25), and define marriage as between one man and one woman (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5). Scripture elsewhere dictates that any sexual activity outside of marriage is an abomination before the Lord (Exodus 20:14; Leviticus 18:13; Matthew 5:27-32; 19:1-9; 1 Corinthians 5:1-5; 6:9-10; 1 Thessalonians. 4:1-7).
We teach that the Bible constitutes the only infallible rule of faith and practice (Matthew 5:18; 24:35; John 10:35; 16:12-13; 17:17; 1 Corinthians 2:13; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Hebrews 4:12; 2 Peter 1:20-21).
As you read that, maybe you think it’s a boilerplate, typical orthodox, scriptural, and historical statement of bibliology. In a statement on bibliology, in the first four paragraphs Master’s Seminary gave a gigantic chunk of space to interpretational philosophy, emphasizing a young earth interpretation and biblical definition of marriage. I’m fine with including that, but how do you include that and say nothing about the preservation of scripture?
The Bible and the Preservation of Scripture
Does the Bible teach its own preservation? Does it say anything about that? Did you notice in the second paragraph on inspiration, it applies verbal inspiration and inerrancy and infallibility to the “original manuscripts”? After a third paragraph on interpretation, a fourth paragraph then says “the Bible constitutes the only infallible rule of faith and practice.” According to the statement, the Bible itself is not infallible, except in the original manuscripts, yet it still constitutes an infallible rule of faith and practice. These types of conclusions do not follow the premises for them.
The physical original manuscripts (autographa) do not exist. No one can look at them to get a rule of faith and practice. People can look only at copies of copies (apographa) of the original manuscripts. Without a doctrine of preservation, one cannot conclude an infallible rule of faith and practice. Is there no doctrine of preservation of scripture in the Bible?
MacArthur states in the interview that he obviously has a very strong commitment to the Word of God. Does he have a strong commitment to the Bible’s teaching on the preservation of scripture? He commits to six day creation based on his scriptural presuppositions. MacArthur commits to a biblical definition of marriage. The statement includes nothing about preservation of scripture. Is he committed to the teaching of the Word of God on its own preservation? I don’t see it.
Legacy Standard Bible
The same Master’s Seminary faculty took the project of the Legacy Standard Bible (LSB). Upon its completion in 2021, the editors of the LSB wrote in its preface:
The Legacy Standard Bible has the benefit of a number of critical Greek texts in determining the best variant reading to translate. The 27th edition of Eberhard Nestle’s Novum Testamentum Graece, supplemented by the 28th edition in the General Epistles, serve as the base text. On every variant reading the Society of Biblical Literature GNT as well as the Tyndale House GNT were also consulted. In the end, each decision was based upon the current available manuscript evidence.
This statement alone reveals a rejection of perfect preservation. Instead of God preserving His Words perfectly as scripture teaches, it reflects a failed attempt at restoration of the original text God inspired. This helps explain the doctrinal statement leaving out a doctrine of preservation. What does the Bible teach about a believers expectations between AD100 and the present regarding the preservation of scripture?
Even if the evidence of modern science says the world is a billion years old, a believer accepts the revelation of the first chapter of Genesis. He explains the science according to scripture, because scripture is truth. Even if the evidence of modern science says that there are errors in present printed editions of the original language Bible, a believer accepts the doctrine of the preservation passages. It also says that men alone have the task of preserving scripture like any other book. Everyone either begins with a naturalistic or a supernaturalistic presupposition, and no one is neutral.
Preaching on Preservation
When exposing the text in front of him, MacArthur has said the following, first on Matthew 24:35:
Finally, Jesus said this: “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words” – what? – “shall not pass away.” That is an unchanging authority. And He closes the parable with an unchanging authority. “My Word shall not pass away.” In Luke 16:17, He said heaven and earth will pass away and it’s easier for them to do that than for one tittle out of the law to pass away. He said not one jot or one tittle in Matthew 5:18 will pass away until all is fulfilled. In John 10:35, He said Scripture cannot be broken. And so if we believe the Word of God, we believe this is going to happen – it’s going to happen.
So in a sermon to people, who sit there thinking that Almighty God will preserve His Words, it sounds like he preaches perfect preservation. But no, ‘we really don’t believe that.’ ‘We just say that in the texts that say that.’
Master’s Seminary has no statement on preservation of scripture, because it does not believe in the preservation of scripture. It does not believe that someone can prove the preservation of scripture on exegetical grounds. It says God inspired every word on exegetical grounds, but it doesn’t say on exegetical grounds that God then preserved every one of those words. The seminary says that God nowhere in scripture promised that He would preserve His Word. Historic Christianity writes doctrinal statements that say something different.
Historical Bibliology on Preservation of Scripture
The London Baptist Confession of 1689 says:
The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them.
Dutch Theologian Herman Bavink (1854-1921) wrote in The Sacrifice of Praise (p. 21):
All scripture was not only once given by inspiration of God but it is also as such continually preserved by God by His Almighty and everywhere present power.
In a book, Fundamentalism Versus Modernism (1925), Eldred Vanderlaan wrote:
Christ guarantees that as a part of the sacred text neither the tittle or the yod shall perish.
In a Chronological Treatise Upon the Seventy Weeks of Daniel (1725), Benjamin Marshall wrote:
And as not one jot or tittle of the former was to pass without being fulfilled, so neither could one jot, or tittle of the latter pass away without being accomplished. Consequently not one jot or tittle, much less could one word. . . . pass away. . . , without its actual completion, and full accomplishment in the express letter of it.
Believing God’s Promise of Preservation
A multitude of passages in scripture teach in their context the perfect preservation of scripture (see our book, Thou Shalt Keep Them, here and here). God promised He would preserve every one of His written Words unto every generation of believer. It’s interesting to me what men, who have been in the same orbit as MacArthur, say about the sovereignty of God. R. C. Sproul famously wrote and said:
If there is one maverick molecule in the universe, one molecule running loose outside the scope of God’s sovereign ordination, then ladies and gentlemen, there is not the slightest confidence that you can have that any promise that God has ever made about the future will come to pass.
It amazes me that they can believe that every molecule functions under the control of God, but God would not and did not fulfill His promises of perfect preservation of scripture.
The KJV’s “Translators to the Reader” King James Onlyism Refuted?
In the James White / Thomas Ross debate “The Legacy Standard Bible, as a representative of modern English translations based upon the UBS/NA text, is superior to the KJV, as a representative of TR-based Bible translations” James R. White made the astonishing claim that the “Translators to the Reader” refutes King James Onlyism. I touched on the main points of Dr. White’s claim in previous review videos, and in my twelfth debate review video I examine James White’s final arguments to this end, both from our debate and his book The King James Only Controversy.
James White quotes the preface to prove “the need for translations into other languages.” Of course, White provides no written documentation at all from any pro-Received Text, pro-KJV, or pro-confessional Bibliology source that is against translating the Bible into other languages.
He quotes the Translators to the Reader to prove that the KJV translators “use[d] … many English translations that preceded their work.” Who denies this?
He points out that the preface supports “study of the Bible in Greek and Hebrew.” Of course! The large majority of King James Only advocates would agree.
White points out, concerning the KJV translators, that: “Their view that the Word of God is translatable from language to language is plainly spelled out.” Again, White provides no documentation at all of any KJV-Only group who denies that Scripture can be translated from one language to another.
White claims that the KJV translators were “looking into the translations in other languages, consulting commentaries and the like.” Who is denying one should look at commentaries?
White argues: “[T]he KJV translators were not infallible human beings.” Of course, no advocate of perfect preservation is cited who has ever claimed that the KJV translators were “infallible human beings,” just like when White’s King James Only Controversy on page 106 talks about people who think that Beza was inspired, and on page 180-181 about people who think Jerome was inspired, and on page 96 about people who think Erasmus and Stephanus were inspired, no KJV-Only sources are provided who make these ridiculous claims, since, of course, there are no such sources.
Dr. White makes other unsubstantiated and absurd claims. Learn more in the twelfth debate review video at faithsaves.net, or watch the debate review on YouTube or Rumble, or use the embedded link below:
–TDR
Recent Comments