Mike Harding writes:

Most of the arguments in the KJVO debate have been adequately answered in the numerous books written by both Fundamentalists and Conservative Evangelicals.  Dr. Bill Combs has written extensive articles in the DBTS journal debunking the false theories of KJV Onlyism.

Conservative evangelicals and historic fundamentalists have no problem standing on the Scriptures alone for their apologetic on the inspiration of the Holy Bible. They got the doctrine of inspiration down pat. Inspiration is recognized, received, yea even canonized. But where may we find their doctrine of preservation? It is virtually non-existent. Many (dare I say all) modern evangelical/fundamental Systematic Theology textbooks contain next to nothing. Differing from systematic theology but nonetheless systematic in their theology, The historic confessions recognizes the preservation of Scriptures. 

The fact that the LXX is quoted throughout the NT by the NT authors is proof enough that the KJVO understanding of miraculous, perfect preservation in one line of manuscripts is not biblical. 

Kent not only believes the ‘preservation passages’ refer to the written copies, he has proposed which copies are the right ones.

Tomorrow Thomas Ross’s post will replace this one, but I wanted to still have it here on top for a few hours.

Cultic loses its meaning when it is used as an invective and pejorative.  Cultic should be reserved for the cultic.  Cultic shouldn’t be weaponized as a word for staining people, even if they’ve got some big problems.  Credibility should diminish for a person misusing the term “cult” to the extent I’m describing, the flag thrown and the yardage walked off, even disqualification.

In recent conversation about categorizations of Baptist fundamentalism, special attention is given to KJVO as cultic.  We are assured that KJVO are cultic without explanation.  The people talking live in their own echo chamber, where they hear the one, same position bouncing around with agreement and back-slaps all around, elevating to the strongest possible name-call, “cultic” included.  Someone needs to explain why something is cultic.

There are some problems with KJVO.  Certain KJVO equal any bad position on the preservation of scripture and accompany a kind of mysticism related also to a false view of sanctification.  Those details should be pointed out and dealt with, instead of just calling it “cultic” in an unhelpful way.  I’m inclined to forget what I’m writing, and call it a cultic groupthink analysis.  It is it’s own form of koolaid drinking.  Nobody needs to know why, just supply the red meat.

This summer my family will visit the UK and I’ve been looking at churches there.  The history of the church in the UK is different than the United States.  Movement went from here to there, but almost always the U.S. received something from the UK.  What I see from us in the UK are the things that the ‘users-of’cultic’ might like, thinking that they have progressed from the U.S. influence.  You see more allure in the technology, better capacity to pander, and the Charismatic movement.

Among the reformed evangelicals, which doesn’t mean the same thing in the UK as it does here, those who call themselves reformed Baptists, and the strict Baptist churches, are many King James Only.  Many.  They didn’t get that from Seventh Day Adventists, and other Illuminati-like and Trilateral Commission type conspiracy theories, used in an attempt to discredit.  They are red herrings that come without proof.  Are they just cultists?  If you are KJO, you’re a cultist, mark it down.

These reformed Baptists and “evangelicals” (again, not the same thing as an American evangelical) are tied closely to historic confessions, usually linking to the London Baptist Confession (London, England, in the, um, UK), that cultic statement from 1689.  They are KJO because of something written in 1689, something doctrinal.  What’s that all about?

Our family from Bethel Baptist Church, El Sobrante, California, is Lord-willing going to visit Bethel Baptist Church in Bath, UK for a mid-week service on our trip.  Many churches like them in the UK use the King James Version only.  The Trinitarian Bible Society comes out of London.  They are King James Only.  All of this comes out of the London Baptist Confession.  If all the words of God were preserved, therefore, available in 1689, those would be the ones translated into the English of the King James Version. They believe the London Baptist Confession.

If you are going to do away with the King James for these guys in the UK, you will need to do away with the London Baptist Confession or at least show how that it was wrong on that doctrine.  People don’t do that.  They just call you cultic, which is actually how cultic people operate.  They try to intimidate people by calling them cultic.  It is carnal weaponry.  It works with some people, but they are left with attempting not to be cultic as their reasoning behind what they do.  This is functioning like the slave of Galatians and not the son.  The son obeys out of love.  The slave does it out of intimidation.

I have three blog posts I’ve really wanted to write, but they are difficult to write without spending a lot of time.  I’m a percentage done on all three and can’t finish any of them.  I’ve been in this condition for three weeks.  I’m still writing posts though.  Today, I make it easy on myself for another day by attempting to put myself in a chart done by Tyler Robbins on SharperIron, which he has titled, “A REPORT CARD ON BAPTIST FUNDAMENTALISM IN 2018.”  People at SharperIron have attempted to do this on various occasions and I knew that comments would explode for this post.

What I’m going to do here is attempt to put myself in his chart where I fit and see which category I must be of his four categories:  fundigelicals, “movement fundamentalists, cultic fundamentalists, and reformed-ish fundamentalists.  I have said that I’m not a fundamentalist, but I’m sure most would say that I am.  I really am not, but there isn’t another category for me by Tyler Robbins.  He doesn’t have evangelical, fundamentalist, and then whatever.  I think I’m whatever, but I’d be happy to hear explained why I’m not.  I’ll use his descriptors in the left hand column to place me in a category.


Leadership and Style

Here our church is dual elder and collaborative approach, which he has as reformed-ish.  We have two pastors and I don’t consider the other pastor my assistant.  I don’t see “assistant pastor” in scripture, but I do see multiple elder.  We have two.  We work together at this.  In a typical month six different men will preach/teach.

Education

Here “movement” fundamentalist and reformed-ish are the same, excellent, systematic doctrine emphasized.  I don’t think anyone who listens to me preach or our other men, watches our conference, or reads my blog would think we’re characterized like the other two categories, fundigelicals or cultic fundamentalists.  I know we’re not uneven quality, shallow, and indoctrinating.

Ecclesiology

I would have to understand what the descriptions mean here.  I’d be glad to take the scripture, biblical and systematic theology, to any ecclesiology of any of the four categories.  Inbred Landmarkism?  I have to guess that he means men who have mimicked each other in their view of the church, apparently proceeding from mid-nineteenth century Southern Baptist church leaders, not the Bible or even historic.  English separatism isn’t cultic?  I would debate this any day.

Does parachurch fall in here?  What kind of authority do these institutions have?  Why are they so powerful in fundamentalism?

Soteriology

On his chart, I have to be “movement” fundamentalist, to be honest.  I don’t see them fight for the gospel like our church does.  They also don’t emphasize lordship, that I see.  I’ve been generally attacked by “movement” fundamentalists on the gospel.

Separation

Tyler misses it here.  I don’t see cultic fundamentalists today with a major emphasis on separation, if he’s including Paul Chappell, Clarence Sexton, and that crowd.  I don’t see Detroit as exemplary.  Central is better as fundamentalists go. Hobby horses, I would guess, would include music.  Central has that hobby horse too, so where does music come into play?  I can’t find myself in this category.

Does church discipline fall under separation?  I was in movement fundamentalism and I never saw it practiced, ever.  Ever.

Central Concern

I could only be reformed-ish fundamentalist here.  We are building the kingdom through biblical evangelism, making disciples — no gimmicks.  Our concern is glory to God through faithfulness to His Word.

Sanctification

I could only be reformed-ish fundamentalist here, based on his description.

Preaching

I could only be with his reformed-ish fundamentalist description — our preaching is 90 percent exposition.

Perhaps two other categories could be added, the so-called cultural issues, which could include complementarianism, or no?   You could also include worship.  Which of the four categories keep a high view of God in the worship?  I wouldn’t put all of the reformed-ish in that description.  Not all of movement fundamentalism is either.  Does that mean nothing?  Or is it a hobby horse?

Tyler did the best he could.  It’s a tough task that will be criticized by others.  Everyone has a bias.  I think he’s open to correct where others point out that bias.

On most of these, Tyler would have me, our church, at reformed-ish fundamentalist.  He might feel the necessity to call us cultic.  We use and defend the King James Version.  We separate over every teaching of scripture.  We are local only in ecclesiology.  Where do you think we fit?  Use your name and give an explanation.  Most anonymous comments will be deleted.

James McWhorter came on my radar when in 2003 I purchased and read his book, Doing Our Own Thing: The Degradation of Language and Music and Why We Should, Like, Care.  Since then, I have read many of his articles published online, referring to one, even in my post exactly a week ago.  As a black American linguist, McWhorter has considered and continued to explore the meaning and effects of the changes or even degeneracy of language and speech.  His honesty about the consequences for black people have led many on the left to regard him as a conservative, to require him to defend his blackness.  McWhorter labels himself a “cranky liberal” and he teaches at the left wing Columbia University in New York City.

The New York Times joined in the story of DNA proof the Canaanites survived despite God’s command to the destroy them in the Bible.  I saw the headline of the story last week at RCP, and my immediate thought was that God commanded their destruction.  God also commanded Adam and Eve not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  Israel disobeyed God’s command, which was one reason for their apostasy.  It shows you how stupid the New York Times is, and others like it.

It’s sad and funny that the New York Times links in its article to a BibleHub online Bible of Deuteronomy 20:17, which the King James Version reads, “But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee.”  God commanded Israel to destroy them, but in very ancient news, Israel didn’t obey.  Just because God commands something in the Bible doesn’t mean that everyone does what He says.  The Bible isn’t the story of a people who were completely obedient, but the story of sinners who, even though God gets it entirely right, themselves get it usually wrong.

The science part of the study appeared in the American Journal of Human Genetics.  It should be a great testimony to the authenticity of the biblical record, since it says that these people existed. Instead, many used it with great glee as a basis for the Bible not being true.  This included The Telegraph, The Independent, The Daily Mail, The Tech Times, Mother Nature Network, Cosmos, and many more.  They are saying in essence, “The Bible says they were destroyed, and they weren’t!” The Bible says that God told Israel to destroy them.  Israel didn’t.  As a result there was all sorts of Canaanite false worship in the land.

Joshua 17:12, Judges 1:27-28, 31, and 2:3 read (some underlining for emphasis):

Yet the children of Manasseh could not drive out the inhabitants of those cities; but the Canaanites would dwell in that land. . . . Neither did Manasseh drive out the inhabitants of Bethshean and her towns, nor Taanach and her towns, nor the inhabitants of Dor and her towns, nor the inhabitants of Ibleam and her towns, nor the inhabitants of Megiddo and her towns: but the Canaanites would dwell in that land. And it came to pass, when Israel was strong, that they put the Canaanites to tribute, and did not utterly drive them out. . . . Neither did Asher drive out the inhabitants of Accho, nor the inhabitants of Zidon, nor of Ahlab, nor of Achzib, nor of Helbah, nor of Aphik, nor of Rehob. . . . Wherefore I also said, I will not drive them out from before you; but they shall be as thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare unto you.

Scripture itself later says the Canaanites were not destroyed from the face of the earth, which was the point contradicting the New York Times and all the other fake news.

I guess we can wait for a retraction.  You should be heartened though.  Those on the other side are wrong again and obviously so.  They are either totally duped or deceived or rank liars, but they are wrong.  This is just who they are, so don’t let them bother you.

Part One

The purpose of Thou Shalt Keep Them (TSKT) was to exegete passages on preservation of scripture, like one would exegete passages on salvation for a book on salvation or passages on the Trinity for a book on the Trinity.  That’s what we did.  The main criticism of the book has been about the lacking manuscript evidence.  I plead, can we please consider first if the Bible teaches its own preservation? What does the Bible say about its own preservation?  When that doesn’t seem to matter or just doesn’t matter to people, even those who call themselves professing Christians, I wonder about their approach to anything.

Excerpts of TSKT were posted twice at SharperIron (here and here), and I assessed 18 comments out of what were 39 and now 45.  This will cover the rest.  In general, those commenting didn’t interact with the actual posts written, didn’t show how that a passage wasn’t saying what I wrote that it did. They didn’t address the actual post in the comment section (until the last few comments, someone finally did).

Dave Barnhart commented again, and said that his big problem with my argument was that he needed to know what the Bible was before he could believe what it said.  There wasn’t this kind of doubt in the first century.  Saints received scripture as the Word of God.  This continued to be true until textual criticism proceeded from unbelieving doubt about the Bible.  Nevertheless, none of the preservation passages were affected by textual variants.  When it comes to the Genesis account, would Barnhart say, “I’m not sure I have Genesis, so I don’t know if I can believe the account, until I know that it is Genesis?”  Unlikely.  This is the same.

J. Ng uses the LXX argument, which says that Jesus quoted from a corrupted Septuagint, an argument that has arisen for the critical text in defense of no scriptural bibliology.  I’ve written extensively here on this subject (here, here, and here), and take the same position as John Owen did, who wrote about it in his biblical theology.  The conclusion, if you agree with Ng, is that the individual words didn’t matter to Jesus, just the overall message.  This flies in the face of what the Bible (and Jesus) says about itself.

For Aaron Blumer’s next comment, a question that arises from reading what the Bible teaches on its own preservation is, should we expect word-for-word preservation?  What percentage of exactness would we expect based on biblical promises?  Once we are settled on what the Bible teaches, we adjust our view to that.  Blumer seems to be saying that we adjust what the Bible says to our observations of the history of textual transmission.

JBL says he hasn’t heard a credible rebuttal to the lack of evidence there ever has been a word-for-word preservation in church history.  Actually, we’ve had to answer that again and again here and have written whole posts on the history of the doctrine.  Saints believed that the words of the text they possessed were identical to the originals.  Where errors were made in one copy, they were corrected in another.

Tyler speaks to the LXX argument again (which I addressed above to J Ng) and gives a partial answer to himself.  The LXX is corrupt and Jesus wouldn’t have treated it like it was trustworthy.

Contrary to Bob Hayton, the TSKT position in the book or otherwise, is not buttressed by our local only ecclesiology, which again is why Reformed and Presbyterians take the same position with a different ecclesiology.  What he’s saying is false, but that doesn’t matter at SI.  It goes unrefuted, except I write here.  John Owen didn’t have the same ecclesiology and we take his position on this.  It seems par for the course though.  Regarding his unrelated issue of the inspiration of the Hebrew vowel points, read Thomas Ross’s article.

What seems to be crucial in an attack (from Bob in his comment) on the scriptural doctrine of preservation is the criticism of  Erasmus’s TR edition, whether there is manuscript evidence for wording in a few passages.  This does not proceed from a study of the Bible on preservation.  As well, the “which TR” question doesn’t change what scripture says about its own preservation.  That’s got to be dealt with first.  We shouldn’t invent a new way to deal with biblical doctrine that starts outside of the Bible, just because of so-called manuscript evidence.

Aaron comes in to support Bob Hayton by saying that TSKT relies on history instead of scripture, but he doesn’t give a scintilla of proof for that.  I can only assume that he means that in looking for a fulfillment of what the Bible teaches, the authors accept what had been preserved and was available as preserved and available.  When Daniel’s prophecies were fulfilled, it wasn’t relying on history in saying that Daniel’s prophecies were fulfilled.  Promises of God are fulfilled in real time outside of scripture, but they are dependent on scripture, not history.  His comment ended the commentary on the first post.

Starting comments on the second post, Josh P says that I’m saying that Christians should believe God preserved His Words in my preferred text.  He says I’m snide because of that.  Men jumped to my defense, because of name-calling.  Not.  No foul called.  Just the opposite, presuppositions based upon scriptural exegesis lead me to my position.  Whatever doesn’t fit the biblical presupposition, I reject.  I do the same thing with my Christology.  Are people who do that with other doctrines, snide too?

Bert Perry says that I want words of scripture to be preserved so I look for that in the passages on preservation to guide what they mean.  He uses Matthew 5:18 as an example even though the post was on Matthew 24:35, typical of the comment section.  When Jesus said, “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled,” I think that teaches preservation of jots and tittles because I want it to say that.   He then says, lost in that, is the real debate, which is the meaning of logos.  Is logos the actual words or the message?  That is the real debate lost in this jot and tittle meaning.  I’m struggling taking Bert’s comment seriously.

Mr. Bean says that the reason we wrote the book was because it provided another reason to separate. That too was left unrefuted.  Mr. Bean is a nice man.  He’s very funny too.  He should do stand-up for critical text fundamentalists or evangelicals, whichever he is, because he would pack it out with his material.

Tyler engages Bert’s comment about logos, and says it is a legitimate comment, because the meaning of logos depends on the context.  Context would mean, however, that you are looking at scripture for your position, wouldn’t it?  In Matthew 24:35, the yet to be addressed theme of the post, it is plural, “words.”  When it says, “words” (logoi), is that “the message”?  It’s easy to see in 1 Peter 1:23-25 that logos and rhema are used interchangeably.  That is a point worth noting too.  In the end, what does it matter if I’m assuming the meaning based on my desire for word perfect preservation, what Bert says is my real motive and manner of operation?

T Howard chimes in, “Not so fast!”  He writes, “The text in context only teaches the authority and validity of Jesus’s words as being God’s words.”  We should applaud that T Howard is the first man to comment on the post.  However, not so fast, what about the words passing away?  Are words passing away or not?  Words not passing away means that they can’t lose their authority and validity?  That seems to be what T Howard is writing.  I need a little more information, and I’m saying that very slowly.

Skipping Jim Peet’s link to my post, Thomas Overmiller provides links to Aaron’s series on TSKT. Look at the sidebar, because I answered Aaron Blumer’s series then too.  You can find those posts there.  Regarding his public apology, he doesn’t actually say that he does anything wrong.  Look for yourself.  He hadn’t read the book by his own admission and he misrepresents the book.  It is a classic non-apology apology.  I apologize if I did anything wrong (which you all know that I didn’t, because it’s just a disagreement).  The one thing he doesn’t do is interact with the posts or Matthew 24:35. He writes a lot of words saying he disagrees conscientiously, because he doesn’t believe the passages teach what I’m saying they do.  What do they teach?  Overmiller silence.  Not helpful.

Jay doesn’t talk about the post either.  He can’t remember, but he thinks Kent used a Psalm passage to say that God preserved the KJV, a passage that only the KJV interprets that way, and it’s humorous. First, I don’t believe in English preservation, so maybe it wasn’t me.   I don’t teach that God preserved the KJV.  Second, the teaching that “them” are God’s Words in Psalm 12:7 (read here), which he doesn’t mention, goes back very far (read here).  Other translations say the same thing, including the Jewish Tanak. Webster’s translation in 1833 is identical.

Thomas Overmiller links to and then pastes part of an article by Fred Butler in which Butler depends on a Douglas Kutilek article.  The article is an attack on me.  Butler quotes articles and commentaries, but he doesn’t deal with the crucial component that is missed by the men he quotes. Their chief argument is that “words” cannot be the antecedent to “them” because of gender discordance.  That is thoroughly debunked by the fact that all over the Old Testament the masculine pronoun refers to feminine “words.”  This is also found in multiple Hebrew grammars.  Butler quotes John Gill and Gill himself missed that point, so his commentary is wrong.  Overmiller makes no mention of that point.  Kutilek’s article totally depends on the falsehood that Hebrew pronouns must agree with their antecedents.  It’s false.  Overmiller just throws the Butler post out there for whatever reason, as if Butler dealt with what I actually wrote.

Jay refers to a Fred Butler statement pasted in Overmiller’s comment and then uses it to mock people. I won’t counter the typical scorn coming from Jay, except to say that TSKT isn’t intended as a defense of a single translation.  Most of the exegesis comes from the original languages, not the KJV.  Josh P then defends Jay by saying that “the whole matter” is that I want an exegetical response, when there is no relationship between the TSKT exegesis and my position.  The TSKT position actually does come from its exegesis and Josh P doesn’t show how it doesn’t.  That’s not a necessary burden for him or the others who comment at SI.  Tyler, however, in the next comment tries to get someone to comment on Matthew 24:35.

I’ll ignore Bert Perry’s comment, where he says that people such as myself are authoritarian leaders, Jim Peet’s announcement that he’s buying TSKT, and Jay’s statement about heresy.  JBL says some truth about Matthew 24:35, someone who finally interacts with the actual post.  Bob Hayton gives a plug for a booklet that is essentially a hatchet job on our book.  It is called the Doctrine of Scripture, but you will find that it is not.  It takes some of what we wrote in TSKT and attacks it, in an unconvincing way.  Bob links to a post I wrote about it, since the book said that we believe that someone can only be saved through the KJV, which we refute in TSKT.  In other words, it’s a purposeful lie, a smear.  The book is not any kind of organized presentation on preservation or bibliology period.  It’s not what myself or anyone wants from the critical text side, that is, laid out the scriptural presuppositions for their position.  It doesn’t do that at all, contrary to what Bob says.

In answer to Bert Perry’s comment, the part about my not knowing logic.  I took it in college and have taught it three different times, so I have an interest in logic.  I like thinking about the logic of the conclusion that people are not saved who heard the gospel from the critical text.  To be saved, that person is receiving God’s Words.  Most of the critical text is God’s Words (at least 93% of the NT).  A person is not saved through a rejection of God’s Words, like we see in Acts 2:41.  All over scripture, rejection of God’s Words is not characteristic of a saved people.  Deuteronomy does make that point. When Jesus is Lord, you don’t pick and choose what you’ll do and not do.  I’m not going to go through all the Bible to show that, but that is not the same thing as saying that you are saved only through the King James Version, like the book is smearing, and Bert Perry wishes to latch on to.

I want to say that I feel sorry for what Bert Perry has experienced in what he describes at his church in the next comment. I do.  What we said was that Pickering did do collation of manuscripts and he saw that some of them were identical to each other and he mentions which ones.  We said that debunked the legend that not one manuscript was identical to another.  I happen to like Pickering’s position better than a critical text one, for numerous reasons, and his work is helpful.  That Pickering prefers a majority text position to the TR doesn’t debunk anything we wrote (I’m skipping Tyler’s next comment).  There is some missing logic there coming from Bert, to refer back to his reference to logic before.

To address Bert’s next comment, first, Pickering gives evidence of identical manuscripts, which we referenced only in refutation of the assertion that no manuscript was identical.  That shouldn’t be said, or it should be retracted, because it’s not true.  I understand people not retracting.  They would be admitting they are wrong, and that just can’t happen.

TSKT, contrary to T Howard’s next comment, doesn’t assert that the Bible teaches that God preserves His Words in a particular text family.  No one has said that, so it is a falsehood or a strawman.  As to words not passing away just meaning authority and validity, quoting Constable is not sufficient basis for believing that.  How does that relate to heaven and earth passing away?  Do heaven and earth have less authority and validity?

Even though Jay is on the right track in his next comment, he descends to the falsehood or strawman that we see Jesus promising the preservation of a text family.  That is inserting language of textual criticism.  If it is a promise that His Words would be available, like heaven and earth is presently available, then we would ask, what has been available and received by God’s people?  The trajectory starts from the teaching of the passage and works out, not the reverse.

I have to applaud Andy Efting’s actual interaction with Matthew 24:35.  However, his conclusion does not proceed from the text, unlike where JBL earlier was taking it.  He says, “not pass away” means, “dependable.”  Scripture is more dependable because it won’t pass away.  However, He says, “my words shall not pass away.”  You don’t want to take from Jesus promise less than what He says.  He is saying more than they are dependable.

Differing from JBL’s next comment, accessibility is more than an inference.  It is stated by Jesus.  It is explicit.

Josh P refers to an article on preservation not by Compton, but by Combs at DBTS journal.  I’m not going to critique Combs article, so this, my friends, is where I stop assessing comments.

I appreciate those who chose to interact at least a little with the article.  I didn’t like the name calling and scorn, but I’ve found it usually will occur.  I don’t think anyone got into the depth necessary to overturn the exegetical work of my chapter on Matthew 24:35.

When our church first published Thou Shalt Keep Them (TSKT) in 2006, the point of the book was to report what scripture said about its own preservation, so we called a biblical theology of preservation.  I still don’t know of any that had been written before our book.  Our point was to let the Bible speak about itself.  Can we believe what scripture says about itself?  Is someone believing God, who doesn’t believe what God says about His own Word?

There is a lot of disagreement about the Bible among those who don’t take the same position as TSKT. Is there any final authority to settle disputes about the Bible?  As I see it, the wide variety of belief and thinking about the Bible comes because the Bible itself isn’t the sole source for belief or knowledge about the Bible.  More new manuscripts are found.  Another ancient book is uncovered. Another edition of the critical text is published.  Teaching about the Bible is in flux.

Two important questions especially guide how we see the world.  Can we know?  How we know?  Can we know God?  How we know God?  The Mormons rely on the burning in the bosom.  Roman Catholics depend on tradition.  Charismatics trust in experiences.  Shouldn’t scripture be the final authority about itself?  Shouldn’t true believers have as their major premise that what the Bible says about itself is true?

A corollary to the previous paragraph could be some thoughts about source criticism, historical criticism, or biblical criticism.  Should we go outside of scripture for the interpretation of scripture?  Here’s what a passage of scripture says, but the external evidence doesn’t match up; therefore, we adapt or conform the teaching of the passage to the external evidence.  I read a lot of commentaries and this is a new hot fad among even conservative evangelical commentaries.  I’ve been studying Ecclesiastes a lot recently and the most popular new position on Ecclesiastes is that there are several authors, and that position is mainly buttressed, not by internal evidence, but by the existence of ancient texts that rely on frame narration.  Is the Bible sole authority, when its meaning is guided by non-inspired information?

I wish the critics of TSKT would be honest about it.  I wish they would take the book at face value and judge the meaning of preservation texts.  I wish they would point out their own, already established doctrine of preservation, before they ever dipped into external “evidence.”  TSKT doesn’t present historical theology (that will be a second book), but I wish they would move next to what Christians have believed in history, and not just independent Baptists or individual churches.  There is a reason why many Presbyterians, Free Presbyterians, and Reformed men take the same position as TSKT.  It really hurts the crazy theory that this doctrine originated from Benjamin Wilkinson and the Seventh Day Adventists—that is just a blatant lie (really among many, many lies that I read about the position we teach—why do they need to resort to these lies?).

Most men today approach their doctrine of preservation, even their doctrine of the Bible, different than they do other doctrine.  This is a new, modern or postmodern approach to a doctrine.  At one time, men started with what the Bible said about something.  They believed that.  Their explanation of what happened was guided by that presupposition.  When I study historical doctrine, I look to see if that’s what someone did.  I also expect historical theology.  I expect that someone has established already, before believing something, that there is some historic basis for believing it.  Those start all off my beliefs.  If it is something new, then it must be thoroughly vetted by scripture, coming out of really firm exegesis, not speculation.  This is what honors and glorifies God.  Faith pleases Him.  This doesn’t happen in the discussions on preservation, which is why what you read is so all over the map, like a buffet table of various doctrines, taking about anything that they think will stick.

As an example, an article was written in the last month by Mark Ward on his blog, called By Faith We Understand.  It should come with a disclaimer on his doctrine of scripture, because he doesn’t start with scripture or operate by faith for his doctrine of scripture.  He wrote, KJVOism, Fanatacism, and Epistemology.  There are so many falsehoods in the article, it’s hard to know where to start. When it comes to the Bible, you really can say almost anything you want today, true or not, and it is accepted as long as it comes to an acceptable conclusion to your audience.  Ward essentially mocks people who use only the King James Version, and buttresses his scorn with falsehoods.  He doesn’t start with a doctrine about the preservation of scripture, but he uses a “scriptural argument” in his article.  I hate articles like this one, but it must be dealt with.

You can read Ward’s article yourself.  I’ve linked to it.  In the first paragraph of his section, “KJV-Onylism and Sources of Revelation,” he argues something that I have not read in historical theology anywhere ever and I think I’m widely read, that is, that creation and providence are an authority over the meaning of scripture, and, therefore, scripture itself.  He doesn’t really stop there, because he also says that your own personal experience is necessary for the interpretation of scripture.  You can read his argument there. The closest I’ve seen of this in history is the Petrine theory on papal primacy, which is not putting you in good company.  It’s easy to see where he’s headed with this novel approach. I was the only person that I’ve read, who even criticized this new doctrine, and that doesn’t surprise me, because this is the new nature of theology.  You are credited with coming up with new stuff, invented new doctrine.  There were two major problems here among many others.

First, the history of sola scriptura includes the analogy of scripture, that is, Holy Scripture is its own interpreter.  Scripture is self attesting.  Scripture doesn’t require outside knowledge to know what it means.  In that way, the Bible is truly the final authority.  If outside sources were required, then the authority for scripture would shift to those sources, which is what Ward does, and he doesn’t understand that by faith.  He understands that by his own experience.  He makes it up and talks like it is scriptural.  It isn’t.  Don’t believe it is, because beliefs come from scripture, and it isn’t from scripture.

Scripture is fulfilled in the real world.  It applies in the real world, but you don’t work in reverse of that, looking to the world to find out what scripture is saying.  That is what Ward asserts.  Read him yourself.  I say that I get what he’s doing.  He’s justifying textual criticism, using this argument, saying that we look out there in the world of manuscripts to allow that to tell us what scripture is.  I say he’s got it reversed, because you’ve got to start with understanding what scripture says by faith (“by faith we understand,” the name of his blog).  He doesn’t do that.  This is how we have run into all sorts of problems today, because the burning on the bosom is someone’s understanding of James 1:5, and why shouldn’t that be wrong?  Your take on scripture becomes very subjective, when you’ve got the whole world to call general revelation for purposes of getting your meaning of scripture.

I can already hear it—“that’s not what he’s saying!”  That’s why I keep saying, read it yourself. Ward’s article itself is an example of why you don’t want to do what he says to do.  You can make up things, like he is making up things, when you start with something so subjective.

Do you know what the answer to what I’m writing here is?  Brandenburg is a Baptist brider!  I’m not. I don’t even believe the bride is the church.  I’ve written about that here, but people just say it anyway, because it will stick as a smear.  It’s a lie.  Or they say he’s a borderline Baptist brider, like someone is a borderline serial killer, as a means of deniability.  Like some of the comments I’m reading about me on SharperIron right now, “I didn’t say you ‘were’ that, just that you might be.”  I’m not.  I didn’t.  It’s not true.  Remove it.  It still stays.  Why?  It contributes to the approved view, which is not “a” view, but not a certain view, that is the unacceptable view, almost anything else is tolerable, as seen in some of the theories thrown out without justification from scripture or history.  It’s like watching CNN right now, or MSNBC.

Second for Ward, he is espousing a false, unscriptural, and anti-historic, modernistic view of general revelation to defend his point.  He turns general revelation to general in its content.  General revelation is general in its audience.  In other words, it is “general” in that everyone sees it, like Romans 1 explains.  Everyone knows it.  Ward elevates his own observations to general revelation. This is a view that you will read all over in evangelicalism today.  Just read what Ward writes.

Ward notices that men are not computers.  He sees that men make copyist errors.  He observes that there are textual variants.  Guess what?  Christians have been doing that for centuries.  But that is not general revelation.  It might be providential, but it isn’t revealing any new doctrine that contradicts scripture.  It isn’t providing an adjustment to what scripture already teaches.  What we observe isn’t doctrine and there are a number of good reasons to deny that, the greatest being something related to copyist errors, and that is the depravity of man.  There are so many reasons to question many’s observation.  He gets it wrong.

Mark Ward in his article repeatedly misrepresents the biblical and historical view of preservation.  He won’t let me comment on his blog to correct his errors.  There are so many of them that it would seem to be purposeful, he’s fibbing on purpose.  I am going to reject that and just say that he’s ignorant and deceived.  He’s accustomed to operating that way, so he can’t help it, sort of like a copyist error.  Like a good writer would, he should provide any quotes or examples of his particular made-up fictional observations, but he doesn’t.

Either Ward doesn’t understand providence or he is just twisting it for this article.  He doesn’t represent what believers mean by providential preservation.  He should read more to get what it does mean.  I know he doesn’t understand it, because the first time I talked to him in the last year, he had never heard the historic and biblical view.  It was all new to him.  He was already against it, because it differed from what he already thought, but he hadn’t heard it.  Because it was new to him, he assumed that it must be off or weird, when actually his position is the novel one in history and especially the Bible. He had not heard it, because he didn’t learn that way and doesn’t think that way. He’s not thinking the right way.  There’s a mocking tone throughout, but also when he writes:

The KJV-Onlyites look at providence, too, and they say that the text used by the greatest number for the greatest time must be the right one; it’s blessed.

People who take the biblical and historical position on the preservation of scripture don’t start with providence and then look at the Bible.  That’s Ward.  So we don’t do it too.  Providence starts with scripture and then looks to see how God works.  This is reading Daniel and then expecting the fulfillment of the prophecies.  It starts with a biblical model and then looks for its fulfillment.  Men see the promise of preservation and then they observe how that looks through history.

In John 16:13, Jesus said:

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Having received John MacArthur’s new book on the Gospel, The Gospel According to Paul, I opened and leafed through to see what he would cover in his 217 pages.  One could write 1000 pages on that subject, so he had to make choices.  His first chapter after his introduction he titled, “Things of First Importance.”  This terminology seems to be almost sacramental to evangelicals, taking a major point, and in this case his first chapter, from a modern translation of Greek words that appear only once in the New Testament.

1 Corinthians 15:3 in the King James Version reads:

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures.

You can read here “first of all,” which translates two Greek words, en protois.  Some new late 20th century translations and their translators have changed that to “of first importance,” also changing the meaning of the verse at that point.  En is the often used Greek preposition and protois is the dative of a very often used Greek adjective, protos.  You can see proto in a lot of English words, like “prototype,” “prototypical,” and “protocol.”  The understanding of “proto” within each of those English words, is “first in order.”  A “prototype” is a first model of something, the first to come along of something.  “Protocol” is the original draft of a diplomatic document.  Something “prototypical” denotes the first, original, or typical form of something.

En protois is found only here in the New Testament.  Both words are used a lot, but only here together, so this is what is termed hapax legomena, once said.  With a hapax legomena, you can’t discern it’s meaning by looking at other usage in the New Testament.  You must go outside of the New Testament to get a larger sample size.  It is also quite helpful to go back in history to see how others have used this phrase.

When you go back to the fourth century, you have John Chrysostom commenting on this phrase in his Homilies, and he says:

But what is this, “For I delivered unto you first of all?” for that is his word. “In the beginning, not now.” And thus saying he brings the time for a witness, and that it were the greatest disgrace for those who had so long time been persuaded now to change their minds: and not this only, but also that the doctrine is necessary. Wherefore also it was “delivered” among “the first,” and from the beginning straightway.

Chrysostom says en protois is about time or chronology, as in first in order.  That’s how the text reads to me too, but that’s how he viewed it way back, probably late fourth century.  He doesn’t understand en protois as “of first importance.”

Plato used en protois in his Republic (7:522c):

“What?” “Why, for example, this common thing that all arts and forms of thought and all sciences employ, and which is among the first things that everybody must learn.”

“Among the first things” translates en protois and Plato saw that exact phrase as first in order, that is, subject matter that was “among the first things that everybody must learn.”  The death, burial, and resurrection was “among the first things” that the Apostle preached when he was in Corinth, because it was foundational to everything else that he would teach them in Corinth.  You’ve got to hear the gospel first for obvious reasons.  Plato predates the Apostle Paul by around 400 years.

Aesthenes in Against Timarchus uses en protois (speech one, section four):

I am aware, fellow citizens, that the statement which I am about to make first is something that you will undoubtedly have heard from other men on other occasions.

Here is another ancient Greek usage and it the meaning is first in order again.  This was around the same time as Plato.

Aristotle in Metaphysics (book 3, section 997b) uses en tois protois with the addition of the definite article tois:

In what sense we Platonists hold the Forms to be both causes and independent substances has been stated in our original discussion on this subject.

Aristotle uses en tois protois twice in his Nicomachean Ethics (bekker page 1125b):

It appears however that honor also, as was said in the first part of this work . . . . as we said in the first part of this work.

He also uses en tois protois in his Rhetoric (book 2, chapter 25):

Signs and enthymemes based upon signs, even if true, may be refuted in the manner previously stated.

Aristotle came after Plato, so he was a little closer to New Testament times.  In all of these usages, we see the understanding of first in order.

You can find twenty more usages of en protois in the Septuagint (Rahlfs edition, 1935).  The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Old Testament Hebrew, but the way that en protois is seen to be used there is helpful.  The Brenton English translation of the Septuagint (1844) translates the first usage of en protois in the Old Testament in Genesis 33:2:

And he put the two handmaidens and their children with the first, and Lea and her children behind, and Rachel and Joseph last.

It’s obvious that the handmaidens and their children were not first in importance to Jacob, but first in order in the welcoming committee of Esau.

The following usages are all the Brenton translation of the Septuagint, a standard translation, the next usage in Deuteronomy 13:9 (the translation of en protois underlined):

Thou shalt surely report concerning him, and thy hands shall be upon him among the first to slay him, and the hands of all the people at the last.

Again, this can’t be understood as any other way than, “first in order.”  The next usage, Deuteronomy 17:7, is an identical situation as Deuteronomy 13:9 with the first people stepping up to execute someone who has broken God’s law.

As you work your way through the usages of en protois, it could be used in the way of prominence. That is a usage of protos in the New Testament as well.  Since the most common usage by far of protos is order, one should expect an obvious usage of prominence.  You get that in just two of the twenty usages of en protois (1 Sam 9:22, 1 Chron 11:6) in the Greek Septuagint.  Brenton translates both, “among the chief.”  The only two usages of prominence in the Old Testament are identical usages that are not at all like the reading in 1 Corinthians 15:3.  They speak of the most prominent place for chief men to be sitting together.

If someone is looking for the clues for meaning, he starts with what I have done above.  He looks for the usage of language like the Septuagint.  He looks at ancient usage.  He moves forward from there, but usage in actual language buttresses meaning.  Then you start looking at commentaries.  You can look at Chrysostom with special favor because he doesn’t have centuries of commentaries to bend his thinking.  If you are going to take a meaning that is an exceptional meaning, based on the usage, you better have a clear, plain, persuasive basis.  It should stick out of a usage that is typical of that specific usage.  “Of first importance” doesn’t fit what we see in the way of evidence.

Thomas Edwards adds in 1886 in his commentary on 1 Corinthians concerning en protois, “among the things to be stated first.”  H. L. Goudge in 1915 writes, “these facts formed the foreground of my gospel.”  James Morison in 1841 writes, “Amongst the very ‘first’ things that the Apostle delivered to the heathen Corinthians , after he entered their city was this — ‘Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.'”

When I read commentators on en protois, they rarely give their reasoning behind the decision.  They just give an opinion.  It’s so infrequent that they give any explanation that you could say that they don’t explain.  Above, I’ve given you evidence.  This is how someone should deal with a hapax legomena.  In the few instances in history with a “first importance” understanding of that Greek phrase, it is very clear.  I saw one historical usage, and it referred to the ranking of people, identical to the two examples in the Septuagint.  This forms a precedent.  You would look for en protois to mean “foremost” or “of first importance,” when it relates to the ranking of people, such as chief men or kings in their chief places.

The King James says, “I delivered unto you first of all.”  The Bishops, Great, Tyndale, Geneva, and Coverdale Bibles all five read, “For first of all I delivered unto you.” John Wycliffe in the fourteenth century translated, “For I betook to you at the beginning.”  Young’s Literal Translation (1886) reads, “For I delivered to you first.”  This is how God’s people took the meaning of en protois.

A gigantic new doctrine comes out of the “first importance” translation, that is, ranking doctrines and a modern evangelical and fundamentalist reductionism.  I see it as a basis of fake and unbiblical unity in disobedience of biblical teaching on separation over these doctrines that they say are not “of first importance.”  The basis of the gospel coalition is this new translation and new understanding.  It’s such a big deal to John MacArthur, this one phrase, that he gives it as the title to the first chapter of his new book.  His explanation is the following:

Verse 3 would be better translated, “I conveyed to you the principle matters.”  That’s the true sense of what he [Paul] is telling them.  Both the English Standard Version and the New American Standard Bible say, “I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received.”  What Paul clearly has in mind here are the elements of the gospel truth that come first in order of importance.

That’s all the explanation for that particular point.  It is zero exegesis.  It in no way gives any hint that he’s basing this entire point on one phrase that he does not prove.  It is classic reading into the text. He places his meaning in so that he can get it out. He uses buzz words like “true sense” and “clearly has in mind.”  He also relies on translators who have departed from the historic understanding of this terminology and without explanation.  When you look at the Greek works, it isn’t better translated, “I conveyed to you the principle matters.”  It is literally, “I delivered unto you among the first things.” Paradidomi doesn’t mean “to convey.”  It’s much stronger than that.

The first thing Paul entrusted them with was a gospel that included bodily resurrection. They were saved based upon that preaching and teaching that he gave to them right away and foundational to everything else he had taught them.  How could they eject from that now? They are betraying the gospel when they do that.  Paul is not saying, “This is the most important thing that I conveyed to you.”  No.  It’s important, no doubt, but Paul isn’t introducing a new and monumental teaching of ranking doctrines.

This first importance teaching has done much damage to the faith and work of God.  It has resulted in widespread acceptance of false doctrine and greater disobedience to God’s Word.  All of that is justified by many by this one little phrase that doesn’t mean what they say it does.  Don’t believe it.

*******
You can read a few other posts I’ve written on this text are here, here, and here.  This post is a one stop shop on the fallacy of ranking doctrines.

Scripture teaches to separate.  It’s all over the Bible.  God Himself separated Noah and his family from all the wicked men of the earth.  God saves us by separating us from sin, from hell, and from the world system. He commands us to separate, which is to be holy as He is holy.  God wants separation from false doctrine and sinful practice.

All separation is not good.  The Bible teaches unity.  Usually, the separation that causes disunity isn’t called separation, but division or being factious.  This is the basis of the word, “heresy.”  The English word, “heresy,” is found only once in the King James Version, “heresies” there three times, and “heretick,” also once.  The word translated, “heresy,” which is actually the word, heresis, is found nine times in the New Testament, and is also translated, “sect” and “factions.”  I’m not getting too in depth here, but the heretic is someone who causes division, and the biblical idea is that he is causing divisions off of the already established, divine truth.

In the classic usage of “heretic” in Titus 3, it is someone who is causing division in his church.  The heretic is someone who causing a splintering off or a faction within a church, like a church split.  It doesn’t have to be doctrinal.  It could be that the heretic doesn’t like being told what to do.

I come now to the way people throw the word “heretic” around.  “Heretic” is used as a pejorative like the word racist.  I’m saying that it is used to intimidate people.  It stings.  Someone doesn’t want to be heretic.  The idea is that if he gets in line and stops separating over a certain doctrine and practice, what some would call non-essential, then he will then stop being a heretic.

The charge of heresy leaves a believer in a predicament.  He believes a doctrine.  He sees it in scripture.  His church believes it.  He separates over those diverging from that doctrine.  They call him a heretic.  If he no longer separates though, he thinks he disobeys the doctrine of separation and he also hurts his own conscience.  On other hand, if he holds to his position and separates over it, he’s a heretic, according to someone’s charge.

Who says he is a heretic?  Is it someone with authority over him?  Does some “theologian” or “Christian author,” who calls what he does “heresy,” have the authority to stick that to him, mark him with it?  I guess so.  From my perspective, it doesn’t do anything to someone, except possibly hurt his reputation with someone, maybe take away some of his influence that he might otherwise have.  It definitely does not mean that it is actual heresy.  Very likely it is not.

If someone is a heretic, what should people do with him?  They should separate from him.  This is an irony, I’ve noticed.  Their “heretic” has already separated over a doctrine, and now those who he’s separated from, they are separating from him, because he’s a heretic.  “You want to separate from me over doctrine, well, then I’m separating from you too, you heretic!”  “Too late, I’ve already separated from you, so you can’t separate from me!”

I practice separation from professing Christian brothers (cf. 2 Thess 3:6-15, 1 Cor 5).  That isn’t heresy.  If it were heresy, how would that be?  Even though the use of “heretic” in Titus 3 is in a church, and that’s primarily where heresy occurs, heresy is a dividing from true doctrine.  Someone is a heretic, who divides from true, historic doctrine.  True doctrine is historic.  If a doctrine has been established as a doctrine from the Bible and history, the one with the new doctrine must be the heretic. If someone is a heretic, that would need to be established.

Since separation is supposed to be loving, someone should show the “heretic,” warn him, so that he will know how he is diverting off the path of historic, biblical doctrine.  I always welcome that.  I can say that I’ve never had that from someone who called me a heretic or at least inferred it.  Usually these people just give you the cold shoulder.  They don’t even attempt to show you.  Why?  They don’t love you.  Their charge of “heresy” is just a self-serving, kind of Pharisaism.  It reminds me of some type of Roman Catholic inquisition.  The inquisitor shouts, “Heresy!”  It’s good they don’t get to burn you at the stake in the United States.

I’ve noticed “heresy” being used on three doctrines I believe in particular.  One every one of these, I have shown how that it is a true doctrine, in scripture, and is also historic.  It isn’t new.  One, I believe God has promised to preserve every one of His Words in perfection for every generation of believer.  I can’t accept two Bibles.  Two, I separate over doctrine and practice.  I’m a separatist.  The Bible teaches it. Three, I’m local only in ecclesiology and believe in the perpetuity of the church, based upon faith in biblical promise.  Our church doesn’t accept non-Baptist baptism.  The people who call me and others a heretic for believing these three should have to show how they are not biblical or historic.

I am aware of only fundamentalists calling me and others like me, heretics.  I’ve never had someone say it to my face or in a phone call.  I get it from long distance, said to others.  I find out through the grapevine.  It’s not a very effective tactic to help a heretic.  It really isn’t someone interested in unity, because if you want unity, you use the spiritual weapon to pull down the stronghold.  Calling someone a heretic is a carnal weapon that isn’t effective at reaching any desirable conclusion for the one labeled.