My Initial Thoughts on The James White Debate (KJV/TR vs. LSB/NA/UBS)
I am thankful for everyone who prayed for me in the debate with James White over the topic:
“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.”
Thank you!
I believe that, for His glory and by His grace, the Lord answered the prayers of His people and the debate went well. God is concerned that His pure Word be in use among His people, and I believe He blessed the debate towards the furtherance of that cause.
Thank you as well to everyone who helped with all kinds of details, small and great, with the debate. Without you it would the case for the truth of the perfect preservation of Scripture would have been much less effectively presented. Thank you very much!
We arrived in Tennessee the day before the debate. Our flights were fine on the way out, and on the way back (although THE PLANE WENT DOWN!!! -but only when it got to the runway at the airport). My wife and I had dinner with James White the night before the debate and had a cordial conversation.
We are thankful for the help of a godly KJVO Baptist in the area who helped us with things from making sure that we would be able to project slides (something was worked out with the pastor at the Reformed Baptist congregation where the debate was being held) to a way to print our notes (the church had no printer available, nor any WiFi there for me to even have my notes on an IPad–that is why it was not livestreamed.) It was recorded by a professional videographer, so it should be high quality once it comes out, Lord willing. Please pray for the production of the video, as there have been some issues there that are quite important and could seriously impact its effectiveness.
The people at Covenant Reformed Baptist Church of Tullahoma, TN were kind to us. The pastor, who makes a living rebinding Bibles, presented us with a beautifully bound KJV Bible (he gave a similarly beautifully bound LSB to James White). So if you need you need a Bible rebound, he may be worth considering for you.
James White was not quite as cordial in the debate as he had been at dinner the night before, in my opinion, but I suppose I will let you decide that when you watch the debate video. I was particularly struck by the fact that, despite pressing him on it, and the obvious fact that Biblical promises of perfect preservation, and the recognition of the canonical words of Scripture by the church were crucial to my case, he still did very little to dispute my case from Scripture, nor to present a Biblical basis for his own position. I am still not sure if he thinks there are any promises from the Bible that indicate that God would preserve every Word He inspired, or if he just thinks that we have them, or almost all of them, somewhere, because of what textual critics like Kurt Aland say, or at least according to him they say, although his view of Kurt Aland may not be Kurt Aland’s view of Kurt Aland.
Overall, I think that the debate went well, and that the case for perfect preservation, and its necessary consequence of the superiority of the TR/KJV to the UBS/LSB, was clear. However, I am also well aware that I am biased in favor of my position, so you will have to watch the debate yourself to see if you agree.
The slides we had prepared–many of which were used in the debate, while others were not–are available at the main debate page here if you want to get a sense of what my argument was or what is going to be on the debate video, Lord willing. I asked Dr. White if he wished to put his slides up there as well so that both of our presentations had an equal representation, but he has not responded to me as of now, whether because he is very busy or for some other reason.
There is much more that can be said about the debate, but that will be enough for now. Thank you again for your prayers, and all the glory to the one God, the Father who gave the canonical words of Scripture to the Son, so that He could give them to the assembly of His saints by His Spirit.
–TDR
The Post Text and Version Debate Attack on the Thomas Ross “Landmark” Ecclesiology
On February 18, 2023, when Thomas Ross debated James White on the superiority of the KJV and its underlying text to the LSV and its underlying text, I was overseas. I got back to the United States yesterday. After the debate, I tried to find information about it, and could find very little to none. As of right now, I have watched a short interview someone made with Thomas Ross and a five minute criticism by James White on his dividing line program.
Criticism of Thomas Ross in the Debate
Most of the combined time of the two critical pieces after the debate dealt with one thing Thomas Ross said after the debate (not during). Thomas said he was Landmark (watch here). I don’t have a problem with his calling himself “Landmark.” It wasn’t wrong. I would not have done it in an interview, but I am glad Thomas stands by what he believes on this.
In his five minute critique of Thomas Ross on his Dividing Line, James White attacks the style of Brother Ross (between 8:45 and about 15:00). He mocks Thomas in in an insulting way for more than half his five to seven minutes because he talked too fast and used too many powerpoint slides.
All the while, in his inimitable way James White praises both his own style and his own humility. In hindsight, White should win because he used less slides and related to his audience better, not because he made better points or told the truth. Is this the standard for a debate? I haven’t seen the debate, but it would not surprise me if Thomas could have communicated better, but in the end, was he telling the truth? Did he make arguments that White did not answer and did he answer or refute White’s arguments?
Landmark?
White took a shot at Thomas Ross for being Landmark. He does not deal with it substantively, which is quite normal for White. He uses it to smear Thomas Ross. This is a debate technique often used by White.
The man, who interviewed Thomas Ross, asks him about Athanasius not using 1 John 5:7. Thomas gives a good answer. As a part of the answer, Thomas distinguishes Athanasius as state church. Since Thomas had likely just promoted a position on the church keeping God’s Words, he did not espouse Roman Catholic Athanasius as a true church.
As a separate point, is White right that Landmarkism is a flawed historical position? In his twitter feed, White says:
I wish I had known about the Landmarkism as it would have clarified a few statements in the debate. Landmarkism is without merit, historically speaking, of course.
Knowing Thomas was Landmark would not have changed the debate on the preservation of scripture. It wouldn’t.
No Issue
I get along well on the preservation issue with people who take another ecclesiological position than I do. I and others can separate this line to keep what we have in common. The confessional position of the reformed Baptists and Presbyterians says that God used the church to keep or acknowledge the canonicity of the New Testament text. Its adherents would say, “God used the church to keep His Words.” I would say, “God used the church to keep His Words.”
The reformed and Presbyterian both say the true church is universal. I say it is local. They say all believers kept God’s Words. I say, true churches, which believe in regenerate membership, kept God’s Words. This difference does not change what we believe on preservation. It would influence a debate about the nature of the church, which isn’t the debate here.
Neither James White nor any one else since the debate has explained why Landmarkism has no merit. The ex cathedra speech of White gives him his only authority. White clarifies that Landmarkism has no merit, ‘historically speaking.’ That is the most common criticism against Landmarkism. It can’t be proven historically. This parallels with White’s main criticism of the preservation of scripture. It can’t be proven historically. Does that make what God says in his Word, not true?
If we can’t prove the doctrine of justification historically, does that nullify justification?
Historicism
God does not require anyone to prove a position is historically superior. That itself is a position without merit. White selectively supports historicism when it is convenient for him. God didn’t promise to preserve history. The true position is not the one with the most historical evidence.
However, as a matter of faith, we look to history. We look to see God doing what He said He would do. We don’t have to prove He did something in every moment of every day of every year that He said He would. Historicism parallels with so-called science (cf. 1 Tim 6:20). Science cannot prove a universal negative. Roman Catholicism burned and destroyed the historical evidence of other positions. “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Heb 11:1).
True Churches, Not Athanasius
Foundational to Landarkism is the perpetuity of the church. God works through true churches. True churches always existed throughout history separate from the state church. Since the church is the pillar and ground of the truth, we trust those churches above the state church. With that as his position, Thomas Ross in part says that he respects the Waldensian text above the work of Athanasius.
We can enjoy good work from Athanasius without looking to him as a primary source. I agree with Thomas Ross. We can quote the verbiage of Athanasius to show an old defense of the deity of Christ. He is helpful in that way. No one should give too much credit to him. He was not part of the pillar and ground of the truth.
I would gladly debate James White on the text of scripture, the doctrine of preservation, or on the nature of the church. To win the debate, of course I would need to use less powerpoint slides than he and interact with my audience in a helpful way after the supreme model of James White. James White though not the pillar and ground of the truth is at least the pillar and ground of debate style.
The Difference Between a Conservative and a Liberal
After walking quite a distance, my wife and I sat to rest in a large tent where someone was serving Turkish coffee. We both sat on little stools and the terminology “classic liberal” came into the conversation. After someone else commented, I was asked by a hippie-looking younger man what I thought liberal was.
I said that I relate conservative and liberal to the U. S. Constitution when it comes to a political definition. The liberal takes what many call a “loose construction” of the constitution. With that approach, the liberal can conform the meaning of the words to what he wants. The constitution is malleable.
You have heard progressive applied to liberals. The Constitution is an evolving document. According to liberals., it can progress in its meaning.
Related to a loose construction of the constitution is a view of government that says man gets his rights from democratic government. Man gives and takes away rights. They can change. Meaning changes, because it is subjective. Taking it to an extreme, a man can self-identify as a woman and vice-versa.
Since power comes through human construct, forms of power are human constructs, using language. This can change using language through deconstruction. Some would say by synthesizing an antitheses with a thesis, forming a new thesis.
On the other hand, a conservative takes a strict construction of the U. S. Constitution. His goal to to find what the authors meant by what they said. This is sometimes called originalism. The conservative looks for author’s intent. The constitution is objective in its meaning. It can’t change in what it means. The goal is to find out what they meant, not read into it something that he wants it to mean.
I continued by saying that this approach to reality and truth affects everything. An engineer building a bridge or an airplane must follow the laws of physics. He can’t read whatever he wants to natural laws. This was a good hopping off point into evangelism.
Our rights are not given by government, but by God. Meaning is objective because it proceeds from God. Natural rights from God are self-evident truths.
Theological conservatism or liberalism are not much different, except that instead of the constitution, someone interprets scripture according to either a strict or loose construction. Someone can look into the text of scripture and see what he wants, everyone having his own take, his own opinion. Or, he interprets the text of scripture according to original intent, what God and His human authors intended, what they meant by what they said.
Men Seek Signs and Wisdom, But God Saves by the Foolishness of Preaching the Gospel
1 Corinthians 1:18-32: The Foolishness of Preaching
In 1 Corinthians 1, Paul said God uses the foolishness of preaching to save. God saves people through the foolishness of preaching. Paul started out this section in verse 18 by saying that “the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness.”
It’s not that the cross is foolishness or that preaching is foolishness. People think it is foolishness and Paul is saying, “That thing they think is foolishness; that’s what God uses to save.” God uses a means that does not make sense. Because people think the gospel is foolishness, they become offended from it.
Of all the offenses of the gospel, Paul gives at least two. (1) The Cross, and (2) Preaching. The cross is offensive. It is this way also in at least two ways. (1) Someone on a cross needs saving. Saving comes by a powerful means. (2) The cross would be to say that Jesus is the Savior or the Messiah. I’m not going to write about that in this post. Instead, preaching.
Rather Signs or Wisdom
Paul in essence asks, “Why use preaching when Jews seek after signs and Greeks after wisdom?” (1 Cor 1:22) He divides all men into these two different methodological categories. Jews and Greeks need signs and wisdom, not preaching. In my thirty-five plus years of ministry, I agree that every audience of ministry breaks down into those two general categories.
When you think of signs and wisdom, that might seem like two items people should like and want. They are two biblical words. In a very technical sense, a sign is a miracle. Almost exclusively, I think someone should view a miracle as a sign gift. I will get back to that.
Wisdom. Isn’t Proverbs about wisdom? We pray for wisdom. How could wisdom be bad? Proverbs 4:7 says, “Wisdom is the principle thing.”
Signs and Wisdom
Signs
Signs are something evident in a way of supernatural intervention. If there is a God, won’t He do obvious supernatural things? “If He doesn’t do those, why should I believe in Him? I want to see some signs. Wouldn’t He give me those if He really wanted me to believe in Him? That would be easy for Him, if He really did exist. If God did give me signs, I would believe. Since He doesn’t, then I won’t believe or I don’t need to believe.”
The absence of signs is not that God is not working. He works in thousands of different ways in every moment. They are all supernatural. We even can see how God is working in numbers of ways.
People would say they want more than God’s providential working. That isn’t enough. They want God to make it easy for them to believe by doing something amazing and astounding like what they read that Moses, Elijah, Elisha, Jesus, and the Apostles did. People desire direct supernatural divine intervention.
Churches feel the pressure to fake signs, because people want them. They aren’t signs, because they’re faking them, which redefines even what a sign is. Churches also conjure up experiences that give an impression that something supernatural is occurring. People can claim a sign from a lowered expectation of what a sign is. Even if it isn’t something supernatural, people want to feel something at church that might have them think the Holy Spirit is there. This is their evidence for God.
Wisdom
Wisdom in 1 Corinthians 1 isn’t God’s wisdom, but human or man’s wisdom. This could be what people call “science” today. It is scientific proof or evidence. They need data or empirical evidence. This is very brainy arguments.
God is working in the world. It is good to talk about that. This is known as the providence of God. He upholds this world and all that is in it in many various ways. I love that.
A lot of evidence exists out there for everything that is in the Bible: archaeological, scientific, psychological, logical, and historical. People will say that’s what they need and that’s what makes sense to them. Even if they’re not saying that, it makes sense to believers that they need intellectual arguments.
Jews and Greeks in 1 Corinthians 1 represent all apparent seekers in God. If churches and their leaders are seeker sensitive, they would provide signs and wisdom. In a categorical way, that’s what they do. They use the preferred ways of their audience, rather than what God says to do. Apparent seekers are not the source for a method of salvation. God is.
You could give analysis as to the place of signs and wisdom as categorical approaches for ministry philosophy. Churches are rampant with both. Paul is saying, eliminate those as methods. Use the God-ordained method only.
God wants preaching as the method of accomplishing salvation. People are not saved any other way than preaching. Many reasons exist for this, some given in 1 Corinthians 1 and others in other biblical texts.
King James Only extremists: Abraham & Moses spoke English?
James White, in his book The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2009) writes as follows:
There are small groups who go even further, claiming that the KJV was written in eternity and that Abraham, Moses, and the prophets all read the 1611 KJV, including the New Testament. These individuals believe that Hebrew is actually English, and when discussing religious topics they will not so much as use a single word not found in the KJV. (pg. 28)
Have you ever seen or heard of someone like this? Dr. White provides no written or other sources that these people exist.
The only individual I have ever met taking this view was when I was preaching in a church in North Dakota shortly after coming back from fighting for the Brits in Waterloo. This KJVO extremist rode into Grand Forks, ND, coming to church in his cowboy hat and boots, his rifle in one hand (to defend himself against the Jesuits) and a slurpee in the other (in case the sermon got long and he became thirsty), across the Golden Gate Bridge (it had recently been extended somewhat through a federal grant) on the back of Big Foot, accompanied by Little Red Riding Hood and Mary Poppins (both first-time visitors to church). This King James Only man not only thought that Abraham and Moses spoke English, but that the Scofield Reference notes in his Bible were written by the Apostle Scofield, one of the men who accompanied the Apostle Paul on his missionary travels.
Other than this King James Only person, I have never once in many years as a KJVO person in KJVO churches met or heard of such people. Have you? Surely James White is not exaggerating or creating a caricature here. I might start to exaggerate or caricature myself if I had to read a lot of Gail Riplinger and Peter Ruckman–their antics might rub off on me as well. In fact, I surely have committed the sin of exaggerating or caricaturing those who disagree with me at various times in my life. But surely that did not take place here. Right?
If you have actually met such people, please let me know about it in the comment section. If you have a shred of evidence for their existence that is in writing, that is much better. I may not be able to answer comments myself, however, until after my debate with Dr. James White this Saturday is over, Lord willing. Also, I am looking for comments that evaluate his claim, not that hurl insults at him (or at anyone else). Thank you.
–TDR (note: I switched this week with Dr. Brandenburg; I am posting today, he should post this Friday, Lord willing.)
Local Only Ecclesiology and Historical Theology
My graduate school required a large amount of theology, which included the branch of historical theology. Before I took the class, I must admit, I had not thought much about the category. I know men introduced historical theology to me at different times and varied manners in other classes, but it became important to me at that time between the ages of 22 and 25 years. Now when I listen to a presentation of a position, I want to hear its history for good and biblical reasons.
I know I’m writing on this subject because of an article I read today (as I first write this), called, “Five Reasons Historical Theology Is Necessary for the Local Church.” The man who wrote it is not local church. I would point out to you, if someone uses “local church” language, he may believe in two churches, universal and local, rather than the biblical one church, which is local only. However, churches need historical theology. They need to know that churches always believed what they believed, because it is the truth. Caleb Lenard in the article gives good reasons.
Examples for Historical Theology
A strong argument for perfect preservation of scripture in the original languages comes from historical theology. Christians believed this doctrine, as read in historical confessions of faith. In a theological way, no one has yet upended that position on preservation. Since this is what Christians have believed, you could call a change, heresy. A new position on the preservation of scripture diverges off the already established belief.
Sometimes I hear the language, “the reformed doctrine of justification.” Did the doctrine of justification originate with the Protestant Reformation? I don’t believe that. Maybe they dusted it off or took it out of the trash bin, but men kept believing it or else no one was saved not long after the advent of the Roman Catholic Church.
Is local only ecclesiology also historical theology? Christians do not have to prove that a majority of believers received and propagated local only ecclesiology. If it is true, scriptural doctrine, then believers should reveal its history, tell the historical story of local only ecclesiology. It is also helpful to show how that other ecclesiology diverged from the path of truth, if local only ecclesiology is true.
Historical Ecclesiology
I would like those with a different ecclesiology to consider the historical problem of a catholic ecclesiology and the bad consequences too. Roman Catholicism affected corrupt thinking on the doctrine of justification and many other doctrines. That did not disconnect with Roman Catholic ecclesiology. Correcting justification and not rectifying the other corrupted doctrines still leaves churches with much bad doctrine. This dishonors God and hurts many people.
Men often will not say, perhaps because they don’t know, that their doctrine is Roman Catholic. They don’t teach the false gospel of Roman Catholicism, but they teach other false doctrines. Those false doctrines lead back to a false gospel. One Roman Catholic doctrine accepted is the Roman Catholic doctrine of the church. Catholic church is universal church. That ecclesiology, a false one, spread in a widespread way to Christians.
Some of you reading right now are nodding your head, “no.” Back and forth, maybe smirking, rolling the eyes. Maybe. Just think about it though. Did you get your ecclesiology from Roman Catholicism? What kind of effect does that have for your life, others’ lives, and for all the other doctrines?
On the other hand, did I get my ecclesiology from mid 19th century landmarkists (see this series, and this one)? Everyone had believed in catholic ecclesiology (just like they denied justification before) up to that point. Local only ecclesiology then arose as a knee jerk reaction from J. R. Graves and Baptists in America. They didn’t like the ecumenism spreading among Southern Baptists, so they invented the local only position to combat it. Is that what happened instead? What is it about Baptists that made them in particular prey in a widespread way to a teaching that the church was only local, never universal?
Catholic Ecclesiology
I wouldn’t believe the local only position if I thought it originated among 19th century Baptists in America. Instead, I believe that looking in the Bible and also tracing history of doctrine supports something different. The universal church view grew from seeds of neo-platonism previous to Constantine and took hold as the predominant ecclesiology only with the state church in the 4th century. The Catholic Church persecuted churches separate from the state church. Those churches existed and they believed the church was local, not universal.
A platonic system of theology, Origen’s allegorical or spiritualizing system, affected everything in the Roman Catholic Church. Sprinkling of infants proceeded from this. A corrupt human priesthood arose. Amillennialism, the view that the kingdom was the Roman Catholic Church, took hold. Hierarchical church government became the norm. Tradition took prominence. The Pope. Transubstantiation.
Roman Catholicism and universal ecclesiology led to the dark ages. It caused regression or glacially slow progress in measurements of living standards. Most people stayed stupid for a long time because of Roman Catholic ecclesiology now embraced by many professing Christians. Satan used it greatly. The Protestant Reformation did not correct all that Roman Catholicism ruined. It embraced or absorbed Roman Catholic ecclesiology and eschatology with few exceptions.
Consequential Regression
Byproduct of Roman Catholic Ecclesiology
Even if there is notable minute progress to which someone might point in correct thinking about issues of life, it is an exception. It is usually a few bright spots mixed into still astounding darkness. Useful scientific discovery overall, subduing and having dominion, came to a stop for over a thousand years because of Roman Catholicism. Wherever it spread, such as Central and South America, left its destructive nature.
Everywhere the Roman Catholic Church took hold still continues a worse place to live because of its influence. It is a byproduct of Roman Catholic ecclesiology, that can’t be separated from its system of interpretation. As I say that, anticipating this argument, I understand that forms of paganism like animism also left the culture in ruins. It wasn’t much worse than Roman Catholicism, and I compare the consequences to biblical Christianity in contrast.
Still today people think “Christian” means Roman Catholic. Evangelicalism is a branch off a Catholic root in the mind of the general population. Every Christian then becomes responsible for the crusades, the inquisition, the conquistadores, feudalism, a flat earth, religious wars, and widespread poverty.
Once the hold of Roman Catholicism was broken, including Catholic state church ideology, the freedom brought astounding progress. People don’t trace that to ecclesiology or even talk about it in history classes, but it is true. When Warren Buffet says that John Rockefeller did not live as well as Buffet’s middle class neighbors, this relates to progress arising from the downfall of a state church.
Wreaking Havoc
The ecclesiology of Roman Catholicism, however, still continues, reeking its havoc everywhere. Globalism itself and its damage comes from Roman Catholic ecclesiology. It is a utopian, universalist concept, that first existed in Roman Catholicism. It stems from the mystical, spiritualistic, and allegorical system of Roman Catholicism.
A religious grounding from the system of Roman Catholicism continues in leftist thinking, which spreads utopian thinking, exerting power over individuals. It has the capacity to return the world to neo-feudalism and another dark age. None of this is true. The trajectory of the American colonies and the first one hundred fifty years of American history changed the world by overturning the influence of universal church doctrine. A nation begins to suffer as it welcomes it back.
I have written about the founding of catholic ecclesiology, the universal church doctrine, many times here (here, here, here, here, and here among other places). I have also written about the history and biblical doctrine of local only ecclesiology, offering that position (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and see these two on English separatism–here and here).
Because of the dominance of a universal church through history through the Roman Catholic Church, in comparison not much local only material exists. The winners told the story. They could destroy anything that countered their viewpoint. You hopefully know the same practice occurs today in almost every institution. Some call the falsehoods, fake news. It is revisionist history based on a system of interpretation similar to what hatched Roman Catholicism.
More to Come
The Servant Song of Isaiah 53 (Isaiah 52:13-53:12)
How is your grasp of the glorious servant song of Isaiah 53 (specifically Isaiah 52:13-53:12)? As part of the series on how to teach an evangelistic Bible study, I have taught through the passage verse-by-verse. Knowledge of Isaiah 53 is not only edifying, but it is helpful for Jews, for Muslims (who say Christ never died a substitutionary death and rose again, but this was added into the New Testament–so why is it in the Old Testament?), for atheists and agnostics who deny the reality of predictive prophecy in the Bible, and for anyone else who simply needs the truth in this passage, the “Gospel according to Isaiah.” The series through Isaiah 53 is now complete. If you would like to listen to the series–or watch the entire series on how to teach an evangelistic Bible study here–see an example of how to lead these here and get copies of the studies here (or get a Word doc here to personalize for use in your church), please watch the embedded videos below or click on the link here. If they are edifying, please “like” the videos and feel free to share a comment.
Note–the first video completes the discussion of a different topic before getting into Isaiah 52:13-53:12.
Video #1:
Video #2:
Video #3:
Video #4:
Video #5:
Video #6:
Video #7:
Video #8:
Video #9:
Video #10:
Video #11:
–TDR
The Trinitarian Bible Society and Its Position on Scripture
Four days ago the Trinitarian Bible Society launched this video, called, “Upholding the Word of God.”
I appreciate their stand on scripture. What they present is what, I believe, many Christians across the world say they believe. What the above video explains is also why they believe it.
Scriptural Presuppositions
The Trinitarian Bible Society starts with scriptural presuppositions. Their practice of Bible publication arises from their biblical beliefs about the Bible. This is how it should be. It’s also what we do not see with those on the critical text side. They do not emphasize or most often even teach at all what is the scriptural basis of their position. Their position does not have a biblical mooring.
Someone who appears and speaks often in the above video is Jonathan Arnold, who is also pastor of the Westminster Baptist Church in London. My wife and I visited that church twice on trips to England. I appreciate this younger man’s stand on the Word of God in a time of much attack on the doctrine of scripture. He is now the General Director of the Trinitarian Bible Society.
Many pastors across the world use the Greek New Testament, textus receptus, printed by the Trinitarian Bible Society. They also print an entire original language Bible in the received text of the Old (Hebrew) and New (Greek) Testaments.
Separatist Heritage
The Trinitarian Bible Society is by history and, therefore, by definition a separatist organization. It started from a split from the British and Foreign Bible Society over spreading Unitarianism, hence, Trinitarian, and over scripture, therefore, Bible. As an indication of how significant people thought that was, two thousand gathered for the first meeting at Exeter Hall in London in 1831. Could they get that many to gather for that separatist purpose today?
The British and Foreign Bible Society allowed a Unitarian as an officer. Unitarian at the time became the doctrinal position du jour. It’s a familiar theological term now, unitarian, but it really does encapsulate almost every major theology error in the history of heresy. It was essentially Socinianism, which taught works salvation and anti-Trinitarianism. Unitarians denied not only the deity of Christ but also the miracles of the Bible. They did away of the authority of scripture.
For a long period of time, we would call Socinianism or Unitarianism theological liberalism. Most liberal churches in whatever denomination are Socinians or Unitarians. In many ways, we would say they don’t believe anything. They are drawn together by their denial of scriptural and historical doctrine, which is to say, they deny the truth.
Overall
I have attended many churches affiliated with the Trinitarian Bible Society (TBS) in England. Some strong churches exist who would not fellowship with the Trinitarian Bible Society, but very few. A majority of the strongest churches in England, where the best representation of New Testament Christianity exists, associate themselves with the TBS. This says much about the outcome or consequences of the received text of the original languages of scripture and the King James Version, which these churches support and propagate.
I differ from most of these Trinitarian Bible Society affiliated institutions in ecclesiology, eschatology, and dispensationalism versus covenant theology. That saddens me, but it does not take away the joy I have for what they do believe. I rejoice in that. I have more in common with these churches than I do most other Baptist churches today.
The churches affiliated with the Trinitarian Bible Society believe an orthodox, true position on the Trinity and about the Lord Jesus Christ. They preach a true gospel, including repentance and Lordship. TBS type churches utilize reverent worship. They are active in their evangelism of the lost. Their churches are not worldly churches. Their preaching of scripture is dense and thorough. They rely on scripture for their success. I am not saying these doctrines and practices are all that matter, but they do distinguish the Trinitarian Bible Society affiliated churches.
Perverting Beauty Perverting Truth and Perverting Truth Perverting Beauty
Part One Part Two Part Three Part Four
God and Beauty
God is one. All truth, goodness, and beauty proceed from God. Since God is one, His truth, goodness, and beauty are one. You can’t take away from one of these three without taking away from the other two. Each of those relate to God, so their perversion perverts an understanding of God, creates a false god or false gods, and/or takes glory from the one and true God.
God is beautiful and beauty itself also issues from Him. He defines beauty both in His essence, in His acts, and in His creation. Man made in God’s image, functioning according to His likeness, produces or generates beauty and beautiful works. Of course, sinful man operating in his flesh does not do that; only his performing according to the image of God. This requires regeneration. After conversion, he can, and should generate only beauty and beautiful works, but still must submit to God to do so.
The production of beauty and beautiful works means the skillful formation or formulation of what reflects God’s nature and achievement. One judges the formation or formulation according to standards aligned with revealed truth about God and what He does. A believer can know beauty. He can know he forms or formulates it. He can know when someone else does. How does he know? He knows based on the testimony and application of God’s Word.
How Do You Know Beauty?
Scripture states in a sufficient manner truth, goodness, and beauty. A believer then applies these to the world. God enables believers to do that. I call this truth, goodness, and beauty in the real world. Believers don’t just know these three in the Bible. They know them also in the real world.
God’s Word says a truth such as “flee idolatry,” “flee fornication,” or “let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth.” It assumes that you will understand the application of that truth in the real world. You can’t say that you didn’t know that. You can also understand and apply, “think on whatsoever things are lovely” or “worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness.”
When Proverbs 7:10 says that a young man met a woman “with the attire of a harlot,” the passage doesn’t explain the attire of a harlot. It assumes you know already. People are still responsible for things that God does not explain. Lack of explanation does not permit dressing like a harlot.
Like many other applications of the Bible, music and art require honesty and setting aside lust or self-will. God gives the necessary capacity for judgment. As is so often the case, the problem isn’t with intelligence, but volition.
Departure from Beauty
The Standard for Beauty
Does someone leave the truth when he departs from beauty? Or does a departure from beauty stand alone, totally isolated, disconnected from the truth? Does leaving beauty start with a flight from the truth?
The view that beauty was neither true nor false, that it made no pronouncements about the world, that it just reflected the mind or feelings of an artist was a completely novel view when it appeared with the origins of modernism in the late 18th to the early to mid 19th century. Truth was true in itself, goodness, good in itself, and beauty, beautiful in itself, separate from the judgment of any man. All of this came from God. If someone can criticize beauty, it could only be because there is some objective standard outside of the object by which to judge it.
Absolute beauty requires principles by which to judge them. If not, then beauty is meaningless. Beauty must be beautiful in itself, not from a mind or feelings, Its judgment comes from external criteria. The standard of beauty transcends the beautiful thing. For something beautiful to exist, something not beautiful also must exist.
Kant and Mill and Beauty
Immanuel Kant in his 1790, Critique of Judgment, introduced the concept of subjective beauty, beauty in the eye of the beholder. He said concerning beauty, that it was
a judgment of taste . . . not a cognitive judgment and so it is not a logical judgment but an aesthetic one, by which we mean a judgment whose determining basis cannot be other than subjective.
John Stuart Mill, English philosopher, later in the 19th century popularized the notion that art was nothing more than the intrinsic personal feelings of an artist. Beauty was just an expression of subjective emotion. An assertion of a thing as beautiful described the state of mind of the one asserting. Beauty did reflect reality, but now only a person’s perception of reality.
You can see how that man dethrones God when he decides what is beautiful. Man becomes final arbiter of beauty. Value becomes subjective based on his thinking or feelings.
Beauty Doesn’t Care About Your Feelings
God and Science
Some might say subjective beauty is a matter of freedom. You can say what you like or don’t like. You’ve heard the phraseology, especially made popular by Ben Shapiro, “facts don’t care about your feelings.” How does that relate to beauty?
Isaac Newton, believer in God, and others like him stand as the foundation of scientific progress of the last three hundred years, which started with God as the standard. God’s Word inspired science. It did not disregard man’s senses. In accordance with God’s Word, Newton and his colleagues recognized the place scripture gave to man’s reason, his senses, and evidence. This was different than elevating man’s thinking and his feelings to the only source of truth. They must function in subjection to God within His world.
Empiricism: Senses as the Source for Beauty First and then Science Second
Kant and Mill established a secular approach to beauty. They elevated man’s senses as the sole source for beauty. Empirical beauty. Not long after, empirical methods became the sole source for truth, a philosophy called empiricism. A secular approach to knowledge and truth followed a secular approach to beauty. Sensory experience formed the basis for both and it started with beauty.
Very often today, Christians say that truth is objective with the Bible as final authority, but they judge beauty with their feelings as the standard. They might confuse the feelings with a mystical experience from God or the moving of the Holy Spirit. Long ago many churches ejected to various degrees from objective beauty. Today we see many of those churches capitulating in objective truth and goodness. This follows along the pattern of the first effect of empiricism on the arts with Kant and Mills and the second with science.
View of Beauty Shapes View of God
When someone starts with God on beauty, he will have the right view of beauty. He will produce, support, and endorse only the beautiful. However, the opposite is also true. Someone’s view of beauty shapes his view of God. He might have God in his doctrinal statement, but his imagination of God will accord with his depiction of beauty. The view of beauty and the view of God will both match.
Easily the world deceives on beauty to pervert the imagination of God. The non-beautiful or what is ugly will draw someone away from the true God. At the same time, he thinks he has or sees God. The two views cannot coexist.
Two people might say they are Christians. They should be similar, shaped by the transcendent view of truth, goodness, and beauty. Their standard is the same.
If two professing Christians’ thinking on beauty is different, their Christianity will seem like two different religions. They are. One has the true God. Very often, depending on the extent, the other does not. He has God on his doctrinal statement, but he imagines a different God, not in fitting with the God of the Bible. What I’m explaining occurs today by far more than it ever has in my lifetime.
So Which Is It, Truth or Beauty? Authenticity
One can say that truth is beautiful and beauty is truthful. When you look at beauty, actual beauty, it is true. It is real. If it is not beauty, it is not true or is in error.
If it is beauty, it is not just someone’s imagination or feelings. Very often today, when it is feelings, people call that authentic. They say it’s authentic, because from the perspective of the performer, it is how he feels. However, it may not and probably does not represent the truth, which mean it is not authentic.
I think I can say the following is ironic. Authenticity isn’t authentic anymore. Authenticity is now a lie.
In the past, authenticity meant true. It wasn’t leather. Instead, it was naugahyde. It wasn’t a diamond, but it was cubic zirconia. If it is not beautiful according to the nature of God, then it is not authentic. In this way, it is not true.
If the lie starts with beauty, treating the non-beautiful as beautiful, that spreads to the judgement of truth. This is where our world is today. You can’t say something is true, but that started with eliminating objective beauty. Today your truth can be your truth, but for a longer time, your beauty is your beauty.
James White / Thomas Ross debate format: King James Version vs. LSB
I am looking forward to my upcoming debate with Dr. James White. Please note the planned format below for the debate. Thank you very much for your fervent prayers and possible fasting for me and for the debate.
Debate Topic: “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.”
Affirm: James White
Deny: Thomas Ross
How the time will go:
Brief introduction to the speakers and an explanation of the character of the debate.
Opening presentation: 25/25
Second presentation/rebuttal: 12/12
Cross-examination #1: 10/10
Cross-examination #2: 10/10
Third presentation/rebuttal: 8/8
Concluding statement: 5/5
Very short break to gather any additional questions from the audience
Questions from audience the rest of the time.
For more information, see the James White / Thomas Ross debate page here.
Recent Comments