My Dad Is In Heaven
On December 3, 1939 at St. Elizabeth Hospital in Danville, IL, the same hospital as me, my father, Terrence Carlton Brandenburg, was born to Charles and Nila Brandenburg. He grew up on a little farm in Indiana in the unincorporated, border town of Foster, Indiana with his younger sister and brother. His family and everyone else called him Terry, which alliterated well with the mascot of Covington, IN schools, the Trojans, where he received all twelve years of elementary and secondary education. Covington, the county seat of Fountain County, was a small town of 2,600.
My dad was born before the United States entered World War 2 and as a child, he saw bombers and fighters flying overhead from a nearby air force base. He grew up in a different era and country than what we have today. He worked the graveyard shift at a factory for over a decade. We children tip toed past his bedroom and never played on the side of the house where he was sleeping. We sat late at night with him before he left for work, watching our black and white TV together as Neil Armstrong took his one small step and one giant leap for mankind.
Until he left his childhood home, his house was without gas, electricity, or indoor plumbing. North Fork Spring Creek ran through his farm, where daily chores might include milking cows, slopping hogs, and bailing hay. He often told the story of outrunning the bull, helped by his collie, Laddie, and hopping over a 6 foot barbed wire fence. Perhaps this helped increase his speed and jumping to set a Covington high record for the 100 and 220 yard dash and long jump. His senior high school football team won a mythical six man state championship, going undefeated with him at halfback and safety.
As my father grew up, his family attended a local chapel of a now long defunct Plymouth Brethren congregation, where he heard the gospel from a visiting “evangelist” and professed salvation in Jesus Christ. He progressed some as a Christian but was never discipled. After graduating from high school, at the age of eighteen, he married his high school sweetheart, Karen. Glenn Ray, the pastor of First Baptist Church in Covington, came to their newlywed apartment and lead her to Christ. They were both baptized into that church and began to grow.
Terry and Karen bore three children, first daughter Kim, then Kent (me), and the youngest son, Kris. They all began attending church and then faithfully to every service. My dad learned to preach the gospel and our family became known for standing for Christ. He took Old and New Testament survey classes at a Bible Institute at a Baptist church in Danville.
My dad had worked on his farm, briefly as a fireman on the railroad, and then for seventeen years for Olin Corporation, a factory between Covington and Danville across the Wabash River. He was never late to a day of work with one exception as his car broke down and he couldn’t thumb a ride. His love for Christ flourished and he wanted more of the Bible. When dad was thirty-five years old, our family sold our house and moved to Watertown, WI for him to attend Bible college. There he worked several jobs while paying tuition for all three children to finish at a Christian high school. He graduated from college, then completed a master’s degree in Bible.
Selling our worldly goods and leaving for Watertown made a big impression on my life. That sacrifice and my dad’s earnest and diligent labor impacted all three of his children in a major way. My brother and I became pastors and my sister married one. Even though he was never a good student growing up and school was difficult for him, my dad was regularly on the honor roll.
For a few years, my dad taught Greek and Bible at the Christian school also to help his children finish college. During my last year of graduate school, my parents moved to Tempe, Arizona, where dad taught upper elementary in a Christian school and coached the basketball team. After I was married and my wife and I traveled to California to start a church, my dad came in 1989 as principal of and teacher in our church school. He continued for over a decade doing that work and trained another man to take his place as his health hindered his continuation.
My dad stayed a faithful member of our church, attending every service, teaching Sunday School, going door to door evangelizing, and serving in almost every way imaginable in our church. He impacted many lives. Four years ago, it was obvious the my mom needed help with dad, so they moved in with my wife and me. They moved with us to Oregon when we started a church there in 2020-21. Then they came with us to Utah this year.
Almost four weeks ago, my dad broke his hip early in the morning. That day they performed surgery to insert screws to repair the hip. He went to a rehab center three weeks ago. He continued physical therapy with hopes of beginning to walk again. I dropped my mom there yesterday morning. They have been married for 63 years. He completed his rehab with the therapists early afternoon, but something seemed different. I arrived in the late afternoon and they had to put him on oxygen because of a sudden difficulty getting air. He breathed his last breath on this earth at around 5pm on July 27, 2022 with my mother, wife, and I at his side. Even though we grieve, we are happy that dad opened his eyes to see Jesus in heaven.
I am so thankful for my father. He did so much for me and many others in this life. I look forward to seeing him in the next.
The Biblical Presuppositions for the Critical Text that Underlie the Modern Versions
Whatever people believe about the preservation of scripture, they operate according to presuppositions, either natural or supernatural. If they start with the Bible, they come to one view, and when they start outside of it, they come to a different one. Neither side is neutral. Their presuppositions direct their conclusions. They always do.
The Textual Confidence Collective just published part 3 at youtube, a part they called, “Its Theology.” They did not provide scriptural presuppositions of their own, but they attacked those of whom they call, “textual absolutists,” mixing together various factions of King James Version advocates. Their trajectory does not start from the Bible. As a result their position does not reflect the teaching of the Bible.
The four men of the collective attacked just four different preservation passages that underlie a biblical presupposition for the preservation of scripture. They attacked the preservation teaching of one in Psalms, 12:6-7, and three in Matthew, 5:18, 4:4, and 24:35, before they veered into personal anecdotes. I’ll come back Wednesday to write about the four passages they hit.
With an apparent desire for a supernatural presupposition for modern textual criticism, the collective used a basis I have never heard. These men called modern textual criticism, “general revelation.” Contemporary Christian psychology similarly says it relies on general revelation, equating it to human discovery. They elevate laboratory observations, clinical samples, to the level of revelation. In their definition, they say that revelation is general in is content, justifying the terminology. However, general revelation is general in its audience. God reveals it to everyone.
General revelation by its very nature is non-discoverable. By labeling God’s revelation, human discovery, they contradict its root meaning. If it is revelation, God reveals it. Man doesn’t discover it.
If modern textual criticism functions according to general revelation, everyone should see it. It wouldn’t narrow to a caste of experts operating on degrees of probability or speculation. The collective corrupts the meaning of general revelation to provide a supernatural presupposition. Presuppositions don’t wait for an outcome. They assume one before the outcome.
Listening to testimonies of the collective, at least two of the men said they gave up on the doctrine of preservation. They came back to a position of preservation that conformed bibliology to naturalistic presuppositions. They can provide a new definition, like they have with general revelation. This is akin to another historical example, the invention of a new doctrine of inerrancy by Benjamin Warfield in the late 19th century. No one had read that doctrine until Warfield invented it to conform to modern biblical criticism. He expressed an identical motive to the collective.
You can explore history for biblical or supernatural presuppositions for modern textual criticism. You won’t find any. They don’t start with a teaching of scripture. Just the opposite, they begin with a bias against a theological trajectory. Theology would skew their perspective. Rationalism, what the collective now calls “general revelation,” requires elimination of any theological bias when examining manuscripts.
The collective alters their expectations based on naturalistic presuppositions. One said something close to the following, “I have never preached the gospel in a perfect way, yet it is still the gospel. God still works through my imperfect communication to the salvation of souls. God can still work through an imperfect Bible in the same way. He doesn’t need a perfect text to do His work.” The collective anticipates the discovery of textual variation and to ward away unbelief, they capitulate to error in the Bible.
I couldn’t help but think of 1 Peter 1:23-25, where Peter ties the gospel to a perfect text of scripture:
23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. 24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: 25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
Actual physical elements, such as flesh and grass, corrupt, wither, and fall away. The “word of God” does not. Unlike those, the word of God endures. “This is the word by which the gospel is preached unto you.” Peter alternates between logos and rhema to indicate these are specific words, not word in general. Concrete words do not disappear like flesh, grass, and flowers do. His specific Words can be trusted. Their authority derives from this.
The Apostle Peter ties the gospel to perfection. The most common argument in evangelism against scripture is that it was only written by men. The idea of course is that men are not perfect, so scripture then cannot be trusted. I think I have preached the gospel in a perfect way. That confidence comes from the scripture from which that preaching comes. It is perfect. I’m an imperfect vessel, but I’m not preaching as a natural man, but a spiritual man. God uses me in a perfect way to the saving of men’s souls.
Some of what I heard from the collective some today call epistemological humility. I see it as a form of “voluntary humility” the Apostle Paul warned against in Colossians 2:18. John Gill writes:
True humility is an excellent grace; it is the clothing and ornament of a Christian; nor is there anything that makes a man more like Christ, than this grace; but in these men here respected, it was only the appearance of humility, it was not real; it was in things they devised and willed, not in things which God commanded, Christ required, or the Scriptures pointed at; they would have been thought to have been very lowly and humble, and to have a great consciousness of their own vileness and unworthiness to draw nigh to Christ the Mediator immediately, and by him to God; wherefore in pretence of great humility, they proposed to make use of angels as mediators with Christ; whereby Christ, the only Mediator between God and man, would be removed out of sight and use; and that humble boldness and holy confidence with God at the throne of grace, through Christ, which believers are allowed to use, would be discouraged and destroyed, and the saints be in danger as to the outward view of things, and in all human appearance of losing their reward.
This imperfect gospel presentation is only a pretense of great humility, as someone having a great consciousness of his own vileness and unworthiness. Humility should come in holy confidence, trusting that God would do what He said He would do.
Mark Ward said that he could not trust an interpretation of Psalm 12:7 he had never read from the entire history of the church. He referred to “thou shalt preserve them” (12:7b) as meaning the words of scripture. I can join Ward in doubting a brand new interpretation of one part of a verse. This does not debunk, “Thou shalt keep them.”
I have never read the doctrine of preservation proposed by contemporary evangelical textual criticism in the entire history of the church. They function in an entire doctrinal category against what true believers have taught on preservation. Can he and the rest of the collective join me by taking the theological presuppositions of God’s people for its entire history?
To Be Continued
New Testament Greek for Distance Students Fall 2022
Lord willing, I will be starting a 1st semester introductory Greek class which can be taken by distance students in September 2022. If you are interested, see the post below, the schedule here, and more information here, and then please click here to contact me.
What Will I Learn in Introductory NT Greek?
We will be learning introductory matters such as the Greek alphabet, and then the entire Koine Greek noun system, after which we will get in to verbs in the indicative mood. A second semester to follow should cover the rest of the fundamentals of Greek grammar. At the end of the course, you will be well prepared to begin reading the New Testament on your own. You also will, I trust, have grown closer to the Lord through your growth in understanding and application of His Word, will have grown in your ability to read, understand, teach, and preach the Bible (if you are a man; women are welcome to take the class as well, as they should know God’s Word for themselves and their families and teach other women and children), and will be prepared to learn Greek syntax and dive deeper into exegesis and more advanced Greek study in second year Greek. You will learn the basics of New Testament Greek grammar, syntax and vocabulary, preparing you to translate, interpret and apply Scripture. Recognizing the importance of using the original languages for the interpretation of the New Testament, you will acquire a thorough foundation in biblical Greek. You will learn the essentials of grammar and acquire an adequate vocabulary.
The course should be taught in such a way that a committed high school student can understand and do well in the content (think of an “AP” or Advanced Placement class), while the material covered is complete enough to qualify for a college or a seminary level class. There is no need to be intimidated by Greek because it is an ancient language. Someone who can learn Spanish can learn NT Greek. Indeed, if you speak English and can read this, you have already learned a language—modern English—that is considerably more difficult than the Greek of the New Testament. Little children in Christ’s day were able to learn Koiné Greek, and little children in Greece today learn modern Greek. If they can learn Greek, you can as well, especially in light of principles such as: “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me” (Philippians 4:13).
The immense practical benefits of knowing Greek, along with plenty of edifying teaching, will be included. The class should not be a dry learning of an ancient language, but an interesting, spiritually encouraging, and practical study of the language in which God has given His final revelation. It will help you in everything from preaching and teaching in Christ’s church to answering people’s objections in evangelism house to house to understanding God’s Word better in your personal and family time with the Lord.
Furthermore, you will be learning Greek in such a way that at the end you will actually know it. That is, this course, and successor courses in 2nd year Greek (syntax) and 3rd year Greek (book exegesis of Ephesians and Romans), are designed for you to actually know the language at the end, so that you can draw closer to the Lord, be more effective in preaching and teaching God’s Word, and reap the other tremendous benefits of learning Greek the rest of your life. Greek is not an agonizing drudgery you should barely survive and at the conclusion of which you forget everything you learned. The course sequence will teach you to preach expository messages, or teach Scripture, so that the main points of your sermons or lessons are what the main points of the passage are, powerfully impacting those you are shepherding with the sharp sword of the Word. As, by God’s grace, you learn the language and regularly read the Greek New Testament, God’s final glorious revelation will become familiar to you the way the Bible in French or German or Spanish is familiar to native speakers of those languages, and both you and others will be transformed as you behold the glory of Jesus Christ in the mirror of Scripture by the Spirit in a greater way (2 Corinthians 3:18).
What Textbooks Will I Use in Introductory NT Greek?
Required class textbooks are:
1.) Greek New Testament Textus Receptus (Trinitarian Bible Society), the Greek NT underneath the Authorized, King James Version:
alternatively, the Greek New Testament Textus Receptus and Hebrew Old Testament bound together (Trinitarian Bible Society):
2.) William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar, ed. Verlyn D. Verbrugge, Third Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009) (Later editions of Mounce are also fine, but please do not use the first or second edition.):
4th edition:
3.) William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek (Workbook), ed. Verlyn D. Verbrugge, Third Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009)
4th edition:
4.) T. Michael W. Halcomb, Speak Koine Greek: A Conversational Phrasebook (Wilmore, KY: GlossaHouse, 2014):
4.) T. Michael W. Halcomb, 800 Words and Images: A New Testament Greek Vocabulary Builder (Wilmore, KY: GlossaHouse, 2013):
Recommended texts include:
5.) Danker, Frederick William (ed.), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3rd. ed. (BDAG), Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2000. This is the only text that you can buy for Accordance Bible Software or Logos Bible Software and then use as a Bible software module instead of having a physical copy. All other books should be physical.
6.) The Morphology of Biblical Greek, by William D. Mounce. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Company, 1994
(Note: Links to Amazon are affiliate links. To save money on buying books on the Internet, please visit here.)
We are using Speak Koiné Greek as a supplement to Mounce because studies of how people learn languages indicate that the more senses one uses the better one learns a language. Speaking and thinking in Greek will help you learn to read the NT in Greek. We are using Halcomb’s 800 Words and Images because learning Greek vocabulary with pictures and drawings helps to retain words in your memory (think about how children learn words from picture books). Mounce is a very well-written and user-friendly textbook, and Halcomb’s works will make the material even more user-friendly.
What Qualifications Does the Professor Have to Teach Greek?
I have taught Greek from the introductory through the graduate and post-graduate levels for a significant number of years. I have read the New Testament from cover to cover in Greek five times and continue to read my Greek New Testament through regularly. I can sight-read most of the New Testament. I am currently reading the Septuagint through as well; I am about halfway through the Pentateuch and am also reading Psalms. I have also read cover to cover and taught advanced Greek grammars. While having extensive knowledge of Koine Greek, students of mine have also thought my teaching was accessible and comprehensible. More about my background is online here.
My doctrinal position is that of an independent Baptist separatist, for that is what is taught in Scripture. Because Scripture teaches its own perfect inspiration and preservation, I also believe both doctrines, which necessarily leads to the belief that God has preserved His Word in the Greek Textus Receptus from which we get the English King James Version, rather than in the modern critical Greek text (Nestle-Aland, United Bible Societies).
What Do I Need to Get Started?
Unless you live in the San Francisco Bay Area, you will need a computer or other electronic device over which you can communicate. We can help you set up Zoom on your computer in case you need assistance with that.
The class should begin in early September, 2022. The class will count as a 4 credit college course. Taking the class for credit is $185 per credit hour. The class can be audited for $100 per credit hour. Auditors will not take tests or be able to interact with the class. Taking it for credit is, therefore, likely preferable for the large majority of people. When signing up, please include something written from your pastor stating the church of which you are a member and his approval for your taking the class. A church that utilizes the class as part of its seminary, college, or institute curriculum may have alternative pricing arrangements; please direct questions to the leadership at your church for more information. Students with clear needs who live outside of North America and Europe in less well-developed countries in Africa or Asia (for example) may qualify for a discount on the course price. One or two students located in any part of the world who are able and willing to help with video editing also would qualify for a course discount.
For any further questions, please use the contact form here.
I am thinking about starting a 1st year Hebrew class for distance students soon as well. Please also let me know if you are interested in learning the language in which God revealed the majority of His infallible revelation.
–TDR
If the Perfectly Preserved Greek New Testament Is the Textus Receptus, Which TR Edition Is It? Pt. 2
Many who looked at part one probably did not read it, but scrolled through the post to see if I answered the question, just to locate the particular Textus Receptus (TR) edition. They generally don’t care what the Bible says about this issue. They’ve made up their minds. Even if they hear a verse on the preservation of scripture, they will assume it conforms to textual criticism in some way. I’m sure they were not satisfied with the answer that the Words of God were perfectly preserved in the TR. That is what I believe, have taught, and explained in that first post. However, I wasn’t done. I’m going to give more clarity for which I didn’t have time or space.
In part one I said that I believe that scripture teaches that God preserved Words, not paper, ink, or a perfect single copy that made its way down through history. God made sure His people would have His Words available to live by. It is akin to canonicity, a doctrine that almost every knowing believer would say he holds. Some believers don’t know enough to say what they think on canonicity. I’ve written a lot about it on this blog, but normally professing Christians relate canonicity to the sixty-six books of the Bible, a canonicity of books. Scripture doesn’t teach a canonicity of books. It is an application of a canonicity of Words.
Along with the thoughts about the perfect preservation of scripture, perhaps you wondered if at any one time, someone would or could know that he held a perfect book in his hands. From what we read in history, that is how Christians have thought about the Bible. I remember first hearing the verbal plenary inspiration of scripture and thinking that it related to the Bible I used. Any other belief would not have occurred to me.
The condition of all of God’s Words perfectly in one printed text has been given the bibliological title of a settled text. Scripture also teaches a settled text to the extent that it was possible someone could add or take away from the Words (Rev 22:18-19; Dt 12:32), that is, they could corrupt them. You cannot add or take away a word from a text that isn’t settled. The Bible assumes a settled text. This is scripture teaching its doctrine of canonicity.
When we get to a period after the invention of the moveable type printing press, believers then expressed a belief in a perfect Bible in the copies (the apographa) that they held. They continued printing editions of the TR that were nearly identical, especially next to a standard of variation acceptable to modern critical text proponents. I’m not saying they were identical. I own a Scrivener’s Annotated Greek New Testament. However, all the Words were available to believers.
Editions of the Textus Receptus were published by various men in 1516, 1519, 1522, 1527, 1534, 1535, 1546, 1549, 1550, 1551, 1565, 1567, 1580, 1582, 1589, 1590, 1598, 1604, 1624, 1633, 1641, and 1679. I’m not going to get into the details of these, but several of these editions are nearly identical. The generations of believers between 1516 and 1679 possessed the Words of God of the New Testament. They stopped publishing the Greek New Testament essentially after the King James Version became the standard for the English speaking people. Not another edition of the TR was published again until the Oxford Edition in 1825, which was a Greek text with the Words that underlie the King James Version, similar to Scrivener’s in 1894. Believers had settled on the Words of the New Testament.
I believe the underlying Hebrew and Greek Words behind the King James Version represent the settled text, God’s perfectly preserved Words. I like to say, “They had to translate from something.” Commentators during those centuries had a Hebrew and Greek text. Pastors studied an available original language text to feed their churches. This is seen in a myriad of sermon volumes and commentaries in the 16th to 19th centuries.
Scripture teaches that the Holy Spirit would lead the saints to receive the Words the Father gave the Son to give to them (Jn 16:13; 17:8). Because believers are to live by every one of them, then they can know with certainty where the canonical Words of God are (Mt 4:4; Rev 22:18-19) and are going to be judged by them at the last day (Jn 12:48). This contradicts a modern critical text view, a lost text in continuous need of restoration.
True believers received the TR itself and the translations from which it came. They received the TR and its translations exclusively. Through God’s people, the Holy Spirit directed to this one text and none other.
The Buddha Did Not Exist, According to Buddhism
Did you know that, according to the teaching of Buddhism, the Buddha (“the Enlightened One”) did not and does not exist?
“According to Buddhism … the Buddha does not exist because … nothing exists.” (Donald S. Lopez, Jr.,From Stone to Flesh: A Short History of the Buddha [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013], 220).
Why do Buddhists teach that the Buddha did not exist? According to the Buddhist teaching of anatman, “not-Self … the soul or any form of self or personal identity is an illusion.” You are just a bunch of sense impressions made up of groupings called skandhas. So, according to Buddhism, you are not reading this right now, because you are not real. Your family is also not real. Even Siddhartha Gautama—the Buddha—did not exist, if Buddhism is true. He was just an illusion, like you.
Not all Buddhists ascribe Divine attributes to the Buddha, but many do. Those who do so are worshipping someone who, according to their own religion, does not exist. Christians agree with Buddhists on this point–the divine Buddha does not exist, but for Christians, that the Buddha does not exist seems like a very, very good reason not to ascribe worship to him. That Buddhist meditation is harmful, not helpful would also seem like a significant problem for Buddhism.
The affirmation above is not that information about the historical Buddha is very scarce and unreliable. That is also true. The affirmation above is that, if one grants, for the sake of argument, that Buddhism is true–which it is not–then the Buddha did not exist. Buddhists also do not exist.
To many readers of this blog, the idea that Buddhism teaches that the Buddha did not exist seems almost unbelievable. I wanted to confirm that this is accurate, so I spoke to a Buddhist scholar who teaches Buddhist studies at a prestigious institution (I sought such confirmation for most of the material in The Buddha and the Christ, in addition to seeking to cite sources properly and so on). This significant Buddhist scholar confirmed the accuracy of this information. The Buddha did not exist, according to Buddhism.
You can find out more in my study The Buddha and the Christ: Their Persons and Teachings Compared. (Note: I have updated this pamphlet relatively recently, so if you are using it for evangelism in your church, please make sure you are utilizing the latest version.)
However, just like (according to Buddhism) the Buddha does not exist, you do not exist, either, and you are not reading this right now. Neither does this blog post exist. I will therefore stop writing it right now, especially since I don’t exist, either, according to Buddhism.
–TDR
The Uncertainty of the “Textual Confidence” View of Preservation of Scripture
For those reading, next week either Monday or Wednesday, I will provide as concise an answer as possible to the question, “Which TR?” I’ve answered this question before several times, but it’s usually just ignored, never answered. I’ve never had it answered. It’s asked as a gotcha question, then I give the answer, followed by silence. I’m going to try to do the best I’ve ever done at the answer.
**************************
A group of four men calling themselves The Textual Confidence Collective recorded seven podcasts for youtube. These men posted their first on Monday, July 11, 2022. The purpose of their gathering in Texas for these recordings was to persuade people of a new position on preservation of scripture. They call it “textual confidence.” They’ve given their own new position an enticing or attractive label, but it is still new.
Confidence sounds very good. Confidence in Collective parlance is akin to the word “trust.” I believe that’s what they mean by “confidence.” Placing confidence in someone or something is trusting it or trusting in it. In the scriptural use of the word “trust,” God does not call for confidence or trust in the uncertain. Uncertainty also does not bring biblical trust. Confidence relates to God, Who is always certain.
As a label, “Textual Confidence” definitely sounds superior to “Textual Doubt.” The four men testify they want to help Christians have confidence in the underlying text of their English translation of the Bible. They say it’s not a sure, settled text, and unlike their opponents, they’re honest. This admission of less than one hundred percent surety, they argue, engenders confidence. The text of scripture is something pure like Tide detergent, not 100%, but still good.
The Collective Confidence falls short of certainty. Three of the men replaced certainty with what they call confidence. The discovery of textual variants, that is, variations in hand copies, destroyed their certainty. This shows they do not stand on biblical presuppositions. They also listened to men who contradicted certainty. Now they are confident in the text without certainty about the words. They reject certainty and also want to push their uncertainty on others, bringing every church in the world to the same position, what they call “unity.”
The Collective also says they’re just telling the truth in contrast to people with differing positions, deceived or lying. Those who take their view — according to them — are very nice, super balanced, great with their rhetorical tone compared to the others. Part of this, they say about themselves, is their focus on Jesus and the gospel rather than on the text of scripture. This implies that supporters of other positions than theirs elevate the Bible above Jesus in an unbalanced and perverted way. The latter is an example of their tone.
Jesus said, “Thy Word is truth” (John 17:17). Delivering the teaching of scripture is truth. What the Bible says about itself is true. The existence of textual variants does not change the biblical doctrine of the preservation of scripture.
Many people have suffered for believing something different than they once did, including from family. No one will invite me to the same functions as Mark Ward. Certain doors close depending on what you believe. If you believe an error, the same thing will occur. I don’t condone a kind of mean or vicious form of separation that just cuts people off. I don’t practice that kind of separation either. Many evangelicals practice like this, even though they don’t even believe in biblical separation. Facing exclusion though doesn’t make a position right.
Two of the Collective testified to suffering from parents and siblings for changing positions on the Bible. I don’t think someone should hang on to a false position because they don’t want to lose their family. The Collective, however, treats this suffering as proof their new position is true and right. It doesn’t prove either position. No one should come to a conclusion for what’s right by comparing who suffers the most. This is common, however, among modern version proponents.
The Collective distinguishes their view from what they present as two false extremes, “textual skepticism” and “textual absolutism.” The men used Bart Ehrman as an example of the former. They weren’t clear who was the former, but I’m confident they’re talking about a wide range of King James Version and textus receptus advocates, anyone who is certain about the text of scripture.
A strong statement of the first podcast is that skepticism and absolutism come from the same place or are closer than what the audience may expect. The Collective says that an absolutist perspective turns people into skeptics more than skeptics do because of their defense of “every iota across the board.” I’m skeptical about this point, because the certainty that brings trust in scripture comes from what the Bible says about itself. Jesus defended every iota across the board.
Should people belief in the words of scripture as absolute, what someone might say is without variableness or shadow of turning? In other words, does the Word of God reflect the nature of God and its immutability? That is what scripture says about itself and it is what our spiritual forefathers passed down to us.
Modern textual criticism does not and has not increased trust in the inerrancy and authority of the Word of God. Since I’ve been alive, as the prominence of textual criticism grows, trust in scripture diminishes. Scriptural presuppositions on the other hand provide increasing spiritual strength through believing what God said, trusting in the Word of God as absolute authority. Greater faith proceeds from certainty, not uncertainty.
Henry II Versus Thomas Becket
Who was right in what is called the Becket Controversy? I’m not asking if the knights of Henry II should have killed Becket at Canterbury Cathedral on December 29, 1170. I’m asking which side was right. A controversy bubbled into the English Reformation, which would say that Henry won in the end.
Thomas Becket’s dad, Gilbert, fell on financial hard times. He needed the employment of his twenty-something son. After succeeding in a first job as a clerk, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Theobald of Bec, noticed him and then engaged him in many different notable capacities. When Henry II needed a new Lord Chancellor, Theobald recommended Becket. Henry hired him in 1155. Becket was essentially England’s second man and very loyal to his boss.
Henry II established common law in England. Russell Fowler writes:
Henry came to believe that justice was not only a fair resolution of disputes and punishment of the wicked, but it was also equal access to this justice. And these courts, staffed by his experienced and accountable judges, for the first time roved the land applying uniform rules and following the guide of recorded precedent in deciding similar cases.
Becket went right along with Henry under his employ. Henry expected him to continue when he appointed him Archbishop to replace Theobald in 1162.
The Roman Catholic Church functioned as a powerful entity in England, maybe greater than the King. Henry could not enforce common law on criminal priests operating with immunity under a different jurisdiction. This undermined the vision of Henry for the nation. He hoped Becket would help him, who instead betrayed him.
When Becket became Roman Catholic Archbishop of Canterbury, he defended the interests of the Pope in England. While Henry applied the law in a uniform manner among varied classifications, he could not include officers of Roman Catholicism. His former loyal assistant would not cooperate and this sabotaged his effort.
Without judging the outcome of the death of Becket, which side was right? The English Reformation occurred under a later King Henry, who became head of the Church of England. Today in Canterbury Cathedral, where the shrine to Becket once stood, a candle remains lit. The Church of England memorializes a Roman Catholic Archbishop with a candle.
I had two interesting visits in England, one to St. Augustine’s Abbey and the other to Dover Castle. The Pope sent Augustine to proselytize England in 598 from Canterbury, which originated the center of Christendom there. While my wife and I looked at the ruins, which included Augustine’s burial place, we spoke with a retired Anglican priest, now tour guide. I asked about the great respect for Becket all over Canterbury. One comment he made was that the state Church of England is less a state church than the non state church of the United States.
A fortification existed in Dover, England for the Romans as early as AD 43. Military planned both the Dunkirk evacuation and the Normandy invasion in miles of tunnels built under Dover Castle. In between first century Rome and World War 2, Henry II built the castle visible today between 1179 and 1189, the largest in all of England perhaps only second to Windsor.
Dover Castle is about thirty minutes from Canterbury by train, a very easy and beautiful ride. In a bit of irony, Henry II built up Dover Castle to protect and even accommodate important pilgrims to the shrine of Thomas Becket. This helped continue a good standing with the Pope, who canonized Becket as a saint in 1173. He built a chapel to Becket in the Great Tower, the centerpiece of the Castle. Geoffrey Chaucer wrote his Canterbury Tales in 1387 about the varied characters making their way via this route. Henry VIII destroyed the shrine to and the bones of Becket in 1538, as well as ordering the termination of all further mention of his name.
I asked a tour guide at Dover Castle about Becket. I wondered out loud who supported Henry and who Becket in England today. He smiled and said that it probably depended on who you were and what you did. The controversy continues.
Populist support opposes the immunity of a religious hypocrite flouting common law. Of all people, the law should punish church officers. This may be why a 2006 BBC History poll called Becket the second worse Briton of the previous millennium behind Jack the Ripper (see also here and here).
When my wife and I visited Salisbury Cathedral, there we saw one of the four remaining original copies of the Magna Carta, a document signed by King John, the son of Henry II, in June of 1215. At least another copy sits for display in the British Library in London. The Church of England keeps its candle lit for Becket and houses the Magna Carta, perhaps two pieces of contradiction. This foundational document, a heritage of liberty in the United States, says everyone is under the law, a particular notion rejected by Becket in his rebellion against Henry II.
Insightful Books, part 2 of 2
Two weeks ago I provided a list of insightful books by well known authors on subjects that might be of interest to readers of this blog. I supply some further resources for your reading pleasure below. Again, feel free to add some comparable titles of interest in the comment section.
Modern English Bible Versions by Gnocer Tanty
Islamic Jihad: Head-Turning Practices by Cho P. Emoff
Infant Baptism by Sprin K. Lem
Evangelicalism Today by Stan F. O’Rnothin
Keswick Theology by Paz Ivity
Ethics: Hard Choices, by Wong R. White
Charismatic Healing by Dozon Wurk
Word of Faith Pentecostalism by A. P. O’Stacy
Speak in Tongues: A Learner’s Guide, by Shalbalauawala Simbakulawakawaka BlabaBlahbaBlubaBlaba
Papal Doctrine by Nunin Fa Lible
Mormonism by Bus M. Burns
The Watchtower Society by Cul Tic
The Goal of the State University by Bray N. Washing
Chinese Fast Food: Is Gluttony A Danger? by E. Tmo Fu
The Key to Biblical Church Growth by Evan G. Lizm
Independent Baptists: A History, by Stanford E. Troot
May these noteworthy volumes by leading authorities on their subjects be a benefit to you.
Is Substantive Due Process Anything? What About This Court Arguing for a Substantive Right to Life? The War Begins
The founding fathers of the United States, the authors of the Constitution, also ratified by the states, wrote to limit the powers of the federal government. They listed the powers and reserved to the states those they didn’t. They included a bill of rights. This guaranteed to everyone in the entire nation those rights. The Constitution imparts all the powers of the federal government and all the rights guaranteed to all the people of the United States.
Are there other rights in the Constitution of the United States other than those enumerated in the bill of rights and its other amendments? The history of Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution both from loose and strict constructionists says, “Yes,” there are other rights. They call those substantive rights. They relate to life, liberty, and property, those three appearing only in the amendments, but assumed or implied rights from the history and tradition of the United States.
In Dobbs, the Supreme Court decided no right to abortion occurred in the Constitution, overturning Roe. In the 213 pages of Dobbs, the term “substantive” occurs 39 times.
Justice Alito Argues
Justice Alito writes the first usage of “substantive” on page 2 in this sentence:
The underlying theory on which Casey rested—that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause provides substantive, as well as procedural, protection for “liberty”—has long been controversial.
Casey argued that a liberty or right to abortion did exist as a substantive right in the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In its next usage also on page 2, Alito defines substantive rights as “those rights deemed fundamental that are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.” Alito then on page 19 argues for the majority in Dobbs that the fourteenth amendment protects two categories of rights, first those “guaranteed by the first eight Amendments.” Alito continues on page 20:
The second category—which is the one in question here—comprises a select list of fundamental rights that are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. In deciding whether a right falls into either of these categories, the Court has long asked whether the right is “deeply rooted in [our] history and tradition” and whether it is essential to our Nation’s “scheme of ordered liberty.” Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (slip op., at 3).
Alito explains on verse 22:
In interpreting what is meant by the Fourteenth Amendment’s reference to “liberty,” we must guard against the natural human tendency to confuse what that Amendment protects with our own ardent views about the liberty that Americans should enjoy. That is why the Court has long been “reluctant” to recognize rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution. Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U. S. 115, 125 (1992). “Substantive due process has at times been a treacherous field for this Court,” Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U. S. 494, 503 (1977) (plurality opinion), and it has sometimes led the Court to usurp authority that the Constitution entrusts to the people’s elected representatives.
Alito goes on to write (p. 41) that, based upon the “specific practices of states,” abortion did not fall within even the “outer limits” of these so-called substantive rights. Alito makes this important statement then on page 44:
[D]espite the dissent’s professed fidelity to stare decisis, it fails to seriously engage with that important precedent—which it cannot possibly satisfy.
Alito does not reject the concept of substantive rights in the Constitution, but he writes for the majority, especially four Justices in the majority, that Roe failed on that important precedent.
Justice Thomas Concurs
Then Justice Thomas writes in his concurring opinion (p. 118):
As I have previously explained, “substantive due process” is an oxymoron that “lack[s] any basis in the Constitution.” Johnson, 576 U. S., at 607–608 (opinion of THOMAS, J.); see also, e.g., Vaello Madero, 596 U. S., at ___ (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 3) (“[T]ext and history provide little support for modern substantive due process doctrine”).
Furthermore, Thomas writes (p. 118):
Because the Due Process Clause does not secure any substantive rights, it does not secure a right to abortion.
Thomas argues that no substantive due process rights even exist. The various Supreme Courts invented these out of whole cloth.
As a result, Justice Thomas writes (p. 119):
For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 7), we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents, Gamble v. United States, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 9). After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated.
As an example, the Supreme Court argued in Obergefell a substantive due process right of same sex marriage based upon the fourteenth amendment. Thomas concludes (p. 123):
[I]n future cases, we should “follow the text of the Constitution, which sets forth certain substantive rights that cannot be taken away, and adds, beyond that, a right to due process when life, liberty, or property is to be taken away.” Carlton, 512 U. S., at 42 (opinion of Scalia, J.).
Apparently substantive rights themselves exist in the constitution in addition to stated rights, but not substantive due process rights.
The Substantive Right to Life in the Constitution
What are substantive rights?
Substantive rights are rights to life, liberty, and property. Do we not agree that the Constitution guarantees the substantive right to life. Should the Supreme Court not have gone further with its ruling? Should it not have argued that abortion is in fact a violation of the right to life found in the Constitution of the United States? That is an argument based upon the Constitution and deeply rooted in the history and tradition of the United States.
I am sure that no state allowed abortion when the fourteenth amendment was ratified. States provided an unborn child a right to life. At the time of Roe, 30 States still prohibited abortion at all stages. Less evidence existed then than does now that life begins at conception. An ultrasound detects a fetal heartbeat at 6 1/2 to 7 weeks.
Some ask why Kavanaugh disappoints Trump? President Trump sees fear in Kavanaugh. The Democrats in the confirmation hearing framed him as a criminal, accusing him of sexual harassment when he was 17 years old. They intimidated him. He famously broke down and cried in that hearing. If Trump sees weakness, a language or decision that reflects that weakness, he questions it, using what I call, Trump-speak. Whatever pressure comes from the other side, he counteracts from his side. I understand it. If you don’t see it, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Kavanaugh wrote the following in his concurring opinion (pp. 125-128):
On the question of abortion, the Constitution is therefore neither pro-life nor pro-choice. The Constitution is neutral and leaves the issue for the people and their elected representatives to resolve. . . . Because the Constitution is neutral on the issue of abortion, this Court also must be scrupulously neutral. . . . This Court therefore does not possess the authority either to declare a constitutional right to abortion or to declare a constitutional prohibition of abortion.
Is the Constitution not pro-life? Is it really neutral on the matter of life? Does the Constitution not protect life as a substantive right? On the other hand, Kavanaugh sees same sex marriage as a substantive right. He implies that the Constitution is not neutral on same sex marriage, when he writes (p. 133):
First is the question of how this decision will affect other precedents involving issues such as contraception and marriage—in particular, the decisions in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438 (1972); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); and Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015). I emphasize what the Court today states: Overruling Roe does not mean the overruling of those precedents, and does not threaten or cast doubt on those precedents.
Along the lines of substantive rights in the constitution, consider if Kavanaugh applied his Roe test to Obergefell by writing the following: On the question of same sex marriage, the Constitution is therefore neither pro-sex marriage nor anti-same sex marriage. He doesn’t see a substantive right to life, but he does see a substantive right to same sex marriage. Can this be true? Kavanaugh reads like a lie.
Dobbs was but a first battle in a war for life in this country. In one sense, it is a pretext for the actual war that must occur. We must all start by telling the truth, not only about abortion itself, but about the Dobbs decision. We can all celebrate what it did do, but we also must be realistic about what it did not.
Dobbs didn’t do away with abortion. The United States aborted almost a million babies last year. Everyone of those can still happen if someone wants. This war is far from over.
Recent Comments