James White, Michael Kruger, and the Canonicity Argument for Preservation of Scripture
Part One Part Two Part Three Part Four Part Five Part Six
In historical Christian writings, when using the term canonicity, men applied that to books. For a book to be canonical means that it has a true, right, and authoritative place in the collection of inspired writings. To put it simply, if it is canonical then it is God’s Word, or it’s Bible. However, the Bible itself does not speak of the canonicity of books, such as “this book is inspired” or “this book belongs in the Bible as part of God’s Word.” The Bible treats words as canonical, such as words inspired or every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. The Bible speaks of inspired writings or scripture. A book belongs in the canon because all of its writings belong in the canon.
All the principles or doctrine from scripture that apply to the canonicity of books first apply to the canonicity of words. One cannot argue books from scripture without starting with words. Books are inspired because words are inspired.
In the book, Thou Shalt Keep Them, published by our church in California, which is also Pillar and Ground Publisher, in 2001 (second edition, 2003), I wrote an important chapter, Chapter 19, entitled, “Test of Canonicity as Applied to Words.” This came over 10 years before Michael Kruger wrote, Canon Revisited, a theological dealing with the canon of scripture. In light of my test of canonicity argument, I listened to James White and Michael Kruger discuss canon at the 2018 G3 conference.
The principles I elucidated in my chapter do reflect how true believers or churches thought and believed about both the doctrine of canonicity and the doctrine of the preservation of scripture. Before I wrote that chapter, I had not read anything saying what I wrote, but since then, many have written on canon as related to the doctrine of preservation. Perhaps they read my chapter or articles on the blog here (also here and here). I hear identical language being expressed in the following video with James White and Michael Kruger.
Starting at about 5:30, James White says:
The issue of the canon is a theological for us first and foremost because of the nature of scripture.
That statement ought to get your attention on every bibliological doctrine, including preservation. The nature of scripture makes every issue with the Bible a theological one. He continued:
If you just put canon into Amazon, what’s going to come back are going to be books that are going to direct you to, well, this early church father had this list, this early church father had that list, and then you have this development here, and you have that development there, why does there need to be a different approach? I mean you’re taking a different approach.
Kruger answered:
I take a quite a different approach actually than the standard models. . . . I’m teaching a class on the New Testament canon years ago, and we’re talking about the question of “how you know,” and I realized no one ever answered the question. Uh, ya know, I’m assigning Metzger. I’m assigning some of the other classic sort of texts on canon, and they’re what I sort of call ‘data books’ and they do a great job collecting together, sweeping together, a bunch of factoids about when, aaah, books began to be used as scripture and how long it took . . . and they’re basically just history books. . . . and my students kept asking . . . but that doesn’t answer my question. . . . why should we think the results of all that mean anything?. Ummmm, And so you have to back up and say, oh, wait a second, you can’t just look at the data. You have to have a worldview. You have to have a theological system in which you can absorb that data and interpret it and understand what it means. If you do that, then you need a theology of canon.
White responded:
So when you speak of a theological view of scripture. Ummm, certainly if you, if you have the modern view in the academy of scripture, you’re going the wrong direction. But you’re talking about from a confessional, believing, scriptural perspective. If you start with what scripture is that’s going to impact how you look at how God made sure his people had what He had given supernaturally in inspiration. So flesh that out, how does that differ from most normal approaches?
James White does have the modern view in the academy of scripture on the doctrine of preservation, and he is going the wrong direction. He should be talking about preservation from a confessional, believing, scriptural perspective and he does not. He contradicts himself here, really puts his foot in his mouth and he doesn’t even know it.
Kruger answered that the other approaches say they’re taking a neutral point of view. He says this isn’t a Christian worldview. Kruger is asserting that no one is neutral, just letting the evidence lead them to the truth. Everyone functions according to presuppositions. Kruger and White are saying that the determination of the canon is not naturalistic from some false neutrality, but divine. Again, both of them put their feet in their mouths because they treat textual criticism, which is naturalistic, like it is neutral. They say this presupposition is not a Christian worldview. They are saying that their bibliology is naturalistic and not Christian.
Kruger said:
Let me back up and follow up on one of the things that you (James White) said there, I think is very important, and that is, uh, this idea of seeing canon from a divine perspective. That’s another way to say what you’ve articulated. If you look at it from a purely historical perspective, it looks like a manmade thing, something that the church constructed, but what if we ask the question about, not so much what books Christians recognized, but what books did God give. And when you ask it that way, now you’re asking more of a theological question, and theoretically the books that belong in the canon are the books God gave the church. They may take awhile to recognize those books, but we can still talk about canon as a theological idea in the mind of God.
Kruger continues by talking about defining canon from the divine perspective or from a theological perspective, which he calls an “ontological canon,” which then James White calls canon with a subscript 1, which is the canon as it is known to God. White says:
We need to talk about God’s purpose in leading people to understand these things. . . . . If God extends His divine power to inspire scripture, does He have a purpose? And is there a consistency between what His purpose is in inspiring scripture and leading His people to know what that is? And obviously there are a number of texts of scripture that address that. But this is all theological.
And it drives me insane when I read, uh, people attacking this subject, and they, they want to deny that these documents are theopneustos, they are God-breathed, they are inspired, which is a theological concept, but they will only allow you to use historical, naturalistic, uh, methodology and information to defend the spiritual nature of these books. And people fall into it. We fall into the trap. It’s happening this very day in university classrooms all across America. Our young people are sitting there, and they’re getting slapped upside the head by a naturalistic professor who is demanding that they give naturalistic evidence for what is in fact a supernatural reality.
Kruger agrees. He says, “Right.” I want you to read all of what these men said. I transcribed it. Especially, however, read that last paragraph of White and compare it to what White does on the doctrine of preservation, which is in essence a doctrine of canonicity of words. Preservation is the canonicity of the writings of the words, which is what theopneustos is. All scripture, which is graphe, writings, are God breathed. It isn’t, “All books are God breathed.” Kruger then says:
No surprise. If you start with a naturalistic assumption, you end up with naturalistic conclusions.
Later he says: “Your worldview, your theological grid, ends up affecting your historical conclusions.”
Bingo.
White answers:
And the naturalistic professor, who is slapping our students upside the head has presuppositions. They just don’t allow them to be expressed or examined, uh, fairly in any meaningful fashion.
White asks:
What would you call the churches recognition of the canon over time? How would you des, what terminology would you use to describe that?
Kruger answers:
That’s what I call the exclusive definition, which is you, you, you don’t, well, it depends on what part you mean. So the final sort of settling of the canon is what I call the exclusive definition, which is if the church finally reaches a consensus around these books.
Read those words: a “settling of the canon” and “the church finally reaches a consensus.” Why would it be the canon based upon settling and consensus? There are biblical principles around these related to the witness or testimony of the Holy Spirit. The unity of the Spirit is the guiding of the Holy Spirit. This comes by faith. In scripture this all relates to words.
I’m going to stop here for now, and you can hear more from White or Kruger, but you need to see that White believes and practices completely inconsistent on the text of scripture from the canon. This is not because of what the Bible says. This is because of naturalistic presuppositions, where White thinks of himself as neutral as he looks at the evidence and discovers what has been lost. These men would be lying to you if they said something different on the text. It is exactly the same. Every believer needs to be consistent on the text and on the books. We know what they are in an identical way.
Peter Ruckman: Multiple Ways of Salvation Heresy part 1 of 2
You are out of town and are looking for a good church. After doing online research, you find one and visit. The church says “Baptist,” “independent.” They go soulwinning, telling people to repent and be saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. They all have King James Bibles. They say nothing about Ruckman. They reject Jack Hyles’s anti-repentance heresies. They reject CCM, Contemporary “Christian” Music. They believe in eternal security but are not Calvinist. They dress modestly and believe in gender distinction. They reject the charismatic movement. They reject covenant theology and are dispensational, premillennial, and pretribulational. Truths such as the resurrection of Christ, the Trinity, etc. are, of course, all believed. The people are friendly and the pastor preaches with conviction and makes application. Everything looks great!
You go to the tract area to pick up some gospel tracts. The content seems fine for most of them. Then you find a pamphlet about the future. On one side it says: “Very soon millions of people shall suddenly disappear!” Everything that it says in that part sounds fine. But on the other side it says “Why have millions of people suddenly disappeared?” and in that section you are shocked when you discover statements that deny the gospel! In this section, which is addressed to people who miss the Rapture, appear statements such as: “Remember, to be saved you must put all your faith and trust in Jesus Christ and keep the commandments of God,” and “You can only enter [God’s] Kingdom if you have put your faith and trust in Jesus Christ and … by … keeping the commandments.” What is going on here?
You look at the pamphlet a bit more carefully. You notice within it a drawing of people going up in the Rapture; one of the graves with a person going up says “Peter Ruckman.” Hmm.
Then you see that it is published by one “John Davis” who runs a “Time for Truth!” website and helps lead “The Oaks Church.” You discover that these sectaries are significant publishers of Ruckmanite literature.
The church you thought was fine turned out to be one where Peter Ruckman’s heresy that there are different ways of salvation in different time periods is being believed and practiced, although they did not openly proclaim their Ruckmanism. That is bad. It is really bad. Such a church is not one to go back to unless they repent and renounce their heresy on the gospel. Multiple (alleged) ways of salvation is a false teaching to tolerate “not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you” (Galatians 2:5). Ecclesiastical separation is commanded by God (Romans 16:17; 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1; Ephesians 5:11; 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14).
Ruckman believed an eternally secure salvation by grace alone through faith alone is only for the church age; supposedly in past times for Israel and in future times such as the Tribulation period salvation is not by repentant faith alone, but by faith and works. What are some questions you can ask someone who believes or is being influenced by this heresy? Here are a few.
1.) Does the fact that Genesis 15:6 is referenced in Habakkuk 2:4, and these two verses are themselves referenced in James 2; Romans 4; Galatians 3; and Hebrews 10-11 show that justification has always been by faith alone, rather than by works? (The extremely powerful nature of this development of salvation by faith alone from the patriarchal times of Abraham, through the Mosaic dispensation, into the New Testament is developed in the study “The Just Shall Live by Faith”). Why does Paul prove his teaching of justification by faith alone with these kinds of Old Testament texts? Don’t these passages show that Abraham, Moses, Habakkuk, James, and Paul all taught the same human response was required to be saved—faith, and faith alone?
2.) For century after century the Jews were singing Psalms with many verses such as: “Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him” (Psalm 2:12). If salvation was ever by works in the Old Testament, why would God command them to sing that ALL who trust in God’s Son are blessed (not “some” are blessed, those who trust and also do enough works to be saved?) Is the Psalter deceiving Israel when it regularly teaches salvation by faith alone?
3.) Why does Peter testify that ALL God’s OT prophets witnessed to justification by faith alone in the Messiah? “To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins” (Acts 10:43).
4.) Why is the Old Testament full of the truth of salvation by grace alone? (For example, the Sabbath teaches salvation by faith and resting from works, according to Paul in Hebrews 3-4, so from the very seventh day of creation God’s resting taught man: “There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his” (Hebrews 4:9-10). One major reason working on the Sabbath deserved the death penalty was to teach Israel what a grave sin it was to seek to enter God’s salvation rest by effort instead of resting in Jehovah and His provided atonement alone. Likewise, Moses told Israel that their being chosen was sheer and totally undeserved grace (Deut 7:6-8); the very preface to the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1-2) indicates that Israel was to obey because they were already a redeemed people, not in order to merit salvation, just as believers today obey because they are already a redeemed people, not to merit salvation. There are many texts such as: “Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price” (Isaiah 55:1-2); how? Through the Messiah, in the immediate context—Isaiah 52:13-53:12; 55:4.
Read part two on Peter Ruckman’s Multiple Ways of Salvation Heresy by clicking here.
–TDR
The Who-Is-Nicer or Who-Is-Meaner Argument for the Text of Scripture
Part One Part Two Part Three Part Four Part Five
I am calling this post a part of my discussion on critical text versus textus receptus. So much air time, so much ink is spilt for style and tone in debate, that it becomes an argument to be addressed.
You want to determine the preservation of scripture. You weigh textus receptus versus critical text. What is your criteria? Just by sheer mention from notable critical text supporters, such as James White and Mark Ward, the following is a major argument. You want to come to the right decision about the text, have the correct thinking? Ask this question. Which advocates are either nicer or meaner? From the sheer volume of talk about who-is-nicer or who-is-meaner, it must be the critical text is right. In almost every presentation, at some point James White or Mark Ward will talk about how mean the other side is, implying that James White and Mark Ward are nice, so the critical text position must be right.
I wonder of ecclesiastical text, standard sacred text, confessional text, or traditional text men, who thinks that James White and Mark Ward are nice? Perhaps you’ve seen a child come running to his mother, saying, “He wasn’t nice to me.” Or, “She wasn’t nice to me.” If you are a dad, and your little boy does that, you really, really don’t want to hear it. Maybe you just ignore him or you say, “Just go back and play.” Maybe when the little girl says it, you weigh it, and maybe you say, not really believing it, “Children, be nice.” I wouldn’t be convinced that the one protesting is the nice one.
We live in an era, where “he wasn’t nice” is an argument. It isn’t, but you would think it is by the sheer number of times critical text proponents mention it. I say, “Stop already. Both sides say mean things.” James White and Mark Ward are at least as mean or at least as not nice. Fun, isn’t it?
Condescension, eye rolling, sarcasm, and a certain kind of smarmy tone someone might consider to be mean or not nice. Even the constant mention of “you’re-not-nice” isn’t nice. When two men are having a discussion, they might get a little rough. Neither side should call the “whaaaambulance” and claim injury, as if they are a strip mall defense lawyer. “You’ve been injured in a biblical text discussion, call Mark Ward or James White, and they’ll represent you.”
When you were a child and you played games with friends, did you think it was nice when someone just rose, walked off, and stopped playing, because he didn’t like how it was going? Or did you think that was in itself, a mean or not nice act? Adults do this pulling the game board, taking the toys and going home.
A hard discussion, where the other side isn’t as nice as we want or doesn’t follow our preferred rules of decorum, will often occur. Very often both sides, when in disagreement, don’t like how the other side disagrees. That isn’t persecution though. Entering a boisterous give and take with someone, where we feel the other side hurt our feelings, is not persecution. We don’t deserve sympathy for a rugged debate.
Maybe 35-40 years ago, I remember reading letters written to one of my professors, Thomas Strouse, from Peter Ruckman. No one said things as harsh as Peter Ruckman. Dr. Strouse never said anything about the Ruckman style in the argument. Ruckman would straight out insult and call derogatory names. Ruckman was so nasty, that he was funny. No one had hurt feelings. They just laughed. I think this was just a different generation of men. They were less touchy feely. I wonder if you agree.
White and Ward both imply some spiritual problem or lack of sanctification in their opponents. They are the judge, jury, and executioner. They are nasty and harsh too. They weaponize the criticism though.
I think I could have better style or tone. I could speak to my opponents in a more sensitive way. When I argue, I could take more consideration of the opposition’s feelings. When two people disagree, it’s better if they try to get along too. I agree with that assessment.
What I wish is that the two sides could also take the meanness or niceness criteria out of the debate, especially the one side that nearly always brings it up. I don’t think Jeff Riddle wants to be mean. He’s nicer than me. And yet Mark Ward says he’s not nice either. He’s nicer than others, but he’s also too mean. Mark Ward might pull the game board on him. We’ll see.
What really happened is that Riddle exposed Ward and Ward didn’t like it, so Ward pulled from a contributor for Riddle’s most recent book, “Satan’s Bible,” or something like that, speaking of the critical text (see comment section). This is the meanness or niceness argument being utilized. Riddle had already taken a preemptive strike with “toxic review,” speaking of Ward’s use of toxic to describe the book.
Can we just debate and stop bringing up who is nice and who is mean? Both sides will say things the other does not like. In my recent writing, I mentioned that Ward made a mocking argument, using tone and facial expressions and giggling type glee. He did. It’s easy to see in the video. He won’t admit it, because he can’t cede that high ground he believes he has based on his own judgment of himself. Then I came out and called him on that and I said he put his foot in his mouth. I said it was a dumb argument for a PhD. I am debating on an equal rhetorical plane as Mark Ward. James White and Mark Ward won’t admit it, but it’s just true.
Ward often mentions how gracious he is. He does that at least as much as he says how mean the other side is. People on our side have not talked about this (that I know of), but Ward uses straw men. He misrepresents positions. He employs ad hominem. When his position is answered, he talks his way out of admitting it. He very often won’t concede when he gets it wrong or the other side is right. When he does concede, it’s difficult to tell. It doesn’t sound like he conceded on important points.
At one point, Ward said that the NKJV came from an identical text as the text behind the KJV. I showed him five places. He tried to explain them away. I gave him five more. He did the same. I gave him five more. He did the same. He finally conceded, but not to the point that he made originally. When I gave the first five, that should have ended the discussion, and for sure after the second five. Why didn’t it? I think he thought I would shortly run out of examples and he could explain it away. However, he just couldn’t concede. He changed the rules right in the middle of the discussion. This is Mark Ward, ladies and gentleman, the very, very nice man by his own admission. If I told him he wasn’t nice, I know we would have started a not-niceathon, trying to top the other in who was less or more nice. You could picture two jr. high girls.
Living in Utah right now, a normal, every occasion argument from LDS is the sameness between historical, biblical Christians and LDS. They try to take that posture right away. They will treat me like we’re the same. Half of them get offended by refuting the sameness. I find critical text the same. Critical text men want the other side to say that they too believe in the preservation of scripture. They too hold an orthodox position. Both sides should agree to disagree. Can we instead say that we don’t agree and that both positions are not the same? We really do believe they are attacking a true doctrine of scripture that is important. That doesn’t mean we don’t like them. We just disagree with them and believe that for God we need to oppose what they’re saying.
When I bring up the style and tone of Ward, I don’t do it for the same reason as White and Ward do. I do it, because I wish they would stop bringing it up. We both use tone and style in disagreement that the other side doesn’t like. I wish there was a moratorium on mentioning it. Just leave it alone and continue the debate. I don’t expect it though. It works well to their audience. Maybe it’s a replacement for real persecution for men who don’t face actual persecution.
I have an opinion about the criticism of meanness or lack of niceness. It is in the realm of ‘gird up your loins, like a man,’ something God said to Job twice. This is a battle and both sides just should put on their big boy pads and expect contact.
Further Details in Psalm 12:6-7 Elucidating the Preservation of God’s Words
In recent days, speaking of the last twenty years, men have used much ink and spoken many words to debunk a doctrine of the perfect preservation of Words of God in Psalm 12:6-7. Commentators through history have interpreted Psalm 12:6-7 as a promise of the preservation of the poor and needy, mentioned in Psalm 12:5. Modern critical text advocates strive to back or ensure that interpretation against a teaching of preservation of words. With this conversation occurring or continuing, more evidence arises for the preservation of words viewpoint.
I haven’t heard anything new to contribute to the preservation of the poor and needy, except for possibly one new point. Critical text proponents like Mark Ward say the same old, same old. Some of his audience didn’t know his arguments, but they aren’t new. With that being said, this is an argument from Ward I have never heard. I didn’t know about it until recently reading him in the comment section at youtube.
Not Perfect Preservation?
Ward says that the present application of perfect preservation from Psalm 12:6-7 arose out of the King James Only movement of the twentieth century. He knows that men taught preservation of words from Psalm 12:6-7, such as Matthew Poole, just that none of them, including Poole, he is saying, took that as perfect preservation. I had not heard anyone ever make that particular point. It seems like a raising of the bar on expectations in the language of the commentators. Is Ward implying that when men wrote that Psalm 12:6-7 promises the preservation of the Words of God, that they were saying that God was promising less than perfect preservation? And is that even preservation?
I’ve used this illustration before, but let’s say that you had a jar with 100 marbles in it. Twenty years later, you still have the jar, and someone wants to purchase it. You guarantee that you preserved the marbles in the jar. The customer counts them and there are 98, not 100. Did you preserve the marbles in the jar? Is that the plain meaning of preservation of marbles?
Ward is implying that 93 to 98 marbles is still the preservation of the marbles. Preservation of the marbles doesn’t mean 100 out of 100, because 93 to 98 is still preservation. Is that what you think? I don’t think of losing marbles as preserving them. That is not preserving them. You’ve preserved some of them, so preservation occurred, but you can’t say you preserved them, speaking of the marbles in the original jar.
When Jesus said that no man shall pluck “them” out of his hand (John 10:28), with similar understanding of preservation, you could take that as no man shall pluck 93 to 98 percent of them out of his hand. He didn’t say “all of them” after all. If God promised to keep or preserve the poor and needy, to be consistent, when Ward says Psalm 12:7 promises to keep the poor and needy, that means not all of the poor and needy, just some of them. It’s not perfect preservation of the poor and needy. Myself and others might call that betraying plain meaning of language.
Hebrew Singular Masculine Pronominal Suffix in Psalm 12:7
Besides that above argument, a new one that rose out of a challenge to Ward about his representation of the history of Psalm 12:6-7 commentary, I have read none. I have heard the argument Ward makes from the King James translators notation about the second “them” in Psalm 12:7. It translates the singular masculine suffix. Ward says that necessitates poor and needy, because “words” aren’t a “him.” “Words” aren’t a “she” either, even though the gender of “words” is feminine.
Every Hebrew word is masculine or feminine, because there is no neuter in the Hebrew. Someone might call this a dumb argument, that a masculine suffix must refer to people. What do we do with all the things or objects in the Old Testament? What kind of pronominal suffix are we going to use for all those non-neuter words?
This pronoun point revolves around this comment in the margins of the original King James translation by the translators: “Heb. Him, i.e., every one of them.” They are correct. They are noting that a masculine singular suffix in the Hebrew is “him” in the English. Then they explain with the comment why they translated this “them”: “every one of them.” The singular meant, they are saying, “every one of them,” speaking of whatever antecedent “him,” “everyone of them,” or “them” refers to.
Psalm 12:7 reads: “Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” The verse is not saying twice, “Thou shalt keep them” and “Thou shalt keep them,” or, “Thou shalt preserve them” and “Thou shalt preserve them.” No, it is making two statements with a nuance of difference: “Thou shalt keep them” and “thou shalt preserve every one of them.” They are not saying the English should be, “him,” but that the English should be, “every one of them.” On Part 4 of The Textual Confidence Collective series (starting at about 5:48), Mark Ward begins speaking with a kind of glee in his voice and says these exact words:
And it’s really interesting here, one of the tip offs to sort of the interpretive question here comes in the note that is actually in the margin of the King James, even in this TBS edition. For that second “them,” “thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them” (and I’m convinced this is where the word preservation starts to get used by the King James only or textual absolutist movements), it says in the margins, the Hebrew is actually, “him,” that is, “every one of them.” And if the Hebrew is actually “him,” that is, every one of them,” every one of them must not be “the words,” because words are not him and her. Words are things. Words are it. Therefore, it must be in the view of the King James translators, that second pronoun, must be pointing back to the antecedent we find in verse 5: “For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.” So the words of the Lord here are not the Bible. They are these immediate words, “I’m going to protect the poor, uh, who are oppressed.”
This is coming from a PhD from Bob Jones University, and other PhDs or PhD candidates sit there and say nothing, when he makes these foot-in-the-mouth statements with a kind of giggling glee. Why? They don’t even look like they disagree. Zero pronominal suffixes in the entire Old Testament are an “it,” because there is no neuter pronominal suffix. There are no neuter Hebrew nouns to which to refer. The King James translators would have been laughing on Ward’s interpretation of them.
Timothy Berg writes about this at his blog (and Ward has concurred many times):
Understand what has taken place here with these two lines. The translators had to either choose, “them” and so maintain the number of the original, but lose the gender, or choose “him” and maintain the gender of the original but lose the number. The meaning in both cases is a plural group of multiple “hims,” employing first the plural then the singular in keeping with the psalmist’s pattern. But there is no form “hims” in English, so every translator must lose something of the original text in translating it into English. The point to note here though is that they clearly understood the referent of the singular suffix as being back to the alternating singular and plural in verses one and five, being a reference to the people. This is surely self-evident to anyone reading the passage in its context, and abundantly evident to anyone who reads the original translators notes (and even more so when they realize the origin of this particular note in the Bishop’s base text). If we had only continued to print these notes, and listened to the KJV translators themselves, so much bad interpretation could have been avoided. Maintaining today that the phrase is a promise to preserve God’s words in the KJV is to utterly disagree with what the translators themselves intended to convey, which, in a text now being adduced as support for their infallibility, seems odd at best.
These men say this proves that “them” by the King James translators could never refer to “words” in verse 6. That very much misunderstands gender in the Hebrew. Berg is saying that “him” must mean people, because a “him” must be people in the Hebrew. Remember, this is a masculine suffix with “preserve,” that the translators translated “preserve them.”
How would you go about proving the point that Berg and Ward are making in their assessment of a comment by the KJV translators? I would look at similar examples with gender through the Old Testament to see if that’s true. They are saying that a masculine suffix must always refer to a person, because a masculine is a person. This is their representation of original languages. Again, they don’t take that from anything the KJV translators wrote. This is their own personal call.
Berg or Ward do not reference one Hebrew grammar or syntax to make that point. They do not show you several examples to evince the truth of this argument. They speak as those having authority on the Hebrew language. As Johnny Cochran famously called the prosecution of the OJ Simpson trial, it is a “rush to judgment.” These are men eager to have something mean something that doesn’t mean something. They don’t even know it means something. I think they could assume that they have an audience of their own tribe ready to accept their own bias. This is today called “confirmation bias,” where they rush to confirm their own bias.
Let’s open our Bibles to the first chapter of the Bible, the book of Genesis, and Genesis 1:16-17:
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.
God made lights. God “set them.” “Them” refers to the lights, wouldn’t you agree? A masculine refers to “lights.” This does not correspond exactly to Psalm 12:6-7, but it does in the argument that Ward and Berg are making. A masculine must refer to a person.
Turning to Psalms, Psalm 18:14 says:
Yea, he sent out his arrows, and scattered them; and he shot out lightnings, and discomfited them.
“Arrows” is masculine too, but it is plural. He scattered the masculine arrows.
A better example is Job 39:14-15:
14 Which leaveth her eggs in the earth, and warmeth them in dust, 15 And forgetteth that the foot may crush them, or that the wild beast may break them.
“Eggs” is plural. “Them” in “crush them” is a third person feminine suffix. In other words, “crush her,” but it is “crush every one of them.” “Eggs” and “them” are both feminine.
Just as a gender sample, the same kind of construction in Psalm 12:6-7 and in Psalm 119 is found elsewhere, such as Leviticus 20:8:
And ye shall keep my statutes, and do them: I am the LORD which sanctify you.
“Statutes” is feminine and “them” is masculine. Again, a masculine pronoun refers to a thing, which is also feminine. The same is in Leviticus 22:31:
Therefore shall ye keep my commandments, and do them: I am the LORD.
Commandments is feminine and them is masculine.
The same is in Numbers 15:39. Also, Nehemiah 1:9:
But if ye turn unto me, and keep my commandments, and do them.
Commandments is feminine and them is masculine. In Ezekiel 37:24, “statutes” is feminine and “them” is masculine.
I’m not going to keep going with this argument, but you can see that Berg and Ward are wrong on the Hebrew of this. I’ve already written many times that gender is nullified by Hebrew grammar as an argument for the “poor and needy.” Because of that, we should go to the nearest antecedent rule, which is “words.” Ward himself said the examples were clear in Psalm 119 of purposeful gender discord, so he relents there. He says it isn’t in Psalm 12:6-7, but that’s only because he chooses to ignore the nearest antecedent, which is clear.
This Generation
Psalm 12:7 says, “Lord. . . . shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” The two different viewpoints also take the last part of the verse in two ways. The preserve-the-poor-and-needy position says that “from this generation” is a physical separation from the attacks of the wicked. The preserve-the-words position says that “from this generation” is a linear chronological separation from the present moment and on into eternity.
The Hebrew preposition translated “from” in the English has a root meaning of separation. Preserve-the-words takes the normal, plain meaning of the Hebrew dur, generation, which is a period, speaking of this present time. This language of time is echoed in the Old (Isaiah 59:21) and the New Testaments (Mt 5:18, 24:35) in other preservation passages. This is the regular usage of this Hebrew construction, translated, “from this generation for ever.”
Preserve-the-poor-and-needy takes an exceptional usage. I see generation used of the wicked, but it is always accompanied by “evil” as in “evil generation” (Dt 1:35), “generation that had done evil” (Num 32:13), or “crooked generation” (Dt 32:5). When meaning “evil generation,” it is accompanied by these types of descriptors.
Every time you read the words, “from generation” (eleven times), it is a linear chronological separation from this present moment into the future. If it was something other than that in Psalm 12:7, then it is the only time in the entire Old Testament, or an entirely exceptional usage. Normally we call this eisegesis of scripture, because it doesn’t consider all the usages of this construction contradicting it. Timothy Berg does this in his Psalm 12 article.
Synonymous Parallelism
The poetry in Psalm 12:7 is parallelism and in particular “synonymous parallelism.” The second part of the parallelism repeats a variation of what the first part expresses. If this is synonymous parallelism, which is how it reads in Psalm 12:7, then both parts must refer to the same antecedent. It expresses the same truth in two different ways. “Thou shalt keep them . . . . thou shalt preserve them.”
I talked about this parallelism in the last post, that it teaches plenary and then verbal preservation of the Words of God. I want to give a heads up to the mention of “synonymous parallelism” to Jeff Riddle in his Word Magazine podcast on youtube. He talked about this and may have also given credit to Peter Van Kleeck, Sr. at the Standard Sacred Text blog.
Christ’s Human Nature From His Mother Mary: Menno Simons was wrong
Christ received His human nature from His human mother, Mary (contrary to the teaching of Menno Simons).
God did not create a new human nature in Mary’s womb that was unconnected with Mary’s humanity, so that she was simply a pipe or conduit through which an unrelated human nature came into existence. Luke 1:35 states:
And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
The Son was conceived through the working of the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35) in the womb of a virgin named Mary, who was engaged to a man named Joseph.
Similarly, Galatians 4:4 reads:
Gal. 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman [γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός], made under the law,
Christ’s human nature became or came into existence, was made, from, of, or out of His human mother, Mary.
The Lord Jesus was the “fruit” of Mary’s “womb”:
Luke 1:42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
And her actual Son:
Luke 2:7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.
He was a literal descendent of David, both through His adopted human father Joseph and through His literal mother, Mary:
Romans 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
If you have taught (likely without thinking it through and with no bad intentions) that Christ’s human nature was not connected to Mary’s humanity through a miraculous work that resulted in Christ’s sinless humanity, despite Mary’s being a sinner, and instead taught that God just created a human nature in the womb of Mary, based on the verses above, you need to change. Stop teaching that. Such a teaching undermines Christ’s true human nature and thus attacks the salvation He wrought for us as the God-Man.
I am thankful for the history of Anabaptist martyrs in the book The Martyr’s Mirror, it is definitely worth reading, and as a history of martyrs in immersions assemblies, has a great deal to commend it above Foxe’s much more well known book of martyrs.
However, Menno Simons, the Reformation Anabaptist leader, denied the Scriptural and traditional Christian view that Christ took His human nature from Mary for the heretical position that His human nature was created in the womb of Mary. Unfortunately, some of the later individuals mentioned in The Martyr’s Mirror follow Menno’s false doctrine in this matter. Thankfully, Menno’s error did not make it into any Baptist confessions; it is more of an idiosyncratic view that he held personally. One may think of Jack Hyles’ similar idiosyncratic heresy that Jesus Christ was human even before His incarnation. Nor does Menno’s heretical view on Christ’s incarnation appear in J. Newton Brown’s edifying book Memorial of Baptist Martyrs.
The Divine Person of Christ was “sent forth” from the Father, but His human nature was “made of a woman” in the virgin conception and birth (Galatians 4:4). Mary was not a surrogate mother, which Christ’s humanity simply passing through her in a manner comparable to the position of the ancient Gnostic heretic Valentinus:
Menno’s own view of the incarnation, however, became a source of controversy among the Anabaptists. It was never accepted by the Swiss Brethren. His view was similar to that of Hofmann. The crux of the problem to him was the origin of Christ’s physical nature. He held that it was a new creation of the Holy Spirit within the body of Mary. Menno’s position differed from the historic view in denying that Christ received his human body from Mary. He replaced the orthodox view, “per Spiritum Sanctum ex Maria virginenatus,” with “per Spiritum Sanctum in Maria virgine conceptus, factus et natus.”[1]
There is some historical evidence that Anabaptists who practiced believer’s immersion rejected Menno’s heretical view on Christ’s humanity with greater consistency than did those who were open to believer’s pouring for “baptism.” This may account for why, as already indicated, no evidence for Menno’s view appears in Brown’s book Memorial of Baptist Martyrs.
I am thankful for Menno Simon’s many stands for truth in a very hostile environment, and look forward to meeting those who trusted in Christ alone and submitted to believer’s immersion in heaven, including those who did not think through the implications of Menno’s view on Christ’s incarnation but adopted Menno’s error from him. I am also thankful for The Martyr’s Mirror and the edifying narratives of Christian martyrs it contains. But on the subject of the incarnation Menno was wrong, and the Baptists and other Anabaptist churches that rejected his heresy were correct, following the teaching of Scripture.
–TDR
[1] William R. Estep, The Anabaptist Story: An Introduction to Sixteenth-Century Anabaptism, 3rd ed., rev. and enl. (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996), 172.
Links to Amazon are affiliate links. Learn about how you can support righteous causes with Amazon purchases here.
No Post
Hi everyone. I’m in Indiana for my Dad’s funeral. I couldn’t finish my post for today. I’ll just post it next Monday. Thanks for the kind words.
The Biblical Presuppositions for the Critical Text that Underlie the Modern Versions, Pt. 2
Modern textual criticism advocates and contemporary version proponents have fractured churches and caused division between professing Christians over the last one hundred fifty years. They brought the new and different view, a modernist one, in the 19th century to undo the one already received. English churches used the King James Version, believed in the perfect preservation of the original language text, and in the doctrine of the preservation of scripture. Starting with academia and especially influenced by German rationalism, doubt took hold and grew through the professors of seminaries to their students and into churches.
Through history certain men have come along who provoke even greater division that invokes a bigger response. They undermine faith in the authority of the Word of God. My writing arises in answer to men who attack scriptural and historical bibliology, whether it be Ruckmanites or critical text supporters. I would rather consider doctrines and biblical subjects other than this one, such as the gospel, but Satan uses both witting and unwitting subjects to attack God’s Word.
I rarely hear a gracious style or tone from multiple version onlyists. They mock, jeer, speak in condescension, misrepresent without retraction, roll their eyes, vent out with anger, employ heavy sarcasm, and shun. They use these tactics constantly. At the same time, they talk about the poor behavior of their opponents without ceasing in the vein of calling Republicans “fascists” in the political arena.
It continues to be my experience that modern critical text and English version defenders never begin with biblical presuppositions for their position. They say the Bible says nothing about the “how” of preservation, when the entire Bible records the how. Perfect preservationists of the standard sacred, ecclesiastical, traditional, or confessional text view elucidate the how in many essays, papers, and podcasts. The “how” leads to the received text of both the Old and the New Testaments.
Men calling themselves The Textual Confidence Collective become the latest iteration of naturalist influence on the text of scripture. As part of their profession of delivering people from their contention of a dangerous extreme of textual absolutism, they attempt to undo the historical, exegetical teaching of verses on preservation. They address Psalm 12:6-7, Matthew 5:18, 4:4, and 24:35, concluding that these four verses at the most imply preservation of scripture and in an unspecific way. It is a superficial and incomplete representation that runs against historic and plain meaning of these texts.
Our book, Thou Shalt Keep Them, covers all four of the above references, each in their context. No textus receptus advocate would say that any single one of these verses alone buttresses the doctrine of preservation. The doctrine does not rise or fall on one verse. Many times I notice that men such as those of The Textual Confidence Collective treat each verse as though it is the one verse supporting the biblical and historical doctrine of preservation. If they can undermine the teaching of preservation in one verse, the doctrine falls. The Bible contains a wealth of fortification for the doctrine of perfect preservation of scripture, equal or greater even than its teaching on verbal plenary inspiration.
For all of the following passages, I’m not going to exegete them all again, when that’s done in our book in a very suitable, proficient manner. I’ve referred to them many times here at What Is Truth. I will make comments that address the attacks of others.
Psalm 12:6-7 (Also See Here, Here, and Here)
Thomas Strouse wrote our chapter on Psalm 12:6-7. Yes, the title of our book came from those verses, “Thou Shalt Keep Them.” Mark Ward rejects that “words” in verse 6 is the referent of “them” in verse 7. “Them” in “Thou shalt keep them,” he says, is not “Thou shalt keep ‘words,'” but “Thou shalt keep ‘the poor and needy'” of verse 5. If you look at commentaries, they go both ways. Commentaries often differ on interpretation of passages.
Some say “words” and some say “poor and needy” as the antecedent of “them” in verse 7. In a strategy to see if commentaries provide a historical, biblical theology, it’s best as historians to find the original commentaries to which other later writers referred. Ward doesn’t do that. He leaves out the earliest references in the history of interpretation, such as one attributed to Jerome by Luther and those by two preeminent Hebrew scholars Abraham Ibn Ezra (1089-1164) and David Kimshi (c. 1160-1235). In his commentary, John Gill refers to Ibn Ezra’s explanation.
John Gill makes an error with the Hebrew, supporting his point with the fallacious gender discord argument. Scripture uses masculine pronouns to refer to feminine “words,” when the words of God. Gill doesn’t seem to know that, so he misses it. This construction in the Hebrew scriptures is a rule more than the exception. I can happily say that Ward at least barely refers to this point that I’ve never heard from another critical text proponent. I can’t believe these men still don’t know this. Ward should park on it, and he doesn’t. It’s rich exegesis when someone opens to Psalm 119 to find repeated examples. Ward points only to arguments he thinks will favor a no-preservation-of-words viewpoint. This strategy will not persuade those on the opposite side as him, if that is even his purpose.
God uses masculine pronouns to refer to feminine words, when they are the “words of God.” A reader could and should understand the singular to point out the preservation of individual words of God. It’s not assumed that “him,” a masculine, must refer to people. That’s not how the Hebrew language works, and it is either ignorant or deceptive on the part of Ward and others to say it. They also refer to a notation from the KJV translators as if they’re making that point, when that’s sheer speculation. Ward says in mocking tones that a masculine pronoun, “him,” cannot refer to words. It’s a Hebrew rule. Masculine pronouns refer to words. I’m sure Ward knows that “she” can refer to a ship. Everyone knows that a ship isn’t a woman! Come on men! Please.
The “poor” and “needy” are both plural so someone still has a problem of a lack of agreement in number. A masculine singular suffix, however, coupled with a previous masculine plural suffix provides two points of preservation. God will keep all of His Words, plenary preservation, and He will preserve each of them, verbal preservation.
Neither does Ward mention once a rule of proximity. Proximity guides the antecedents of pronouns. Pronouns normally refer to the closest antecedent. It’s an exception not to do so. If gender discord is the rule when referring to God’s Words, then someone should look for the closest antecedent, which is words. That’s how the verses read to, which is why believers and Hebrew scholars from the medieval period celebrate the promise of God’s keeping and preserving His Words.
I don’t doubt that Psalm 12 teaches the preservation of God’s people. We should believe God would keep His people, because we can trust His Words. The chapter contrasts the untrustworthiness of man’s words versus the trustworthiness of God’s. If God can’t keep His Words and doesn’t, how do we trust that He would keep His people?
God’s people believe and have believed that His Word teaches perfect preservation. It’s not an ordinary book. It is supernatural. God’s Word endures. It is in character different than man’s words. Why do men like those of The Textual Confidence Collective labor to cause doubt in this biblical teaching? They do it to conform to their naturalistic presuppositions in their trajectory of modernism, where truth must conform to man’s reason. You should not join them in their journey toward uncertainty.
When I write the word, “modernism,” I’m not attempting to take a cruel shot at men who do believe in the deity of Christ and justification by grace through faith. I’m saying that they swallowed among other lies those spawned by the modernists of the 19th century.
More to Come
Hebrews Made Mudbrick for Egyptian Storage Cities in the Time of the Exodus
I have posted another video relating to the evidence for the exodus from Egypt. In and before the time of the Exodus, archaeological evidence indicates that Habiru foreigners were making mudbrick for the store cities of Pharaoh. The evidence is discussed in situ at the Ramasseum near Luxor, Egypt by Egyptologist and evangelical scholar Dr. James Hoffmeier. I also have some discussion in my work on the archaeological evidence for the Old Testament here.
Watch on YouTube by clicking here. Watch on Rumble by clicking here.
–TDR
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
Recent Comments