Home » Search results for 'king james version' (Page 9)
Search Results for: king james version
Commentary on the Steven Anderson–James White Interview, part one
At the time of this post, you can find the full interview here. A good way to do this would be to pull up that youtube page on a different tab and go back and forth between the video and this post. I’ll put in the minutes for the particular comments I make.
More than believing an indefensible position on the preservation of scripture, Steven Anderson doesn’t believe a true gospel. He denies repentance is necessary for salvation, which is in fact the gospel Jesus preached (Matthew 3:2) and commanded us to preach in the Great Commission (Luke 24:47). Yet, James White gives Anderson two and half hours to use for his future documentary video. I’ll say very little about Anderson, but he does open a window with the interview, because it is more than just a monologue by White. Even in debates, you don’t get direct conversation like this between two people who don’t agree.
White doesn’t believe a biblical or historical position on the preservation of scripture. He instead takes a post-enlightenment, rationalistic, and evidentialist view, albeit claiming to be presuppositional. According to him, because of the existence of textual variants, even true churches lost the words of God and today men must restore them according to modern rules of literary criticism. Taking his approach, no one will ever know what the exact, specific words of scripture were in the originals until he gets to heaven. While he believes that God is sovereign over the identity of the elect, a few humans are sovereign over the identity of the words of God, a relatively brand new and heterodox doctrine of the Bible.
I have committed myself to dealing just with White’s content and not his style, so at 1:06 we find how White came to his position. It wasn’t presuppositional, that is, revealed from scripture. Instead, as a young man he noticed the apparatus of his 3rd edition UBS Greek New Testament in a Bible college Greek class and asked what the footnotes were. He says he immediately knew those would be important for Mormons. Isn’t the gospel the power of God unto salvation? We hear, however, that White did not get his position from studying the Bible, but from a Bible college professor.
At 9:17, in explaining why he wrote his book, White says a King James Only position won’t stand up to the best opponents of the Christian faith. Some might think that you have to take White’s word on this, since he debates Islamic experts, but in my experience with evangelism of many Islamics, their attack on the Bible relates to the proposition that scripture has not been preserved, one they could gladly assert by listening to White himself, who himself faithlessly rejects that we have every word of God.
At 13 minutes, White asks Anderson why the New King James isn’t inspired, since it comes from the same text as the KJV, who responds that the NKJV is not translated from the TR. White says, “It is in the New Testament,” as if it isn’t in the Old Testament (which would make it not a New King James), but Anderson corrects him that it does differ. White doesn’t refute this. Anderson is correct here. You can see in several places that the NKJV translators did not come from the same Greek text as the King James. This is a regular lie of multiple versionists, saying that the NKJV comes from the same Greek text as the KJV. It does not.
Anderson returns to White’s contention of “circular reasoning” at 16:21, which White begins defining at 16:30. He finishes his intitial explanation by 17:39, but the essence of the circular reasoning for KJVO according to White is that KJVO defend the KJV by saying that it is the Word of God. Anderson wanted just a definition of circular reasoning, so at 17:53, White begins defining circular reasoning itself. At 18:42, White starts to answer Anderson’s question, “Why do we believe that the Bible itself is the Word of God?” Anderson is attempting to show that White himself uses circular reasoning, while criticizing KJVO for believing in it. White spends a few minutes in essence admitting that he too uses circular reasoning, but that he depends on the revelation of God rather than a particular translation to make his point. White concedes that both he and Anderson rely on circular reasoning. Shouldn’t that halt White from using the circular reasoning argument? The Bible remains the highest authority, so it should be relied upon to believe that itself is the Word of God.
Circular reasoning is one of those logical fallacies that people like to throw around to diminish what someone else is saying. I would not take a different position than White. The Bible itself as God’s revelation is the highest authority and so I rely upon it as my authority that the Bible itself is the Word of God. Sure, no verse in the Bible asserts the King James as the Word of God, so the reasoning would fail if that was in fact the reasoning. It isn’t. White’s assertion is a strawman. His strawman perhaps applies to Anderson, but not to the historic and biblical doctrine of the preservation of scripture, which is preservation of every word in the original languages and general accessibility to every generation of believers.
At about 20 minutes, White explains that “there is a proper place for a kind of transcendental circular argument.” White lays himself open to criticism here. A transcendental argument would admit one God and so one truth. You can’t have two or three or four sets of words with a transcendental argument. You’ve got one book and one set of words that God inspired and preserved. You can then make that argument from the one book. The argument is there. White just doesn’t believe it. He goes outside of scripture, like utilizing science, etc., what he says he doesn’t believe to prove the Bible is the Word of God, as proof of his multiple version position.
Anderson after 22 minutes really does make a very credible argument against White’s position, using White’s own argument, that is, if we stand in the Word of God for our position, the wisdom of God, then we can’t stand on archaeology and history, etc. to come to our view. Depending on other than the Word of God for faith is standing in the wisdom of men. I could hear John Owen or Francis Turretin or the Westminster divines making the same argument.
At 23:50 or so, White starts to deal with Anderson’s position on the Word of God. He criticizes Anderson’s one step circular reasoning. He says that his own circular reasoning starts with God the Spirit replacing his heart of stone with one of flesh, giving him the faith to believe what God’s Word says. At 25:14 though, White says that he would get to the point with an unsaved atheist by saying exactly what Anderson said, that is, the Bible is the Word of God because the Bible says it is. White admits that Anderson and him agree at 25:30. They do agree that both their positions arise from circular reasoning.
At 26, Anderson explains to White why he is KJVO. His primary reason mirrors what White said was his reason for believing the Bible is the Word of God. He says the Holy Spirit bore witness to him that the King James was the Bible, when the other versions were not. Let me say right here, that is not how I argue for the King James, but I was hearing that Anderson was saying the same thing that White was, adding that other step in his circular reasoning, an internal witness of the Holy Spirit that White himself talked about just a few minutes earlier.
Anderson’s pastor when he was a teenager took him aside to explain how the NASV was superior, and his explanation turned Anderson a different direction. When Anderson heard that the new versions were reliant upon old manuscripts that had been lost, he says that he then knew that wasn’t the Word of God. Anderson and White had similar moments of discovering the existent of textual variants, but that took them in totally different directions.
At 30:30 or so, White begins reacting to Anderson’s story. From my perspective, White uses a strategy that I have seen him use in the past. He puts words in Anderson’s mouth. He says, “What you just said is that you ‘felt this.'” And then, “What you just said is that ‘you believe this because the Holy Spirit has told me so.'” When I heard White say that, I said, “Wow. That’s not what Anderson was saying.” Again, I don’t take that same position as Anderson, but Anderson was reflecting the same argument as White, that is that the internal Holy Spirit, the one that God gave White, is the first step in his circular reasoning. Anderson is saying the Holy Spirit bore witness, and White turns that into “the Holy Spirit told me.” He’s trying to make Anderson’s position look like some kind of double inspiration position.
At 31:30, White says that he doesn’t think that John 10 is about English translations of the Bible. That is typical White type of tack. Anderson isn’t saying that “my sheep hear my voice” is about English translations. He is saying that he hears the shepherd’s voice in the King James. He’s not saying that the meaning of John 10:27 is that the shepherd’s voice is an English translation, so, again, this is a White kind of debate technique. Remember at 25:30, White himself says that he believes the Bible is the Word of God because of what could be construed as the same type of subjective, very personal reason. I don’t remember Anderson saying he “felt something,” but that is what White turns the internal working of the Holy Spirit into — feeling something. Anderson does clear it up at 32:10 when he says there is absolute reality that the book of Mormon is false and the Bible is true, despite that a Mormon ‘feels’ it is the Word of God.
I think that Anderson’s argument is weak. I can’t say it’s false, because the Bible does say there is a personal experience we have with God through the Word of God. It’s weak because it does not differentiate Anderson’s experience from the experience of an unbeliever. However, it does reflect the same teaching that White made at 25:30. Go back and watch. White won’t let it go. He says at 33:45, “Steven, you’ve just made yourself the final arbiter of this issue.” I don’t think so.
I believe that White is true in that you start with an atheist with presuppositions, the groundlessness of atheism because it clashes with the world in which we live, created by God. You come to the Bible because it fits the only viable explanation for the world. You utilize the general revelation the atheist suppresses. It is true that someone doesn’t believe the Bible because of his intellectual abilities, but because of the power of God. But this is also what Anderson is explaining. At this point, as I said, it is a weak argument.
Anderson goes off the rails at 35 by speculating that the the NIV user doesn’t understand the King James Version because he isn’t saved. It’s ironic that Anderson says this, hearing him later explain some of his unscriptural view of salvation. And then he begins theorizing that the NIV is powerless because of the differences from the KJV. It is too bad that it is Anderson doing this interview, because his position doesn’t hold up. He is a poor representative of the King James Version, similar to the demon possessed woman who testified to the authority of the apostles in Acts 16. He’s not the friend of the KJV that you want, even if he supports it.
Anderson’s view, if taken to its end, does seem to send him the direction of denying the conversion of anyone not saved under the influence of the King James Version. This was the same position that Jack Hyles took, who also didn’t believe repentance was necessary for salvation.
At 38:45 or so, White says that he stands his ground against Catholics, Islamics, and Mormons as unsaved, because there is an objective standard, the Bible, and they’re not believing. He endeavors to differentiate his position from Anderson, whom he is portraying as subjective in his KJVO position, claiming that Anderson takes his view primarily on a feeling or the Holy Spirit talking to him, which White is obviously paralleling with the Catholics, Islamics, and Mormons. And those three types of folks aren’t saved because they contradict an objective standard, the Bible. But White is wrong on the preservation of scripture, because he contradicts the objective standard, the Bible, for a very subjective position that comes out of so-called external evidences, that he himself says is not a basis for believing the Bible is the Word of God. This is why I say that Anderson does us a service in having this interview. You can see this as you watch.
Anderson tries to clear up this idea that NIV users are not saved at 39. He says that they might be saved. He shouldn’t have gone there, because it seems he just keeps digging the hole deeper for himself. I have to ask how someone like Anderson, who says he knows the shepherd’s voice, could reject repentance, when the shepherd taught that. This is a place where Anderson himself relies on his own logic to take a position, faulty logic that you hear more later in the conversation.
White is wrong to conclude at 41 that this is an aspect of KJVO. He calls it a dangerous aspect of KJVO. A lot of people who use other versions have wacky beliefs. Mormons are King James Version themselves. That is not a natural consequence of KJVO. That is a faulty conclusion by White, but it is why with a King James supporter like Anderson, who needs enemies?
Anderson and White keep going down this path of new versions and salvation after 42. Anderson says the NIV is the devil’s book. White asks why the devil would cause a book that still has all the doctrines in it necessary for people to be saved. Anyone who is approaching new versions would be better served by saying that Satan does attack the Word of God by changing the words, as we see in Genesis 3. People also misuse the absolutely correct Words, twisting them, as Peter mentions in 2 Peter 3. The attack is more subtle than what Anderson portrays. The attack is more like the following: if we don’t know what the Words of God are, then how can the Word of God be authoritative? The confusion about the Word of God works at diminishing the authority of scripture and, therefore, the consequences, the conversions. Satan creates doubt about the Word of God. That is how Satan could use the multiple new versions. White in this interview agrees with that.
The two men continue on the translation and salvation discussion, but in my observation they are both wrong on this point. Anderson goes beyond a scriptural position by saying that it must be a particular translation. White says it is just the “message” without actual words from God that are suitable. People are saved by believing the gospel, but the power of the gospel comes from the Word of God. I wouldn’t want to depend on either position, because both are too risky. White separates the Words of God from their message, as if the very Words aren’t necessary for conversion—only the message. One could say that this is a dangerous trajectory from a non-preservation position, disconnecting the message of scripture from the actual words. Perverted views of inerrancy also attach to this natural conclusion of a non-preservation view.
At 46, Anderson starts questioning White on textual criticism and first about the major manuscripts behind the critical text. I’m going stop here for now.
1 Corinthians 15:3: En Protois, First in Order or First in Importance, and Ranking Doctrines
A major proof text invented for the new doctrine of essentials and non-essentials is 1 Corinthians 15:3:
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures.
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
Protos, however, does not come alone. Verse 3 reads en protois — “among first things.” If he was talking about importance, he was stating the priority of the bodily resurrection to the gospel. When a person receives Jesus Christ, he believes the bodily resurrection. This is actually how Calvin interprets the verse:
For I delivered to you first of all He now confirms what he had previously stated, by explaining that the resurrection had been preached by him, and that too as a fundamental doctrine of the gospel. First of all, says he, as it is wont to be with a foundation in the erecting of a house.
In other words, he isn’t saying this is first in importance among all other doctrines, but out of the initial things that I preached to you that resulted in your being saved. This is foundational to someone being saved, believing bodily resurrection. You have to believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ to be saved, and you can’t separate that from the teaching of bodily resurrection. If Jesus rose from the dead bodily, then bodily resurrection itself is possible.
Thomas Charles Edwards, doing some cataloging of the meaning here in 1886, wrote:
En protois, not “among the chief doctrines” (Grot., Estius, Hammond, De Wette, etc.), nor “from the first” (Chrys., Hofmann), but “among the things to be stated first.”
These were among the first things that Paul said to unbelievers, because they were what they needed to know to be saved. This is what makes sense in the context. He challenges their questioning of the bodily resurrection by saying that this was pivotal for someone to be saved. As you move through the chapter, Christianity is worthless without the resurrection. This is clearly the point.
When Matthew Henry says that it was a doctrine of the “first rank, a most necessary truth,” he’s saying that your Christianity, your gospel, crumbles apart without it. That’s an argument that Paul is making here.
A travesty today is spinning this tremendous teaching, this great teaching, into a brand new idea that the gospel, not the bodily resurrection, gets elevated above all other doctrines in a way in which those truths, which are not the gospel, are not essential truths. That, my friends, is finding fools gold where there isn’t even fools gold. There is definitely no gold to be found. That idea shouldn’t even be looked for. Somebody wants to find something and goes looking where it isn’t, and “finds” it.
And the above false teaching then distorts the beauty of 1 Corinthians 15 and Paul’s argument. It turns 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 into a teaching that isn’t even there. And what is dastardly about it, is that it is an encouragement for disobedience. Do we really think that Paul’s expression there was meant to rank doctrine? Come on, folks! Get real here. This is Bible twisting.
What Do the Multiple Version Men Leave Us With? pt. 2
Hopefully, I’ll get back to and then finish the unpopular music series starting next week. In the meantime, I wanted to write one more thing on the multiple version issue that I approached on Monday.
There’s a type of argument I’ve heard for decades, it goes something like this: ‘If we’d only look at what the Bible promises about God preserving His word, we’d all be TRO, and perhaps use the 1611 KJV Bible alone. Happy, happy, happy.’ Sounds so pious, no?
No amount of tortured eisegesis can produce a Biblical promise stating that ANY one complete, canonical “version” of sacred writ will exist, all together, at the same place, at the same time, continuously, & without interruption through history. Nor do legit ‘preservation texts’ specify what percentage of people would have uninterrupted access to God’s word down through time, or even that a MAJORITY of people would have access, or the majority of the elect etc.
Preservation texts, taken at face value (a normal hermeneutic) don’t state any of this wishful thinking, no matter how long we waterboard them. Let’s not hold God accountable for something He didn’t specifically promise.
What’s promised is that God’s inspired word will be preserved perfectly, forever. What’s NOT promised about NT preservation & its transmission are little details like: where, how, with whom, with how many, on what type of material, uncial or miniscule script, skins or vellum etc. The FACT of it’s preservation is promised. The details of how & where (etc) are not stated in scripture. God’s a big God though, and I believe He keeps all His promises.
History shows that the Greek NT was UNavailable to the majority of man for a thousand years, give or take. If the ‘MY kinda God wouldn’t do this or that’ folks want to peddle some pious sounding argument about how ‘God would never let His NT be so sequestered for so long’, then maybe they should argue for the primacy of the Latin Vulgate?
What Do the Multiple Version Men Leave Us With?
If I were to rank the recent stir-ups that related to the Bible, as to national interest, they would be the following: (1) Duck Dynasty Phil Robertson’s homosexuality comments, (2) John MacArthur’s Strange Fire Conference, (3) NCFIC Holy Hip-Hop panel discussion, and (4) Mark Driscoll charged with plagiarism for several of his books. If I were to rank a number five, it is the hub-bub over the documentary by Chris Pinto that questioned the veracity of Tischendorf’s Sinaiticus Greek New Testament manuscript. This included comments from Dan Wallace, a debate between Pinto and James White, several blog posts attacking Pinto from various sources, and a lot of mileage in discussion forum debate. Why did this number five create such a furor?
Again, I don’t trust Sinaiticus. I don’t believe that God’s Words get “found” after being lost for hundreds of years. That’s not backed by the Bible. It isn’t starting with scriptural presuppositions. I don’t even think it’s evidentialism, because it is based so much on speculation. I already reject Sinaiticus based upon a historical and biblical bibliology, doctrine of the preservation of scripture. I don’t need Pinto’s material to do that. But I listened to the White-Pinto debate, and White didn’t come across credible. He treated Pinto disrespectfully, which unfortunately is normal for White (and other of the critics of multiple versionism—read this as an example, which is regular fare from this guy).
None of the above, however, is what this post is about.
As I hear these men defend Sinaiticus and modern versions at all costs and attack the traditional text of scripture and the King James Version, I always wonder what they are accomplishing with all of this. How does multiple versionism help us? I know that they might say that we are getting closer to the original text of scripture — that we are not sure, but that we think we’re closer based on certain humanly derived principles of textual criticism.
In reading multiple versionists, I sometimes hear thanks given to them for exposing a dangerous doctrine, for saving someone from some felonious road of deceit. They never say what is the danger or what the deceit is. In making those types of judgements, I go to scripture to see what is error, what is true, and what is false. I would except the deceit to contradict the Bible and the truth to agree with it. If the Bible teaches it, someone isn’t being protected from something good by not believing what the Bible says. As I see, this multiple versionists are protecting themselves.
When the multiple version apologists are finished, what do they leave us with? Here’s their legacy.
1. They leave men with the wrong source of scriptural bibliology.
The textual critic, multiple versionist has never started with the Bible. He didn’t go to history to find the historical, biblical position on the preservation of scripture. He didn’t and doesn’t develop a biblical position before he starts in with his textual criticism. He is not a man of faith, in other words, because faith always starts with what God says. You know you will be wrong when you don’t start with the Bible to come to your position. You will read zero development of theology as a basis of the multiple version point of view. Nothing.
The last issue of the Biblical Evangelist republished an article by Douglas Kutilek on Psalm 12, concerning the doctrine of preservation. A very, very long article was intended to establish that Psalm 12 teaches the preservation of the poor and needy and not the Words of God. So here is Kutilek attempting to “liberate” the Bible from teaching on the perfect preservation of scripture, and what does that leave us with? We are to depend on a handful of scientific gurus to reveal what God’s Words are. Kutilek buttresses his point on gender discordance, and in so doing, is dishonest in not revealing the purposeful gender discordance that is found in pronouns that refer to the Word of God. There are multiple clear examples of this in the Bible, and, therefore, taught in Hebrew grammar and syntax. I and many others have communicated to Kutilek on this, but then he would have to admit that error, so he continues to propagate the misrepresentation. He says that “them” in Psalm 12:6-7 must refer back to poor and needy based upon gender agreement. Again, that’s not true. I’m not saying that the passage doesn’t teach the preservation of the poor of needy, but that the plain reading, and why many Christians have read it this way, is the preservation of God’s Words.
2. They leave men with doubt about the Words of God.
Men don’t think they can know what the Words of Scripture are. This is the byproduct of the work of textual critics and multiple versionists. If you can’t know what the Words are, then you can work from there on all the other things you couldn’t possibly know.
3. They leave men without reliable authority for belief and practice.
They may say sole scriptura, but they believe and practice something different. Sole scriptura relies on the Bible alone for doctrine. The multiple versionist relies exclusively on so-called science for his position. He does not trust God would do what God said He would do. He staggers in unbelief. If men cannot know what the Words are, then how can they know what the doctrine is or its application? Men are left without reliable authority.
4. They leave men with an apology for atheism and agnosticism.
Bart Ehrman is a favorite for atheists and agnostics. When the authority is shifted to science and textual criticism, then we are now at the mercy of that practice. The atheist and agnostic uses the material of the multiple versionist against Christianity.
5. They leave men without a history of the doctrine of preservation of scripture.
For all the teaching in historic theology, this history is dismissed or ignored. The multiple versionists don’t talk about how they reject historical doctrine. They are silent on this. They don’t want people thinking about it. They’re big on history when it supports them, but they are silent here when it eliminates their position, revealing it to be of entirely recent origin. Multiple versionism is a new doctrine. It doesn’t have a history in churches.
Much more could be said on this, and even other bad things we are left with, but the mulitple versionists don’t leave Christianity or any of us professing Christians with anything good. It’s all bad. How is believing that God preserved all His Words in the language in which they were written a danger? Isn’t the danger in the doubt? In the uncertainty? Not being sure what the Words are? Isn’t the danger in leaving a historic and biblical position? If the King James Version has all the doctrines and is an overall good translation, what they themselves say, then why not leave it alone? Why pursue it like it is a very strange and unorthodox teaching? Muliple version men don’t leave us with much good, if any at all.
The Embarrassing History of the Doctrine of Preservation for the Multiple Versionists
Is the historical doctrine of preservation an embarrassment to multiple versionists (MV)? I do ask this question in part because one MV recently asked if the preface of the King James Version (KJV) was an embarrassment to King James Onlyists (KJO). The preface is supposed to be embarrassing to someone like myself because the translators wrote that their translation needed to be improved if it could—that’s the gist of it. Thing is, I know that my present KJV (the 1769 Blayney edition) changes the English words some from the 1611. So why would I be embarrassed? I’m still KJO. I’m supposed to be embarrassed. So why am I not embarrassed? Well, because the KJV is the only English translation that comes from its particular original language words. The New King James Version (NKJV) has different words as a basis for its New Testament text (I’ve written about this before here). I’ve pointed out those words to people, and even though it totally debunks that argument, they remain silent about it (reason: they don’t care).
The KJV translators say nothing in their preface about changes in the underlying text. They don’t say, “If you find the actual text of Scripture, then please change the underlying text of what we translated.” Nope. I can’t be embarrassed about that, because it never happened, so I can think about it only in a hypothetical. “If they did say that, would I be embarrassed?” And I still have to admit that I wouldn’t be embarrassed. I’m glad that never happened with the translators, but if it did, I wouldn’t be embarrassed, because my position, my faith, my doctrine, doesn’t come from the King James translators. I don’t even think they generally represent historical Christian doctrine. Some of what some of them believed or taught is orthodox, historical Christian doctrine, but not all.
I guess this comes down to what is actually embarrassing, or what makes us embarrassed. I’ve been ashamed of myself on various occasions. What I hope is shameful or embarrassing to me is when I contradict Scripture with my belief and behavior. For instance, if I stopped believing what God said about the preservation of Scripture and what Christians have believed about it, I would be ashamed of myself. That keeps me from going that direction, even if it would result in having some new found popularity among evangelicals and fundamentalists, and maybe I wouldn’t get made fun of as much as I do. But actually, when I received Jesus Christ, I gave up me for God. As I’ve grown as a Christian, I’ve noticed that the world tries to put pressure on you by attempting to make you feel silly or weird for what you believe and practice. The world uses worldly means and arguments to do so. Strength from the Lord directs and enables me not to be swayed with that kind of technique or manipulation. Often this works, however, which is why Satan and his system keeps doing it.
But all of the above brings me to the proposition that the biblical and historical Christian doctrine of preservation should embarrass evangelicals and fundamentalists about their views and positions. MV should be embarrassed in light of what the Bible teaches and what Christians have believed. MV should be embarrassed that they can’t find their positions in history and that they contradict what the Bible teaches. MV should be embarrassed for their faithlessness, which doesn’t please God. MV should be embarrassed that they have undermined the faith of many, these little children that they have caused to stumble—it would be better that they put a millstone around their neck and throw themselves into deep water, like Christ taught. I would be ashamed to be them. Their position doesn’t stack up with the Bible or with history.
By the way, try to find a presentation from a MV that teaches the Bible and history on preservation. You won’t get developed teaching, anything systematic out of them. They are at their best when they are merely criticizing (and usually just ridiculing) what Christians today write and believe on this subject. They don’t have their own written-out positions though. I’ve tried to get some of them to do it, but as they go to the Bible, they run into some major problems. The Bible contradicts their positions. At most, they are reactionary to what other people believe and practice. Their stuff, however, like the major offerings of old-earth creationists, starts with science, and then attempts to frame Scripture to accommodate their science (so-called).
Now when I bring these things up, like I have with Daniel Wallace, he agrees. He knows his position isn’t historical. He knows his position isn’t what Christians have believed. Kurt Aland knew he didn’t take the biblical and historical position. When I bring the historical part of this, William Combs at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary is silent. He chooses instead to deflect with sarcasm or insults and snide remarks. He is low hanging fruit for all of those himself, but that is not the spiritual weaponry that anyone needs. His use of carnal weapons, including the embarrassment-over-the-preface-of-the-translators argument, indicates that he desperately has little to nothing going for him. He should operate in faith, but he continues in uncertainty and doubt. He ignores the faith of the churches on this issue for the popularity of the society of scholarship, science falsely so-called. It reminds me of the temptation of the church at Corinth to fit in with the various wisdom of the Greek philosophers there, even though it clashed with apostolic doctrine. They denied the bodily resurrection for the mere immortality of the soul, because the former would have meant clashing with the scholars there. All of this should be embarrassing.
What is sad to me is that men are not embarrassed about their clash with a historical and biblical doctrine of preservation of Scripture. My opinion is that they actually are embarrassed, which explains the venom and the anger with which they write. It is sort of like Peter’s anger when he warmed his hands at the fire when he denied Jesus. He was angry. He had to make questions go away and did so with his anger and his language. If you don’t have truth to tell, and the Word is truth, not the preface of the translators, you’ve got to take the strategy that Peter took. The scoffers that Peter wrote about in 2 Peter 2-3 are similar. They have scientific arguments against the second coming of Christ, and Peter said, we’ve got a more sure word of prophecy. The scoffing was there to protect the lifestyle. Men like Wallace and Combs have positions to protect too.
It’s embarrassing to be contradicting Scripture. It looks faithless and weak. I’ve seen men in these positions, when they are on the side of weakness. Instead of actually being strong, they put on a show of strength. That’s what the articles on the preface of the KJV look like to me. They are a giant bluff. It has nothing to add to historic bibliology. These men can’t go to the Bible for their positions, so they have to lean on authority-by-best-quote, something like what occurred with the religious leaders of Jesus’ day. They speak as ones having no authority. It’s embarrassing. It should be. I think it is. Perhaps in what is even more embarrassing, they’ll say, “no, I’m not embarrassed.” Shame on them.
The Actual History of King James Onlyism
King James Only people aren’t obsessed over their history. I haven’t even heard a King James Only person bring up the history of King James Onlyism (KJO). However, the opponents of KJO seem to be very interested and want to be its historians. In the last few months, I heard two versions of KJO history, one from Kevin Bauder (Central Baptist Theological Seminary) and the other from Bill Combs (Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary—pts. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5).
Bauder did not go out of his way to make-up a KJO history. Somebody asked him a question. But Combs went out of his way to write one. I consider myself to be a historian. I’ve taught history for over 20 years. I’ve read a lot of history, both good and bad. To get the correct history, you’ve got to want it. You’ve got to want to be accurate. These guys don’t write like historians. They write like opponents of KJO. What they say and write is supposed to pass as some kind of scholarly treatment of the topic, but it reads like nothing of the kind. When you research and write a real history, especially if you are an opponent, you’re going to get some insight into the analysis, really attempting to get behind it. They don’t do that. Perhaps you’ve heard the term “hack.” It’s someone who demeans someone else for political purposes, churning out something quickly and of a low quality. That’s how Combs’ five-part series reads. No one reading it should see it as the actual history of KJO. It’s a caricature for those with an identical point of view as Combs. He shows zero empathy for what he targets in his assessment.
I understand the point of these men writing a “history” of KJO. They’ve got to make it seem like something recent, like a cult. Setting up the fake history of KJO makes a way for a different narrative, one in which the view of Bauder and Combs, textual criticism, will look historic, as if this is how Christians always believed. They really don’t have a history as of yet, at least one that will make their position look good. So they’ll tell a KJO story, a fictional one, to detract from their lack of a personal one. A “history of KJO” is a red herring to their absence of a history. And it doesn’t matter to them that they have none. What matters is that they can be an orthodox and unquestioned user of multiple versions of Scripture. Multiple-versionism must be seen as normal Christianity and some form of one-Bible-onlyism as extreme and heterodox, leaving them unquestioned. I get it.
Very interesting about the history that Bauder and Combs present is that they contradict each other. Bauder says KJO started in 1930 with a book by a Seventh Day Adventist, Benjamin Wilkinson. Combs says it started in England with Dean Burgon and then spread to America. The Seventh Day Adventist lie is the most popular of the two, because that’s the one told by James White, Douglas Kutilek, and even Wikipedia. It would make me laugh if it weren’t so sad. So Combs is departing from the KJO-history reservation. Perhaps I should be happy that KJO has several more years under its belt with Combs, except that it seems that Combs’ “history” reaches back a little further to swat down Dean Burgon. That way Combs can deal with two separate types of KJO. The Wilkinson history seems to get at Ruckmanism and starting back with Burgon will also repudiate the TR-only brand of KJO. Think of the former as the Southern Revivalist brand and the latter as the D. A. Waite Northern Fundamentalist brand. With Combs new history—his story and he’s stickin’ with it—he can attempt to take down both brands of KJO. Voila.
A good reason to tell the history of KJO now would be to undo what Bauder and Combs, et al., have written. If KJO is new, we should know that too. It’s true that KJO could only be since 1611. That isn’t first century. But KJO really is a corollary position to OBO, that is, one Bible only. That doctrine goes back to the New Testament, just like the doctrine of justification by faith, what some will call a reformation doctrine. KJO isn’t a 20th century or 19th century doctrine. It’s a corollary to the OBO, a first century doctrine. On the other hand, MVO, multiple version only—that’s not New Testament. It wasn’t even invented by Christians. And that’s the doctrine Bauder and Combs wish to defend by making up a fake history of KJO.
A Summary of the Actual History of King James Onlyism
King James Onlyism is a corollary to one-Bible doctrine, like the Roosevelt corollary to the Monroe doctrine. So OBO goes back to the New Testament and the faith once delivered. Scripture teaches an inspired and settled original text to which words were not to be added or from which words were not to be taken away (Rev 22:18-19). New Testament churches and genuine Christians continued to believe that and teach it. It goes back to the first century like justification by faith goes back to the first century. It wasn’t controversial that God gave His people one and only one canon of Words that they received (Jn 17:8). This has been the mindset of God’s people since God revealed every one of His Words and all of them (1 Thess 2:13). God the Spirit of Truth would lead His people to all truth, not just some of it (John 16:13).
When we can get a large enough historical sample size to judge if OBO was where Christians were post-printing press, we find that is how they were continuing to believe and teach. Kurt Aland himself admits this, when he writes:
We can appreciate better the struggle for freedom from the dominance of the Textus Receptus when we remember that in this period it was regarded even to the last detail the inspired and infallible word of God himself.
John Owen represents the above sentiment as he wrote in the 17th century:
The whole Scripture, entire as given out from God, without any loss, is preserved in the copies of the originals yet remaining. . . . In them all, we say, is every letter and tittle of the word.
Without bias, Richard Muller reports the OBO account in volume 2 of his Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics.
OBO entered the post printing press era as the reigning thinking of Christians and then continued that way through the 19th century. OBO thinking affected a KJO thinking. The KJV was referred to, as a norm, as the received version. Harper’s Magazine in 1859 printed the following:
We believe we may safely assume that whatever new translations of Scripture may be made for scholars or private reading, the use of our received version will never be superseded by any other among the people.
OBO and KJO are grass roots. Christians know intuitively and instinctively, as part of their nature, that there is but one Bible, written by God. Since Christians had received under the guidance of the Holy Spirit that one Bible, that should continue as the Bible. This is the very thinking reflected in the historic confessions of genuine Christianity. Those who wrote those confessions thought the same.
Dean Burgon came along to defend the attack on that belief, that thinking. Dean Burgon didn’t start that. Sure, there were men who assigned perfection to the King James Version. But when you say “perfection,” you have to define what that means. It’s an accurate translation of a perfectly preserved text. Some have gone further than that, but all of it comes out of the flow of Christian thinking from New Testament times that there is one God, Who inspired one Bible, and that we would always have that one Bible accessible by means of Divine preservation.
Combs is way, way off base when he writes:
By the 1800s one can find occasional statements by an odd individual here and there arguing for the perfection of the KJV. This was probably bound to happen. When a particular version has nearly universal preeminence and has been in use for a long period, it can easily be ascribed with the qualities of the original language writings (inspiration and infallibility). This is, in fact, what happened when Jerome produced his Latin Vulgate translation ca. A.D. 400. He ran into stiff opposition from those who were used to reading their Bible in the Old Latin manuscripts, which they considered inspired.
The OBO and KJO doctrine and thinking wasn’t and isn’t parallel to the top down Roman Catholic produced Latin Vulgate. That’s entirely a strawman invented in absence of Scriptural presuppositions. Not to be missed is Combs’ language “odd individual here and there.” In 1852, the American Bible Union printed this statement:
The Society declares its adherence to the commonly received version, without correction, and its determination never to aid in its correction directly or indirectly; neither to do the business itself, nor to procure it from others.
Oh yes, “an odd individual here and there.” The Southern Presbyterian Review in 1859 asks:
Does not our Constitution of the American Bible Society mean that we circulate King James’ English Version and that only? Did not the founders and fathers of our society intend to restrict themselves to this in the solemn pledge of the Constitution to circulate only the received version?
More oddness. That sneaky American Bible Society. In 1898 in A History of the Baptists in the Middle States by Henry Vedder, he writes:
At the annual meeting, May 25, 1850, after a discussion that extended through three sessions, it was decided that the society should circulate only the Received version in English, without note or comment. That decision without doubt represented the wish of the great majority of the Baptist denomination at the time, nor was there any considerable change of sentiment at any time thereafter.
Many more of these quotes could be supplied to pile on the agreement with these thoughts. This is the actual History of King Jame Onlyism.
The Pentecostal Doctrine of Faith-Healing and James 5:14-20, part 3
dependent upon the imperative “let them pray” (proseuxa¿sqwsan), the use of medicine, as the oil is here used as a
medical instrument, is required.
Faith Cure advocates and Pentecostals who contend that one must follow
the procedure of James 5:14-15 in healing, but either reject the use
of medicine or affirm that its use is only optional, disobey James 5. Nobody has been led by the Holy Spirit to
reject the use of the best medical means available for healing because of James
5:14-15, since the Spirit required the use of medicine in the passage. Nonetheless, while both prayer and
medicine are enjoined, the emphasis of James is on prayer rather than upon the
medical anointing with oil, since “let them pray” is the specific command and
“anointing” is a subordinate participle.
Sometimes good medical means are not available, but the believer always
can and should pray.
word aleipsantes (‘anoint’) is not the usual word for
sacramental or ritualistic anointing. James could have used the verb chrio if that had been what he had in mind. The distinction
is still observed in modern Greek, with aleipho meaning
‘to daub,’ ‘to smear,’ and chrio
meaning ‘to anoint.’ Furthermore, it is a well-documented fact that oil was one
of the most common medicines of biblical times. See Isaiah 1:6 and Luke 10:34.
Josephus (Antiq. XVII, 172 [vi. 5]) reports that during his last illness Herod
the Great was given a bath in oil in hopes of effecting a cure. The papyri,
Philo, Pliny, and the physician Galen all refer to the medicinal use of oil.
Galen described it as ‘the best of all remedies for paralysis’ (De
Simplicium Medicamentorum Temperamentis 2.10ff). It is evident, then, that
James is prescribing prayer and medicine. . . . In answer to ‘the prayer
offered in faith,’ God uses the medicine to cure the malady” (Expositor’s
Bible Commentary, gen. ed. Frank E.
Gaebelein, on James 5:14-15).
oil specified was olive oil (elaion)
which was freely available . . . [and] was used for dietetic, toilet and
medical purposes. There is no
indication that the oil needed to be specially consecrated fro its use in
anointing the sick. Two different
words are used for the application of oil in the New Testament. Aleipho is the humbler one and usually means to apply oil for
toilet purposes (Matt. 6.17, Luke 7.46).
Chrio is the ritual and
official word for anointing and is used only in the figurative sense of
anointing by God. Here in James
the humbler word is used. . . . [A]n analysis of the usage of the verb aleipho in the New Testament appears to support the medical
view [of James 5:14] rather than the religious one. . . . It is never used in
the gospels of anointing for a religious purpose, but only for toilet or medical
purposes. . . . Anointing with oil . . . was used only for the healing of
physical disease in the New Testament. . . . James was saying that normal
medical methods should be used in the name of the Lord and based on prayer . .
. we may translate [the relevent] clause in verse 14 as ‘Giving him his
medicine in the name of the Lord.’ . . . James held that healing should be a
combination of medical and non-medical methods, and in illustration referrred
to a contemporary medical method of anointing with oil which he said should be
used in the name of the Lord and with prayer. . . . [In] James’ reference to
anointing with oil . . . he is here recommending the employment of both
physical and non-physical methods of healing. . . . [Methods of] medical
healing . . . are God’s gifts to suffering humanity and are to be used in
healing the sick” (pgs. 338-339, 343, “Healing in the Epistle of James,” John
Wilkinson. Scottish Journal of Theology 24 (1971) 326–45).
verb “anoint,” aleipho, appears in Matt 6:17; Mark 6:13; 16:1; Luke 7:38, 46; John 11:2; 12:3;
James 5:14. In all of these texts,
the anointing is not ceremonial, with the sole possible exception of Mark
6:13; but note even on that verse: “Oil was used medicinally in OT times
(Is. 1:6; Jer. 8:22; 51:8) as in other ancient societies, and the action of the
Samaritan in pouring oil and wine on the wounds of the traveller in Jesus’
parable (Lk. 10:34) was probably common practice. It may be, therefore, that
the disciples’ use of oil was purely a pragmatic, medical measure” (The
Gospel of Mark : A Commentary on the Greek Text, R. T. France, on Mark 6:13). Note also in the LXX Ruth 3:3; 2 Samuel 12:20; 14:2; 2 Kings
4:2; 2 Chronicles 28:15; Esther 2:12; Daniel 10:3; Micah 6:15; Judith 16:8
(however, note also Genesis 31:13; Exodus 40:15 (yet also note cri√sma later in the verse); Numbers 3:3). Contrast the ceremonial emphasis in the
New Testament uses of cri÷w: Luke 4:18; Acts 4:27;
10:38; 2 Corinthians 1:21; Hebrews 1:9, an emphasis which is the strongly
dominant use in the LXX (Exodus 28:41; 29:2, 7, 29, 36; 30:26, 30, 32; 40:9–10,
13; Leviticus 4:3; 6:13; 7:36; 8:11–12; 16:32; Numbers 6:15; 7:1, 10, 84, 88;
35:25; Deuteronomy 28:40; Judges 9:8, 15; 1 Samuel 9:16; 10:1; 11:15; 15:1, 17;
16:3, 12–13; 2 Samuel 1:21; 2:4, 7; 5:3, 17; 12:7; 19:11; 1 Kings 1:34, 39, 45;
5:15; 19:15–16; 2 Kings 9:3, 6, 12; 11:12; 23:30; 1 Chronicles 11:3; 14:8;
29:22; 2 Chronicles 23:11; 36:1 Psalm 26:1; 44:8; 88:21; 151:4; Hosea 8:10;
Amos 6:6; Isaiah 25:6; 61:1; Jeremiah 22:14; Ezekiel 16:9; 43:3; Sirach 45:15;
46:13; 48:8), although there are a few exceptions, some of which are only
possibly exceptions, or alternative uses (such as painting a house, Jeremiah
22:14; cf. also Deuteronomy 28:40; Isaiah 25:6; Jeremiah 22:14; Ezekiel 16:9; 44:3;
Judith 10:3). Thus, while it is
true that anointing with oil at times is used to represent the Holy Spirit, one
would expect cri÷w rather than aÓlei÷fw in James 5:14 if pneumatic typology was the intended
emphasis.
examples of the medical use of oil, note in Josephus:
now Herod’s distemper greatly increased upon him after a severe manner, and
this by God’s judgment upon him for his sins: for a fire glowed in him slowly,
which did not so much appear to the touch outwardly as it augmented his pains
inwardly; for it brought upon him a vehement appetite to eating, which he could
not avoid to supply with one sort of food or other. His entrails were also
exulcerated, and the chief violence of his pain lay on his colon; an aqueous
and transparent liquor also settled itself about his feet, and a like matter
afflicted him at the bottom of his belly. Nay, farther, his privy member was
putrified, and produced worms; and when he sat upright he had a difficulty of
breathing, which was very loathsome, on account of the stench of his breath,
and the quickness of its returns; he had also convulsions in all parts of his
body, which increased his strength to an insufferable degree. It was said by
those who pretended to divine, and who were endowed with wisdom to foretell
such things, that God inflicted this punishment on the king on account of his
great impiety; yet was he still in hopes of recovering, though his afflictions
seemed greater than anyone could bear. He also sent for physicians, and did not
refuse to follow what they prescribed for his assistance; and went beyond the
river Jordan, and bathed himself in warm baths that were at Calirrhoe, which,
besides their other general virtues, were also fit to drink; which water runs
into the lake called Asphaltitis. And when the physicians once thought fit to
have him bathed in a vessel full of oil, it was supposed that he was just
dying; but, upon the lamentable cries of his domestics, he revived; and having
no longer the least hopes of recovering, he gave order that every soldier
should be paid fifty drachmae; and he also gave a great deal to their
commanders, and to his friends, and came again to Jericho, where he grew so
choleric, that it brought him to do all things like a madman; and though he
were near his death, he contrived the following wicked designs.
w±n paranomh/seien e˙kprassome÷nou touv qeouv puvr me«n ga»r malakon h™n oujc
w—de pollhn aÓposhmai√non toi√ß e˙pafwme÷noiß thn flo/gwsin oJpo/shn toi√ß
e˙ntoß proseti÷qei thn ka¿kwsin
169 e˙piqumi÷a de« deinh touv de÷xasqai÷ ti aÓp∆ aujtouv ouj ga»r h™n
mh oujc uJpourgei√n kai« eºlkwsiß tw◊n te e˙nte÷rwn kai« ma¿lista touv ko/lou
deinai« aÓlghdo/neß kai« fle÷gma uJgron peri« touß po/daß kai« diauge÷ß
paraplhsi÷a de« kai« peri« to h™tron ka¿kwsiß h™n nai« mhn kai« touv
ai˙doi÷ou shvyiß skw¿lhkaß e˙mpoiouvsa pneu/mato/ß te ojrqi÷a e¶ntasiß kai«
aujth li÷an aÓhdhß aÓcqhdo/ni te thvß aÓpofora◊ß kai« twˆ◊ puknwˆ◊ touv
a‡sqmatoß e˙spasme÷noß te peri« pa◊n h™n me÷roß i˙scun oujc uJpomenhthn
prostiqe÷menoß. 170 e˙le÷geto ou™n uJpo tw◊n qeiazo/ntwn kai« oi–ß tauvta
proapofqe÷ggesqai sofi÷aˆ pro/keitai poinhn touv pollouv dussebouvß tau/thn oJ
qeoß ei˙spra¿ssesqai para» touv basile÷wß 171 kai÷per de« meizo/nwß h£ aÓnti÷scoi a‡n tiß
talaipwrou/menoß e˙n e˙lpi÷di touv aÓnasfalouvntoß h™n i˙atrou/ß te metape÷mpwn
kai« oJpo/sa aÓrwga» uJpagoreu/seian crhvsqai mh aÓpotetramme÷noß potamo/n te
pera¿saß ∆Iorda¿nhn qermoi√ß toi√ß kata» Kallirro/hn auJton paredi÷dou a‚per
sun thØv e˙ß pa¿nta aÓrethØv kai« po/tima¿ e˙stin e¶xeisin de« to u¢dwr
touvto ei˙ß li÷mnhn thn aÓsfaltofo/ron legome÷nhn 172 kaÓntauvqa toi√ß i˙atroi√ß dokhvsan wJ/ste aÓnaqa¿lpein
aujto/n kaqeqei«ß ei˙ß pu/elon ple÷wn e˙lai÷ou do/xan metasta¿sewß e˙nepoi÷hsen
aujtoi√ß tw◊n de« oi˙ketw◊n oi˙mwghØv crwme÷nwn perienegkw»n kai« mhd∆ h¢ntina
aÓmfi« touv swqhsome÷nou e˙lpi÷da e¶cwn toi√ß stratiw¿taiß aÓna» penth/konta
dracma»ß e˚ka¿stwˆ keleu/ei nemhqhvnai
173 polla» de« kai« toi√ß hJgemo/sin aujtw◊n kai« fi÷loiß toi√ß aujtouv
e˙dwrei√to kai« parhvn au™qiß e˙pi« ÔIericouvntoß me÷laina¿ te aujton hØ¢rei
colh e˙pi« pa◊sin e˙xagriai÷nousa wJ/ste dh teleutw◊n pra◊xin toia¿nde
e˙pinoei√. (Antiquities 17:168-173)
Josephus recorded concerning the death of Herod:
this, the distemper seized upon his whole body, and greatly disordered all its
parts with various symptoms; for there was a gentle fever upon him, and an
intolerable itching over all the surface of his body, and continual pains in
his colon, and dropsical tumors about his feet and an inflammation of the
abdomen,—and a putrefication of his privy member, that produced worms. Besides
which he had a difficulty of breathing upon him, and could not breathe but when
he sat upright, and had a convulsion of all his members; insomuch that the
diviners said those diseases were a punishment upon him for what he had done to
the rabbis. Yet did he struggle with his numerous disorders, and still had a
desire to live, and hoped for recovery, and considered of several methods of
cure. Accordingly, he went over Jordan, and made use of those hot baths at
Callirrhoe, which run into the lake Asphaltitis, but are themselves sweet
enough to be drank. And here the physicians thought proper to bathe his whole
body in warm oil, by letting it down into a large vessel full of oil; whereupon
his eyes failed him, and he came and went as if he were dying, and as a tumult
was then made by his servants, at their voice he revived again. Yet did he
after this despair of recovery, and gave orders that each soldier should have
fifty drachmae apiece, and that his commanders and friends should have great
sums of money given them.
pa¿qesin e˙meri÷zeto puretoß me«n ga»r h™n ouj la¿broß knhsmoß de« aÓfo/rhtoß
thvß e˙pifanei÷aß o¢lhß kai« ko/lou sunecei√ß aÓlghdo/neß peri÷ te touß po/daß
wJ/sper uJdrwpiw◊ntoß oi˙dh/mata touv te h¡trou flegmonh kai« dh ai˙doi÷ou
shpedw»n skw¿lhkaß gennw◊sa proß tou/toiß ojrqo/pnoia kai« du/spnoia kai«
spasmoi« pa¿ntwn tw◊n melw◊n wJ/ste touß e˙piqeia¿zontaß poinhn ei•nai tw◊n
sofistw◊n ta» nosh/mata le÷gein 657 oJ de« palai÷wn tosou/toiß pa¿qesin o¢mwß touv
zhvn aÓntei÷ceto swthri÷an te h¡lpizen kai« qerapei÷aß e˙peno/ei diaba»ß gouvn
ton ∆Iorda¿nhn toi√ß kata» Kallirro/hn e˙crhvto qermoi√ß tauvta d∆ e¶xeisi
me«n ei˙ß thn ∆Asfalti√tin li÷mnhn uJpo gluku/thtoß d∆ e˙sti« kai« po/tima
do/xan de« e˙ntauvqa toi√ß i˙atroi√ß e˙lai÷wˆ qermwˆ◊ pa◊n aÓnaqa¿lyai to
sw◊ma calasqe«n ei˙ß plh/rh pu/elon e˙klu/ei kai« touß ojfqalmouß wJß
teqnew»ß aÓne÷streyen 658 qoru/bou de« tw◊n qerapeuo/ntwn genome÷nou
proß me«n thn fwnhn aÓnh/negken ei˙ß de« to loipon aÓpognouß thn
swthri÷an toi√ß te stratiw¿taiß aÓna» penth/konta dracma»ß e˙ke÷leusen
dianei√mai kai« polla» crh/mata toi√ß hJgemo/si kai« toi√ß fi÷loiß. (War
1:656-658)
wrote:
juice pressed out of the fruit of the olive? For that softens the limbs, and
relieves the labour of the body, and produces a good condition of the flesh;
and if anything has got relaxed or flabby, it binds it again, and makes it firm
and solid, and it fills us with vigour and strength of muscle, no less than any
other unguent.
karpouv ple÷on e¶dei zhtei√n proß aÓlei÷mmata; kai« ga»r leai÷nei kai«
ka¿maton sw¿matoß lu/ei kai« eujsarki÷an e˙mpoiei√, ka·n ei¶ ti kecalasme÷non
ei¶h, sfi÷ggei pukno/thti kai« oujdenoß h∞tton e˚te÷rou ÔRw¿mhn kai«
eujtoni÷an e˙nti÷qhsin. (Dreams 2:58)
in his Natural History
23:39-53 discusses in detail the “medicinal properties of the various kinds of
oil,” commenting on olive oil, green oil, castor oil, almond oil, laurel oil,
myrtle oil, cypress oil, citrus oil, walnut oil, oil of balsamum, radish oil,
sesame oil, palm oil, and many other types of oil, whether fresh or aged. His discussion underscores the very
significant medicinal use of oil in ancient medicine—sometimes in accordance
with what God has enabled science to verify experimentally today, and sometimes
not.
Patristic references to the medicinal use
of oil include: “Antony, the great monk . . . rejected the practice of
anointing with oil, and the use of baths and of similar luxuries likely to
relax the tension of the body by moisture.” (Ecclesiastical History, Sozomen, Book 1:13); “Or what castle or house is beautiful
and serviceable when it has not been anointed? And what man, when he enters
into this life or into the gymnasium, is not anointed with oil? And what work
has either ornament or beauty unless it be anointed and burnished?” (Theophilus
of Antioch, Theophilus to Autolychus Book 1:12). Compare
also the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Kittell, on aÓlei÷fw.
Lightfoot records the following material
concerning medical anointing with oil from Jewish sources:
mingle wine and oil, and to anoint the sick on the sabbath. And he was once sick, and we sought to
do so to him, but he suffered us not.” [Talm. Jerus. In Berachoth, fol. 3, col.
1]
tradition. Anointing on the
sabbath is permitted. If his head
ache, or if a scall come upon it, he anoints with oil.” [Id. In Maazar Sheni,
fol. 53, col. 3
he be sick, or a scall be upon his head, he anoints according to the manner.”
[Talm. Bab. In Joma, fol. 77, 2.]
application to the sick. . . . Now if we take the apostle’s counsel, as
referring to this medical practice, we may construe it, that he would have this
physical administration to be improved to the best advantage; namely, that whereas ‘anointing with
oil’ was ordinarily used to the sick, by way of physic—he adviseth that they
should send for the elders of the church to do it; not that the anointing was any more in their hand, than in
another’s, as to the thing itself, for it was still but a physical
application—but that they, with the applying of this corporal phsyic, might
also pray with and fro the patient, and apply the spiritual physic of good
admonition and comforts to him.
Which is much the same, as if . . . . a sick person should send for the
minister at taking of any physic, that he might pray with him, and counsel and
comfort him. . . . [The] [A]postle, seeing anointing was an ordinary and good
physic . . . directs them . . . to get the elders, or ministers of the church,
to come tot the sick, and to add, to the medical anointing of him, their godly
and ferbent prayers for him[.] (Pg. 316, The Whole Works of John Lightfoot, vol. 3, John Lightfoot, ed. John Rodgers Pitman. London: J. F. Dove, 1832.)
further evidence of the sort set forth by Lightfoot.
is very noteworthy that the recorded and commended uses of oil for medicinal
purposes in the Bible are those for which there is a rational scientific
purpose (Luke 10:34; Isaiah 1:6, etc.).
The medically questionable or harmful uses that are mixed into
discussions such as that of Pliny are not commended in the Bible.
The Pentecostal Doctrine of Faith-Healing and James 5:14-20, part 2
prayer of faith”[i] is a
specific,[ii]
Divinely enabled and energized[iii]
petition for healing, for the person to be healed and raised up from his bed of
sickness.[iv] As faith is a gift from God
(Philippians 1:29; James 1:17-18), so when a particular healing is in the will
of God, the Lord can enable the sick person, the elders, or the church to
present the prayer of faith to Him, giving them belief that this specific
healing is His will (cf. Matthew 21:22; Mark 11:24), and then answering their
Divinely-produced faith. Only when
healing is God’s will, giving Him greater glory and bringing a greater benefit
to the sick believer than the spiritual strengthening that comes through trial
(James 1:2-3, 12) does the Holy Spirit enable any group or individual among the
saints to offer the prayer of faith, one free from any doubt (cf. James 1:6),
for healing. The prayer of faith
cannot be offered by Christians simply convincing themselves that a particular
healing is going to take place—supernaturally produced faith must undergird the
prayer, and such faith is only at times, not all the time, produced by God in
accordance with His will.
James 5:14-15 does not specify that the healing is miraculous. Whenever a person recovers from
illness, whenever he is enabled to arise from a sickness that had left him
bedridden, it is truly affirmed that the healing comes from the Lord and that
it was the Lord who raised the sick one up (James 5:15). Nothing in James 5 requires that the
healing be miraculous any more than the promise that the Lord gives wisdom to
those who ask Him for it requires the performance of a miracle (James
1:5). Indeed, James does not speak
of healing through the sign gift of miraculous healing that was limited to
certain Christians (1 Corinthians 12:9, 28, 30), but of healing in answer to
prayer that could be offered by any Christian (James 5:16) without any regard
for miraculous gifts. When
Epaphroditus was sick, and was not miraculously healed, but recovered through
the less dramatic means that God uses to cure the overwhelming majority of
non-fatal illnesses, Paul could still affirm that Epaphroditus’ recovery was
because “God had mercy on him” (Philippians 2:27). James 5:14-15 does not limit God to the exertion of
miraculous power in His work in delivering the sick—James recognizes that every
good and perfect gift, including recovery from sickness through non-miraculous
means, comes from the Father (James 1:17). When God answers prayer and a sick believer recovers,
whether because of a special supernatural intervention or through the
mechanisms the Creator has placed within the human body, sustained by the
strength of Him in whom we live and move and have our being (Acts 17:28;
Colossians 1:17) and because of His gracious Divine decree for the restoration
of physical health (Ephesians 1:11), it is true that the Lord was the One who
healed and raised up the sick. God
heals, when in accordance with His loving will and in answer to the Divinely-enabled
prayer of His obedient people, He uses medicine to cure maladies. James 5:14-15 never specifies that the
healings in question were miraculous, instantaneous, or in other ways identical
in character to the miraculous healings Christ and the Apostles performed—both
on those with faith and on those without faith—as signs to validate their
Divine authority.
the “anointing . . . with oil” of James 5:14 actually requires the
use of medicine, rather than prayer alone, for the healing of the sick. The use of oil for healing was accepted
medical procedure at the time, and James commends the use of medical means with
his reference to anointing with oil. The verb to anoint in
James 5:14 is not the verb expected for ceremonial anointing, but a general
anointing that would include the use of oil for physical and psychological
well-being. The oil is to refresh,
strengthen, and heal the body through the natural means God has created in the
physical realm. The good
Samaritan, to assist physically the wounded man in the Lord’s parable, “went to
him, and bound up his wounds,
pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an
inn, and took care of him” (Luke 10:34).[v] “[W]ounds, and bruises, and putrifying
sores” are to be “closed . . .
bound up . . . [and] mollified with ointment [oil][vi]” (Isaiah
1:6). The “balm in Gilead” was for
use by the “physician” so that “health” might be “recovered” (Jeremiah
8:22). Extrabiblical literature
contains abundant references of a similar nature to the medicinal use of
oil. The evidence for the
medicinal use of oil in James 5, and its use outside of Scripture as a
medicine, will be examined, Lord willing, in following posts.
The
use of the words eujch/ and eu¡comai for prayer in 5:15-16 supports the character of the
prayer in question as a specific petition, here for healing (cf. the use of the
words for a specific vow). Other
words for prayer are much more
common. The noun eujch/ appears in the New Testament in Acts 18:18; 21:23;
James 5:15, and in the LXX in Genesis 28:20; 31:13; Leviticus 7:16; 22:21, 23,
29; 23:38; 27:2; Numbers 6:2, 4–9, 12–13, 18–19, 21; 15:3, 8; 21:2; 29:39;
30:3–15; Deuteronmy 12:6, 17, 26; 23:19, 22; Judges 11:30, 39; 1 Samuel 1:11,
21; 2:9; 2 Samuel 15:7–8; Job 11:17; 16:17; 22:27; Psalm 21:26; 49:14; 55:13; 60:6, 9; 64:2; 65:13; 115:9;
Proverbs 7:14; 15:8, 29; 19:13; 31:2; Ecclesiastes 5:3; Isaiah 19:21; Jeremiah
11:15; Daniel 6:6, 8, 13; Jonah 1:16; Nahum 2:1; Malachi 1:14; 1 Esdras 2:4, 6;
4:43, 46; 5:52; 8:57; Judith 4:14; 2 Maccabees 3:35; 15:26; Ode 3:9; Sirach
18:22; Baruch 6:34. The verb eu¡comai appears in the New Testament in Acts 26:29; 27:29;
Romans 9:3; 2 Corinthians 13:7, 9; James 5:16; 3 John 1:2, and in the LXX in
Genesis 28:20; 31:13; Exodus 8:4–5, 24–26; 9:28; 10:18; Leviticus 27:2, 8;
Numbers 6:2, 5, 13, 18–21; 11:2; 21:2, 7; 30:3–4, 10; Deuteronomy 9:20, 26;
12:11, 17; 23:22–24; Judges 11:30, 39; 1 Samuel 1:11; 2:9; 2 Samuel 15:7–8; 2
Kings 20:2; Job 22:27; 33:26; 42:8, 10; Psalm 75:12; 131:2; Proverbs 20:25;
Ecclesisastes 5:3–4; Isaiah 19:21; Jeremiah 7:16; 22:27; Daniel 6:6, 8, 12–14;
Jonah 1:16; 2:10; 1 Esdras 4:43–46; 5:43, 52; 8:13, 49; 2 Maccabees 3:35; 9:13;
12:44; 15:27; 4 Maccabees 4:13; Ode 3:9; 6:10; Wisdom 7:7; Sirach 18:23; 34:24;
38:9 Baruch 1:5; 6:34. The usage
in both the New Testament and the Greek Old Testament and Apocrypha supports
the sense of a specific petition in James 5:15-16.
hJ eujch
thvß pi÷stewß is characterized at the end
of James 5:16 as a de÷hsiß, an “urgent request to meet
a need, exclusively addressed to God, prayer,” used “to denote a more specific supplication” than “proseuch/, the more general term” (BDAG). “proseuch/ [is] . . . prayer in general, de÷hsiß [is] . . . prayer for particular benefits” (pg. 188, Synonyms
of the New Testament,
Trench).
That
is, in 5:16 e˙nergoume÷nh is passive, referring to a prayer the believer is
enabled to pray by the Holy Spirit, a de÷hsiß . . . e˙nergoume÷nh, v. 16. Compare
e˙nerge÷w in Philippians 2:13; Colossians 1:29.
hJ eujch thvß pi÷stewß
sw¿sei ton ka¿mnonta, kai« e˙gerei√ aujton oJ Ku/rioß. sw¿sei is here used
for physical salvation or deliverance of the sick one (ton ka¿mnonta), and e˙gerei√ refers
to being “raised up” from the sickbed (cf. Mark 1:31; Luke 5:24-25; Proverbs
6:9, LXX).
good Samaritan used oil and wine to treat the wounds of the injured man (Lk
10:34). Because of its alcoholic content, the wine would have an antiseptic
action, but at the same time would tend to coagulate the surface of the raw
wound and permit bacteria to thrive under the coagulum. The oil, by its
emollient effect, would tend to nullify this latter undesirable side effect of
wine and would also be soothing due to its coating action. A dressing was then
applied, and the patient was taken to a resting place” (pg. 1430, Baker
Encyclopedia of the Bible, W. A.
Elwell & B. J. Beitzel. Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1988).
“[O]live oil and wine . . . were the provender that the Samaritan had
with him on his journey. A mixture of them for medicinal purposes is known from
Theophrastus, Hist. plant. 9.11,
and from the later rabbinic tradition (m. Šabb. 19:2). In the OT
olive oil is said to be a softener of wounds (Isa 1:6); elsewhere in the NT it
is used to anoint the sick (Mark 6:13; Jas 5:14). The acidic nature of wine
would serve as an antiseptic” (pgs. 887-888, The Gospel According to Luke
X-XXIV, J. A. Fitzmyer, on Luke
10:24).
Revival, believer’s baptism, and personal conversion vs. baptismal regeneration and traditional Reformed theology
Revival, believer’s baptism, and the need for personal conversion, and justification by faith alone apart from sacraments are very closely connected, as are baptismal regeneration, traditional Reformed theology, and opposition to revival. Rich Lusk, a high-church Presbyterian who accepts Calvin’s doctrine of baptismal regeneration and consequently rejects the Biblical and Baptist necessity of personal conversion, as well as the value of revival, powerfully describes what he believes is the unfortunate connection between revival, experimental religion, and the decline of infant baptism in his well documented essay, “Paedobaptism and Baptismal Efficacy: Historic Trends and Current Controversies” (Pgs. 71-125, Chapter 3 of The Federal Vision, ed. Steve Wilkins & Duane Garner. Monroe, LA: Athanasisus Press, 2004). Lusk writes:
America became progressively “baptist” on a massive scale in the early-to-mid nineteenth century. . . . [T]he loss of paedobaptism [was closely connected with] experiential Revivalism[.] . . . [T]he experientialism of Puritanism (which was only exacerbated by revivalism) eventually overthrew the Calvinistic principle of the church membership of children. . . . As baptism degenerated into a “mere ceremony” . . . New England Congregationalism continually lost members to newly formed Baptist churches. . . . Charles Hodge . . . [u]sing statistics provided by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church . . . pointed out that from 1812 onward, the number of children being brought for baptism was radically declining in relation to the overall number of communicants. In 1811, there had been 20 paedobaptisms per 100 communicants; by 1856, the ration was just over 5 per hundred. . . . Hodge reported a similar downgrade was occurring in other ostensibly Reformed denominations. The Dutch Reformed ration was only slightly better than the Presbyterian in 1856, at around 7 paedobaptisms per hundred communicants. Things were even worse in other bodies. The New School Presbyterians were leaving six out of seven children unbaptized. Paedobaptism was so rare among the Congregationalists by the mid-1850s that Hodge could truthfully claim, “in the Congregational churches in New England, infant baptism is, beyond doubt, dying out.” Only the high church Episcopalians [who believed in baptismal regeneration and rejected revival] seemed unaffected by the trend. . . . [T]he 50 year period of decline Hodge traced out coincides, more or less, with the institutionalization of Revivalism in American Christianity. . . . The revivals of the Second Great Awakening totally restructured American religious life in radical fashion. . . . The doctrines of God’s sovereignty and predestination [as Calvin understood them] . . . were jettisoned[.] . . . Paedobaptism also fell into disfavor since it . . . imposed a religious identity on an unwilling subject. Personal choice was exalted. . . . [T]he revivals focused on the immediacy of religious experience, to the exclusion of traditional means of grace [that is, sacramental grace]. . . . [I]t is easy to see that paedobaptism would fit very awkwardly into such a religious matrix. . . . Instead of “growing up Christian” under continual covenant nurture, children were expected to undergo their own “conversion experience” at the appropriate age. . . . A conscious conversion experience from enmity to friendship with God was looked upon as the only way of entrance into the kingdom. . . . Infants, it was thought, needed new birth, as well as adults. They could not be saved without it. But the only channel of the new birth which was recognized was a conscious experience of conviction and conversion. Anything else, according to Gilbert Tennent, was a fiction of the brain, a delusion of the devil. In fact, he ridiculed the idea that one could be a Christian without knowing the time when he was otherwise. . . . Obviously, revivalism was no friend of covenant children. . . . The experiential rigor of Puritanism and revivalism . . . seemed like a safeguard against merely “nominal” membership in the churches . . . As adult-like credentials for conversion and full membership were pressed more and more, infant baptism became an increasingly tenuous practice, until it finally gave out altogether. . . . [T]he rise of the Baptist movement, with its individualistic approach to the faith and its voluntaristic ecclesiology . . . [made] [i]nfant baptism . . . preposterous on such presuppositions. . . . [I]nfant baptism [declined as] baptistic principles of church membership [became] the essence of true religion. . . . [T]hese views eroded the traditional Catholic and Reformation view that God acts to accomplish God’s purposes through sacraments. The desacralizing tendencies played down God’s role in the sacraments . . . [Such] influence[s] . . . reshaped the way some conservative Presbyterians read their . . . Reformed confessions . . . [c]ertainl[y] the sacraments could not be viewed as powerful, saving actions of God. . . . The [alleged] mystery of God’s activity through these physical instruments could not be allowed to saint. Any view of sacramental efficacy came to be regarded as “magic.” The sacraments were viewed [instead] as visual teaching aids. . . . In short, then, . . . the sacraments are basically treated as human acts of piety[.] . . . Their value is completely subjective—they help us remember divine truth, profess our faith, stir up emotions, and so forth . . . they cannot be regarded as genuine means of saving grace, for God’s grace is not actually found in the lowly natural elements of water, bread, and wine. In such a context, the sacraments obviously cannot belong to infants in any true sense since infants cannot perform the requisite acts or experience the proper emotions. . . . Given the push and pull of Revivalism . . . perhaps the wonder is not so much that paedobaptism declined in America . . . but that it survived at all. . . . [Lack of interest in sacramental theology . . . became a distinctive feature of American religiosity. . . . Some Southern Presbyterians had severely degraded the meaning of baptism, so that baptized infants were not regarded as genuine church members, much less recipients of salvific blessings in union with Christ. Presbyterian giant James Henry Thornwell regarded baptized covenant children as enemies of the cross of Christ and under church censure until they made a mature and experience-based profession of faith. . . . For Thornwell, “covenant” children stood condemned until they passed revivalism’s test of an experiential conversion and . . . [made] an articulated, cognitive profession of faith. . . . A credobaptist victory was virtually inevitable unless strong views of baptismal grace were recovered. . . . [T]he real issue underlying the loss of infant baptism was the loss of baptismal efficacy . . . infant baptism presupposes an objective force in the sacrament itself . . . [that] children . . . were made Christians at the font. . . . Apart from an efficacious view of baptism, the question “Why baptize infants?” became progressively more difficult to answer coherently. The credobaptists won the day[.]
In a passage by Thornwell quoted by Lusk, as representative of Presbyterian baptismal theology affected by revival, Thornwell wrote:
[I]n heart and spirit th[ose] [who have received infant baptism] are of the world. In this aspect, how is [the church] to treat them? Precisely as she treats all other impenitent and unbelieving men—she is to exercise the power of the keys, and shut them out from the communion of the saints. She is to debar them from all the privileges of the inner sanctuary. She is to exclude them from their inheritance until they show themselves meet to possess it. By her standing exclusion of them from the Lord’s table, and of their children from the ordinance of Baptism, she utters a solemn protest against their continued impenitence, and acquits herself of all participation in their sins. It is a standing censure. Their spiritual condition is one that is common with the world. She deals with them, therefore, in this respect, as the Lord has directed her to deal with the world. . . . Is not their whole life a continued sin? Are not their very righteousnesses abominable before God? Repentance to them is not the abandonment of this or that vice; it is the renunciation of the carnal heart, which is enmity against God: and, until they are renewed in spirit and temper of their minds, they can do nothing which the Church is at liberty to approve as done by them. . . . As of the world they are included in the universal sentence of exclusion, which bars the communion of saints against the impenitent and profane. They are sharers in its condemnation. They are put, as impenitent, upon the same footing with all others that are impenitent. As rejectors of Christ, they are kept aloof from the table of the Lord, and debarred from all the rights and privileges of the saints. Their impenitence determines the attitude of the Church towards them; for God has told her precisely what that attitude should be to all who obey not the Gospel. What more can be required? Are they not dealt with, in every respect, according to their quality? . . . Is it not equally clear that their condition, as slaves, determines their treatment in all other respects, until they are prepared to pass the test which changes their status? Is not this precisely the state of things with the Church and baptized unbelievers? Are they not the slaves of sin and of the Devil, existing in a free Commonwealth for the purpose of being educated to the liberty of the saints? . . . But until they come to Him, [Scripture] distinctly teaches that they are to be dealt with as the Church deals with the enemies of God. (pgs. 341-348, The Collected Writings of James Henley Thornwell, James H. Thornwell, vol. 4: Ecclesiastical. Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1986)
Thornwell’s views are set in contrast by Lusk with the view of baptismal salvation found in traditional Reformed theology, as presented, for example, by “John Williamson Nevin . . . [who sought] . . . along with . . . Philip Schaff . . . [in] the Mercersburg movement . . . to maintain the traditional ecclesial and sacramental theology of classic Calvinism” (pgs. 85-86, The Federal Vision). Nevin wrote:
If the sacraments are regarded as in themselves outward rites only, that can have no value or force except as the grace they represent is made to be present by the subjective exercises of the worshipper, it is hard to see on what ground infants, who are still without knowledge or faith, should be admitted to any privilege of the sort [quoted from pgs. 237-238, Romanticism in American Theology, Nichols] . . . [T]he Baptists . . . refuse to baptize infants, on the ground that they have no power to repent and believe in Christ, so as to be the subjects of that inward spiritual conversion of which baptism is the profession and sign, and without which it can have no meaning. What conclusion, indeed, can well be more logical, if we are to believe that there is no objective power, no supernatural grace, in the sacrament itself[?] . . . It belongs on the old order of thinking on the subject, as we have it in . . . Chrysostom and the Christian fathers generally, which made baptism to be the sacrament of a real regeneration by the power of the Holy Ghost into the family of God. Why then should it [paedobaptism] be given up, along with this [baptismal regeneration], as an obsolete superstition? It is becoming but too plain, that the Paedobaptist part of the so-called Evangelical Christianity of the present day is not able to hold its ground steadily, at this pint, against the Baptist wing of the same interest. The Baptistic sentiment grows and spreads in every direction. [Pgs. 214-215, “The Old Doctrine of Baptism,” John Nevin, Mercersburg Review, April 1860.] . . . On this subject of baptismal grace, then, we will enter into no compromise with the anti-liturgical theology we have now in hand. . . . It is impossible . . . to establish the necessity of infant baptism, except upon the ground that baptism imparts a special grace. . . . [Revivalistic Presbyterianism is therefore] hostile to infant baptism . . . in reality, whatever it may be in profession . . . and unfriendly, therefore, to the whole idea . . . it has been based upon in the Reformed church from the beginning. . . . To what a pass things have already come in this respect throughout our country, by reason of the baptistic spirit which is among us . . . [t]hose who have eyes to see, can see for themselves. [Pgs. 399-400, “Vindication of the Revised Liturgy: Historical and Theological,” John Williamson Nevin, in Catholic and Reformed: Selected Historical Writings of John Williamson Nevin, ed. Charles Yrigoyen, Jr. & George H. Bricker. Pittsburgh, PA: Pickwick Press, n. d.]
The true gospel of justification by faith alone, the practice of believer’s baptism as an ordinance, not a sacrament, and revival are intimately connected, as are baptismal regeneration, traditional Reformed theology, and infant baptism. Let the friends of Christ’s gospel and of historic Baptist churches take note.
–TDR
The Connection Between One’s World View and the Version Issue
Several days ago I wrote a post about logic and King James Onlyism in answer to a critic at another blog. After writing that, someone a few days later wrote a whole post attacking the one I had written. Very few King James supporters wander over there because of the juvenile nature of the major contributors. But someone emailed me to give me the heads-up about the post, so I knew about it. Several thoughts resulted from my venture over to that site, which is operated by a former teacher in our school who we fired for numbers of reasons (believe me, you would have fired him too if you knew the reasons—he was no martyr), and shortly thereafter (after also departing our church) he decided he believed drastically different on about five major doctrinal categories, a reformation that conveniently moved him into a new realm of fellowship and friendship from those who before knew him and to whom he was accountable. One could easily see what benefits he might think he could derive from attacking and criticizing those in his former life in order to discredit them and elevate himself. His new associates have gone right along for the ride.
Scripture presents one view. It’s God’s view. A view which contrasts with God’s is to be rejected, not appreciated. In an area in which God has spoken, there is not peace between contrasting points of view.
This corresponds to versionism. The worst enemy of multi-versions is one version. You just can’t say there is one Bible—that can’t be for the multi-versionist—when there really is only one Bible, like there is one God and one truth.
We live in an era where truth itself is being attacked. The way to combat that is not by allowing for the idea of more than one Bible. Truth depends on one authority, and it is the Bible, the one Bible.
In a pluralistic society, like the United States, two people or two sides can take opposing points of view. We have that freedom. But in a pluralistic society, each side doesn’t have to like the other view or to treat it with respect. It’s possible as well that civil discourse can occur between the two sides. However, both are not true, and the error often has eternal consequences.
Recent Comments