Home » Posts tagged 'bibliology'
Tag Archives: bibliology
How Evangelicals Now Move the Goalposts on Bibliology (part three)
Somebody kicked a field goal from the fifty yard line. That’s a sixty yard field goal, except that someone moved the goalposts to the thirty. In the same manner, evangelicals say, “This is scriptural bibliology,” but it isn’t. The goalposts were moved. Evangelism has moved on bibliology, first on the doctrine of inspiration.
Ipsissima Verba and Ipsissima Vox
Precise Words
Ipsissima verba, Latin, means, “the precise words.” On the other hand, ipsissima vox is more Latin, meaning, “the very voice.” Ipsissima verba says that the words of Jesus in the gospels were recorded verbatim. Vox says that the gospels capture the concepts of what Jesus said.
Vox says that when the gospels say, “Jesus said,” these are not necessarily the words of Christ. He probably didn’t say them according to many evangelicals, just the essence or general content of what He said. The gospels say, “Jesus said,” 65 times. Many times, speaking of Jesus, in the gospels, “the Lord said.” Sometimes, literally the gospels say, “these words spake Jesus.”
Who dares say that Jesus did no speak the words that scripture says He spoke? The Holy Spirit would not inspire a “Jesus said” and not provide the very words of Jesus. Matthew 24:35 says:
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
That statement by Jesus about His own Words is false if the gospels do not record His Words. Several years ago now, a blogpost here said:
God’s people must hear the Words of the Son (John 12:47), receive His Words (John 12:48; 17:8), keep His Words (John 14:23), have His Words abiding in them (John 15:7) and remember His Words as from the Father (John 14:10).
Concepts
Daniel Wallace in his “An Apologia for a Broad View of Ipsissima Vox,” paper presented to the 51st Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Danvers, Mass., November 1999, wrote:
[T]he concepts go back to Jesus, but the words do not—at least, not exactly as recorded.
I wrote these lines on this blog in the not too distant past:
His colleague, Darrell Bock, wrote a chapter in Jesus Under Fire [ed. Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995):73-99], defending the vox position, entitled, “The Words of Jesus in the Gospels: Live, Jive, or Memorex.” Bock’s chapter tries to defend the historical reliability of the Gospel writing of Jesus’ Words from the destructive criticism of the Jesus Seminar. He writes, “The Gospels give us the true gist of his teaching and the central thrust of his message,” but “we do not have ‘his very words’ in the strictest sense of the term”. . . .
Wallace and Bock approach Jesus’ Words in the Gospels from a naturalistic viewpoint. The apostles forgot the Words like historians often do and so presented the Words the best they could, considering their shortcomings.
Verbal Inspiration
Donald Green in an essay on this subject, published in The Master’s Seminary Journal (Spring 2001), wrote:
Jesus’ promise of the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit placed the Gospel writers in a different realm in which different standards of memory would be operative. They would be supernaturally enabled to recall Jesus’ words in a manner that freed them from the human limitations of secular historians.
The great high priestly prayer of the Lord Jesus Christ in John 17, begins with the words: “These words spake Jesus.” Ipsissima verba, a high view of scripture, says that Jesus said these very words in His prayer to His Father. Later in the prayer itself, Jesus says in verse 8:
I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them.
This is what Jesus says, that He has given to the New Testament writers through inspiration very words, not just concepts or ideas.
Redaction Criticism
Is redaction criticism acceptable or accommodated by evangelicals? Timothy Berg, a member of an evangelical group called the textual confidence collective, says, “Yes.” Redaction criticism says that several biblical authors were very often if not most often mere editors of source material. This clashes with the doctrine of verbal, plenary inspiration. Berg in an article, “Matthew 5:17-20 and the KJV,” published on his kjbhistory.com website, writes:
It would be irresponsible to deal with any text in Matthew without at least briefly mentioning the synoptic problem and its relation to the exegesis of the text. While there are some recent dissenting voices, the majority of evangelical scholarship today holds to Marcan priority. That is, that Mark wrote first, and that Matthew and Luke independently used Mark. Further, because Matthew and Luke have a large amount of material that they share in common yet which is not present in Mark, it is likely that they had both had access to a source Mark was unaware of. This source is referred to as “Q.”
He writes then specifically about Matthew 5:18:
The passage at hand in verse 18 is clearly “Q” material, or material which Matthew and Luke draw from a common source unknown to Mark. It is worth noting how Matthew has uniquely shaped this material for his Jewish audience.
Redaction criticism says that biblical authors reworked an already written text, taking it and putting it somewhat in their own words. This is not either a biblical or historical view of the doctrine of inspiration. It acquiesces to modernism or theological liberalism in a denial of verbal inspiration.
More to Come
The Capitulation on the Biblical Doctrine of the Perfect Preservation of Scripture
Does the Bible suddenly change its meaning? When God speaks on a certain subject in His Word, do we take what He says as the truth or do we conform it to naturalistic or humanistic presuppositions? I ask these question especially here about the biblical doctrine of the perfect preservation of scripture.
Master’s Seminary and John MacArthur
I was watching an interview of the leaders of the Master’s Seminary about its founding, including John MacArthur, and I came to a crucial, foundational section of the interview. A little after the 15 minute mark, MacArthur said:
Obviously I have a very strong commitment to the Word of God and to its accurate interpretation and to sound doctrine. . . . [We needed] to come up with our own exhaustive doctrinal statement. . . . [A] seminary has to have a unified doctrinal statement. . . . We didn’t have any wiggle room. It was sound doctrine or nothing, and we were going to fight for that at all costs. . . . We tightened everything we could tighten with a very detailed doctrine that to this day is still our statement with some more refinement.
Even now we’re doing some refinement, having it right. It was in order to maintain sound doctrine and have a solid, unified set of convictions all the way from theology proper and bibliology down to ecclesiology and even eschatology, the whole thing. And that’s what’s been defining for us. And here we’ve been doing this since 1986 and nothing has moved.
Bibliology Statement at Master’s Seminary
When I heard MacArthur say this over a week ago, I wondered about the bibliology statement in the seminary doctrinal statement, so I looked it up. Here’s the fundamental part of what it says, the first four paragraphs:
We teach that the Bible is God’s written revelation to man, and thus the sixty-six books of the Bible given to us by the Holy Spirit constitute the plenary (inspired equally in all parts) Word of God (1 Corinthians 2:7-14; 2 Peter 1:20-21).
We teach that the Word of God is an objective, propositional revelation (1 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Corinthians 2:13), verbally inspired in every word (2 Timothy 3:16), absolutely inerrant in the original documents, infallible, and God-breathed.
We teach the literal, grammatical, historical interpretation of Scripture which affirms the belief that the opening chapters of Genesis present creation in six literal days (Genesis 1:31; Exodus 31:17), describe the special creation of man and woman (Genesis 1:26-28; 2:5-25), and define marriage as between one man and one woman (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5). Scripture elsewhere dictates that any sexual activity outside of marriage is an abomination before the Lord (Exodus 20:14; Leviticus 18:13; Matthew 5:27-32; 19:1-9; 1 Corinthians 5:1-5; 6:9-10; 1 Thessalonians. 4:1-7).
We teach that the Bible constitutes the only infallible rule of faith and practice (Matthew 5:18; 24:35; John 10:35; 16:12-13; 17:17; 1 Corinthians 2:13; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Hebrews 4:12; 2 Peter 1:20-21).
As you read that, maybe you think it’s a boilerplate, typical orthodox, scriptural, and historical statement of bibliology. In a statement on bibliology, in the first four paragraphs Master’s Seminary gave a gigantic chunk of space to interpretational philosophy, emphasizing a young earth interpretation and biblical definition of marriage. I’m fine with including that, but how do you include that and say nothing about the preservation of scripture?
The Bible and the Preservation of Scripture
Does the Bible teach its own preservation? Does it say anything about that? Did you notice in the second paragraph on inspiration, it applies verbal inspiration and inerrancy and infallibility to the “original manuscripts”? After a third paragraph on interpretation, a fourth paragraph then says “the Bible constitutes the only infallible rule of faith and practice.” According to the statement, the Bible itself is not infallible, except in the original manuscripts, yet it still constitutes an infallible rule of faith and practice. These types of conclusions do not follow the premises for them.
The physical original manuscripts (autographa) do not exist. No one can look at them to get a rule of faith and practice. People can look only at copies of copies (apographa) of the original manuscripts. Without a doctrine of preservation, one cannot conclude an infallible rule of faith and practice. Is there no doctrine of preservation of scripture in the Bible?
MacArthur states in the interview that he obviously has a very strong commitment to the Word of God. Does he have a strong commitment to the Bible’s teaching on the preservation of scripture? He commits to six day creation based on his scriptural presuppositions. MacArthur commits to a biblical definition of marriage. The statement includes nothing about preservation of scripture. Is he committed to the teaching of the Word of God on its own preservation? I don’t see it.
Legacy Standard Bible
The same Master’s Seminary faculty took the project of the Legacy Standard Bible (LSB). Upon its completion in 2021, the editors of the LSB wrote in its preface:
The Legacy Standard Bible has the benefit of a number of critical Greek texts in determining the best variant reading to translate. The 27th edition of Eberhard Nestle’s Novum Testamentum Graece, supplemented by the 28th edition in the General Epistles, serve as the base text. On every variant reading the Society of Biblical Literature GNT as well as the Tyndale House GNT were also consulted. In the end, each decision was based upon the current available manuscript evidence.
This statement alone reveals a rejection of perfect preservation. Instead of God preserving His Words perfectly as scripture teaches, it reflects a failed attempt at restoration of the original text God inspired. This helps explain the doctrinal statement leaving out a doctrine of preservation. What does the Bible teach about a believers expectations between AD100 and the present regarding the preservation of scripture?
Even if the evidence of modern science says the world is a billion years old, a believer accepts the revelation of the first chapter of Genesis. He explains the science according to scripture, because scripture is truth. Even if the evidence of modern science says that there are errors in present printed editions of the original language Bible, a believer accepts the doctrine of the preservation passages. It also says that men alone have the task of preserving scripture like any other book. Everyone either begins with a naturalistic or a supernaturalistic presupposition, and no one is neutral.
Preaching on Preservation
When exposing the text in front of him, MacArthur has said the following, first on Matthew 24:35:
Finally, Jesus said this: “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words” – what? – “shall not pass away.” That is an unchanging authority. And He closes the parable with an unchanging authority. “My Word shall not pass away.” In Luke 16:17, He said heaven and earth will pass away and it’s easier for them to do that than for one tittle out of the law to pass away. He said not one jot or one tittle in Matthew 5:18 will pass away until all is fulfilled. In John 10:35, He said Scripture cannot be broken. And so if we believe the Word of God, we believe this is going to happen – it’s going to happen.
So in a sermon to people, who sit there thinking that Almighty God will preserve His Words, it sounds like he preaches perfect preservation. But no, ‘we really don’t believe that.’ ‘We just say that in the texts that say that.’
Master’s Seminary has no statement on preservation of scripture, because it does not believe in the preservation of scripture. It does not believe that someone can prove the preservation of scripture on exegetical grounds. It says God inspired every word on exegetical grounds, but it doesn’t say on exegetical grounds that God then preserved every one of those words. The seminary says that God nowhere in scripture promised that He would preserve His Word. Historic Christianity writes doctrinal statements that say something different.
Historical Bibliology on Preservation of Scripture
The London Baptist Confession of 1689 says:
The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them.
Dutch Theologian Herman Bavink (1854-1921) wrote in The Sacrifice of Praise (p. 21):
All scripture was not only once given by inspiration of God but it is also as such continually preserved by God by His Almighty and everywhere present power.
In a book, Fundamentalism Versus Modernism (1925), Eldred Vanderlaan wrote:
Christ guarantees that as a part of the sacred text neither the tittle or the yod shall perish.
In a Chronological Treatise Upon the Seventy Weeks of Daniel (1725), Benjamin Marshall wrote:
And as not one jot or tittle of the former was to pass without being fulfilled, so neither could one jot, or tittle of the latter pass away without being accomplished. Consequently not one jot or tittle, much less could one word. . . . pass away. . . , without its actual completion, and full accomplishment in the express letter of it.
Believing God’s Promise of Preservation
A multitude of passages in scripture teach in their context the perfect preservation of scripture (see our book, Thou Shalt Keep Them, here and here). God promised He would preserve every one of His written Words unto every generation of believer. It’s interesting to me what men, who have been in the same orbit as MacArthur, say about the sovereignty of God. R. C. Sproul famously wrote and said:
If there is one maverick molecule in the universe, one molecule running loose outside the scope of God’s sovereign ordination, then ladies and gentlemen, there is not the slightest confidence that you can have that any promise that God has ever made about the future will come to pass.
It amazes me that they can believe that every molecule functions under the control of God, but God would not and did not fulfill His promises of perfect preservation of scripture.
The Blue Trinitarian Bible Society Greek New Testament or Scrivener’s Greek New Testament
Someone said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. When I hear a critique of the perfect preservation view, standard sacred text view, or verbal plenary preservation view, it almost always focuses on ‘which text is the perfect text of the New Testament.” In the White/Van Kleeck debate, White asked this kind of gotcha question, which Textus Receptus edition is identical to the autographs? A person then waits for the answer.
In the Van Kleeck/White debate, White asked Van Kleeck whether Scrivener’s TR is the perfect Greek text. He said, “Yes.” I’m not saying it’s a good argument, but it works well with a certain audience.
I watched a critical analysis of Van Kleeck in the debate, and the podcast started with the moment White asked Van Kleeck that question. The critical analysis is essentially ridicule of the most inane variety. The young man in the podcast with three other men simply repeated Van Kleeck’s answer and then summarized it with a mocking voice. They didn’t explain why Van Kleeck’s answer was wrong. It just was. Why? Because it is so, so strange and ridiculous.
The critical text side does not have a settled text. If the question were reversed, that side would say it doesn’t know, unlike it’s proponents might say about knowing the 66 books of the Bible. They would say that’s knowable, even though the oldest extant complete twenty-seven book manuscript of the New Testament dates to the fourth century. Books are knowable. The words are not. Why? No biblical reason, only naturalistic ones. The same reasons could be used to debunk any doctrine of the Bible.
I believe Van Kleeck said that Scrivener’s or the blue Trinitarian Bible Society Greek New Testament is identical to the autographs of the New Testament because that corresponds to His bibliological position. If someone says he believes the biblical and historical doctrine of scripture, his saying there is a perfect text conforms to that belief. If he did not know what the text was, he would also admit that he doesn’t believe what the Bible says about itself or what churches have believed about what the Bible says about itself. An alternative is to change the historic and scriptural doctrine of bibliology to fit naturalistic presuppositions.
A biblical methodology that proceeds from a biblical bibliology must fit what the Bible says about itself. Because of this, it believes that the agreement of the church is evidence. This is the unity of the spirit. I’m not going to continue through every aspect of a biblical bibliology but all of those components combined lead to an agreement on one text. Van Kleeck had the audacity to utter it with confidence. I’m assuming that his confidence and assertiveness comes from faith that comes by hearing the Word of God.
Van Kleeck attacked the presuppositions of White in the White/Van Kleeck debate. He wanted to expose the naturalism. White wouldn’t answer the questions and the moderator would not require an answer. White also took the offensive by saying that the audience also was offended by the questions. It’s a common tactic of the left, when they “channel” everyone in the United States by speaking for “the American people.” Van Kleeck asked if there was even a single verse of the New Testament that was settled, guaranteed never to change with a future find of older manuscript evidence. White would not answer.
A vast majority of the opponents of the biblical and historical view on the preservation of scripture say the Bible doesn’t say how God would preserve scripture. I like to say that the whole Bible describes how God would do it. The Bible is very clear about how God said He would preserve what He said. If He told us how, that castigates all the means other than how He said, which includes modern textual criticism.
Very often, even among the standard sacred text proponents, they will not say what the perfect edition is. They anticipate the reaction. They ready for the ridicule. If it isn’t that blue Trinitarian Bible Society textus receptus, then what is it?
Recent Comments