Home » Posts tagged 'doctrine'

Tag Archives: doctrine

Mark Ward / Thomas Ross Videos on King James Version English

May 31, 2024 / 10 Comments on Mark Ward / Thomas Ross Videos on King James Version English

As What is Truth? readers may know, Dr. Mark Ward, Bob Jones University graduate and Logos Bible software employee, produced a series of three videos (5/2/2024; 5/9/2024; 5/16/2024–note that I am making it quite easy to find his videos if you want to do so, while he made it difficult to locate the video of mine that he was responding to, which is unfortunate) on his YouTube channel entitled “More New KJV-Only Arguments” in which he responded to my “Is the King James Version (KJV) Too Hard to Understand? James White / Thomas Ross Debate Review 11” video (also here on Rumble, or here at FaithSaves). Here is the video as an embed:

I summarized my argument in the video here at What is Truth? in a previous post. Dr. Brandenburg wrote a post about how Dr. Ward said in these videos, concerning me, “I regard him as an extremist of a particularly dangerous kind, the kind that is super intelligent.” This comment by Dr. Ward definitely made me laugh. But watch out–this post is written by a particularly dangerous extremist. Has Dr. Ward warned about the Roman Catholic, Seventh Day Adventist, theologically modernist, and other sorts of damnable heresy that is published by Logos Bible software for whom he works? Maybe he has called this content that his employer publishes “dangerous” somewhere–I am not aware of it if he has. So I suppose all of that is fine, but saying English speakers should continue to use the Bible that has served them so well for 400 years–that is very, very dangerous. Millions of people are going to hell because of Roman Catholicism and theological modernism, but what is truly dangerous is anyone who would advise English speakers to use the Authorized, King James Version, despite a small number of archaic words it contains.

I pointed out in my video that the KJV’s English fits within the parameters of the linguistic difficulty of the original language texts of Scripture. Thus, since the KJV’s English is not harder than the Greek of the New Testament or the Hebrew of the Old Testament, we have an exegetical basis for concluding that we do not need, at this time, to revise the English Authorized Version. We also have an exegetical basis for determining when it would be appropriate to revise the English of the KJV–if it ever becomes significantly harder to read than the original language texts, then it is time for true churches to come together to produce a revision.

There are some serious problems in Ward’s response to my argument, although I appreciate that he actually offered a response. (James White just ignored it, so good for Dr. Ward.) I am not going to point out in this post all of the problems in his book claiming that the English of the KJV is too hard, or his serious inaccuracies in his three videos. I will, however, share with blog readers a comment I offered to part two of his three-part series. I have italicized my comment below and have added some explanatory words within it in bold.

Dear Dr. Ward,

Thank you for taking the time to review my “Is the King James Version (KJV) Too Hard to Understand? James White / Thomas Ross Debate Review 11” video in two videos (and apparently a third video coming).

In my comment I specified the name of the video he was critiquing so that people could actually watch it instead of just hearing his critique with a very limited ability to even find and hear first hand what he was arguing against.

Someone brought these videos to my attention and so I thought I should take a peek. I hope that both my video–which, of course, was not about anything you said in particular, but about Dr. White’s comments in our debate–and your response will contribute to Christians thinking Biblically about the issue of Bible translation, and evaluating their philosophy of Bible translation from a sola Scriptura perspective, instead of just creating whatever standard they wish. If my video and your responses lead to that happening, then something useful for God’s kingdom will certainly have been accomplished for His glory.

I really do mean that. I am glad that he made his videos, and I hope that people who are anti-KJVO will start to approach the question of Bible translation exegetically. Of course, if they do, they just might end up becoming perfect preservationists who use exclusively the KJV in English.

Lord willing, at some point I will create a response to your videos. You may not be surprised that I have not found your responses especially compelling, although I am looking forward to hearing what you have to say in part three.

Part three was also less than compelling. Brother Ward did not seem, in some places, to even grasp my argument accurately. For example, in part three Dr. Ward argued that if I was right then we should just add in archaic words when we make new translations, but my point was not about making new translations, but about when it is appropriate to revise an already extant translation. The idea that one should randomly decide to add in archaic words for fun has nothing to do with my argument. For the large majority of the time since God has given the canon of Scripture God’s people would have found more rare or hard-to-understand words in the Hebrew and Greek texts than there are in the KJV, but God never instructed His Apostles and prophets to make a revision of the Hebrew or Greek texts.

I was wondering if you would be so kind as to let me know: 1.) If, before I produced my video, you had written or set forth in any setting an exegetical basis for your position on Bible translations, other than your claim that the KJV is in a different language and so violates 1 Corinthians 14 on not speaking in foreign tongues in the church without an interpreter. I must say that I find the idea that 1 Corinthians 14 teaches that we must abandon the KJV, or at least its exclusive use in English, most unconvincing exegetically. I would like to confirm that you view my claim that we should evaluate what is appropriate for English Bible translations based on the level of difficulty of the Old Testament and New Testament Hebrew and Greek texts as a claim that is indeed “novel” or new to you, and thus as something that you never considered before writing your book Authorized?

It is not good if someone has written an entire book arguing that the KJV’s English is too hard to understand and has given a significant part of his life to turning people away from the King James Bible, and yet has never even thought about comparing it with the lingustic difficulty of the text God gave His people directly by the dictation of the Holy Spirit.

Dr. Ward’s argument that because 1 Corinthians 14 forbids utilizing the miraculous gift of tongues to speak Japanese in 1st century Corinth if there were no Japanese speakers present and no translation into the common language–Greek–or forbids miraculously speaking in the tongue of Zulu if there are no Zulu speakers present, therefore we need to reject the KJV because it is really a foreign language. This, to be kind, is less than convincing. To be blunt, it is ridiculous, and a painful abuse of 1 Corinthians 14. However, that is all the Scripture Dr. Ward has for his position that the English of the KJV is too hard. Would his argument prove too much–would it prove that the Jews in Ezra’s day should have revised the books of Moses, or that the Apostles should not have used the LXX, even when it is accurate? Yes. So we can be thankful that his claim from 1 Corinthians 14 is astonishingly off base. It was fine for the Jews in Malachi’s day to just read the Hebrew Pentateuch, even though their language had changed much more than the English language has between 1611 and today.

2.) If you could please also let me know how many times you have read the Greek NT cover to cover and / or the Hebrew OT, as well as what training in the languages you have, I would appreciate that as well. It will help me to be accurate in what I say in response to you, as I am sure we both believe accuracy is very important, as our God is a God of truth.

Dr. Ward never answered this question, and I suspect the answer is “zero” for both how many times he has read through the Greek NT or the Hebrew OT. There are not a few things that he says in his videos that make me rather strongly suspect this. They are not things one would say were he closely acquainted with the original language texts of Scripture.

Thank you very much. Let me say that I also appreciate that you provided a significant quote from my video and appeared to want to accurately represent me. I thank you for that.

I do appreciate that, as far as I can tell, Dr. Ward did not intentionally misrepresent my argument. Did he misrepresent it? Yes, but I think this was a matter of inaccuracy, not intentionality. I also need to keep in mind that his anti-KJVO side does not approach issues like this through exegesis, through looking at Scripture first to see what it says about preservation and Bible translation, so he is rather like a fish out of water here. I am glad he is trying. I wish he had plainly told his audience where they could find my argument so they could go ad fontes and compare what I actually said with what he argued against.

3.) I would also be interested in seeing if you have any grammatical sources for your claim that the difficulty in Luke-Acts, for example, versus the Johannine literature, is mainly because participles are placed in different locations, as well as your other grammatical claims. Some of the claims seemed quite unusual to my mind, and I would like to know if any Greek grammarians make such affirmations as you made.

He never provided any sources for his claims. I suspect that is because there are no such sources, as people who write Greek and Hebrew grammars are likely to be quite surprised by not a few of the arguments that Dr. Ward made. I do not think that those who have actually read Luke-Acts and the Johannine literature in the New Testament would say that the main or even the chief difficulty in harder NT Greek is knowing what adverbial participles modify. This statement sounds to me like the claim of someone who is not very familiar with the Greek of these books.

I may be into having sources for my claims more than most people who make YouTube videos, but I did not notice any grammatical sources cited in your videos.

That is the problem with producing YouTube videos instead of writing things down, or instead of doing face-to-face debate.

4.) When you spoke about a test that you had given to KJVO pastors that definitively proved that they did not understand the KJV themselves, I was interested and took the test, and had some KJVO folk take it as well. I must say that they did much, much better than did the people whom you surveyed. (I myself got a 19 out of 20, and I think that the one I got wrong was a problem with the question.)

I had never heard of his test, which he mentioned in part 1 of his video, until examining his video, part 1. I decided to take his test. One of the questions was:

“Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.”

(Proverbs 22:28 KJV)

What does it mean to “remove” a landmark? 1 point

a.) To change position; to move a short distance or in a certain direction

b.) I don’t know

c.) To progress in a direction

d.) Take (something) away or off from the position occupied

This is a poorly designed question, because more than one of the answers fits both the meaning of the Hebrew word and the English translation in the KJV. Commenting on why the word “remove” here is (allegedly) archaic, Ward affirms:

The Hebrew here means “to displace [that is, to ‘cause (something) to move from its proper or usual place’] a boundary mark.” (HALOT/NOAD)

In 1611 “remove” in a context like this meant “to change position; to move a short distance or in a certain direction.” (OED)–just like the Hebrew. That sense, however, is marked as “Obsolete” in the OED.

Today, “remove” means to “take (something) away or off from the position occupied” or to “eliminate or get rid of” (NOAD).

However, the Dictionary of Classical Hebrew defines the Hebrew word here (in the tense used, the Hiphil) as follows:

Hi. 6.0.9 Pf. Q ‏הסיג‎; impf. 2ms ‏תַּסִּיג‎ (‏תַּסֵּג‎); ptc. ‏מַסִּיג‎, ‏מַסִּיגֵי‎ (Q ‏מסגי‎, ‏משיגי‎); inf. cstr. ‏הסיג—1a. remove, move back, <SUBJ> Israel(ites) Dt 1914, seducer of wife 4QInstrb 2.46; subj. not specified, Pr 2228 2310 4QInstrb 2.38. <OBJ> גְּבוּל border Dt 1914 Pr 2228 2310 4QInstrb 2.38 2.46. <COLL> סוג hi. :: גבל set a border Dt 1914.

b. ptc. as noun, one who removes a boundary, <SUBJ> ארר pass. be cursed Dt 2717, דבר pi. speak CD 520, נבא ni. prophesy CD 520, עמד stand CD 520, שׁוב hi. cause to turn CD 520, תעה hi. cause to err CD 520. <CSTR> מַסִּיג גְּבוּל remover of a border Dt 2717, מַסִּיגֵי removers of Ho 510=CD 1915 4QDa 14 CD 520 (הגבול; =4QDa 3.27 גבול) 4Q424 39, משיגי הגב[ו]ל removers of the border 4QDf 12; כול מסיגי all the removers of 4Q424 39. <PREP> לְ of benefit, to, for 4Q424 39; introducing object 4QDa 14; כְּ as, like, + היה be Ho 510=CD 1915.

2. remove, carry away, intrans., <SUBJ> Israel(ites) Mc 614 (or em. תַּסֵּג you shall carry away to ‏תַּשֵּׂג you shall reach, i.e. increase wealth; or em. ‏תִּסָּגֵר you shall be delivered up, i.e. ‏סגר ni.; unless סוג II hi. surround with fence). <COLL> סוג hi. || פלט hi. save Mc 614.

Note that this standard Hebrew lexicon–volume 1 of which was published in 1993–includes the actual English word “remove” in its definition of this word, but, supposedly, the KJV’s “remove” in Proverbs 22:28 is archaic. Has English changed a great deal since 1993, so that this Hebrew dictionary includes this alleged archaism, “remove”? Note as well that more than one of the options in Dr. Ward’s questionnaire would both fit the meaning of the Hebrew word and the English word.

Thus, his survey includes at least this allegedly “archaic” word in the KJV that is not archaic. The word is defined as “remove” in modern times in a modern standard Hebrew lexicon (one that, I might add, is never cited anywhere in Dr. Ward’s quiz–maybe he should have studied the Hebrew text a bit more carefully before producing his test, or at least before publishing it and making claims that are easily shown to be inaccurate.)

I am wondering if it is possible to get more information about who these people are. Are they Baptists? Are they people who believe in justification by works or baptismal regeneration and do not even have the Holy Spirit, as one finds even among various denominational “Baptist” groups if one goes house to house regularly in evangelism? Would they claim to be fundamentalists?

Who these people are is rather important. Dr. Ward said that only 7% of them knew the differences between “thee/thou/thy” as singular in the KJV and “ye/you” as plural. What? Seven percent? Who are these people? In our church the preachers all know, the adults are instructed, the children are instructed, and it is even in Bible study #1 in our evangelistic Bible study series. 93% of those who took his survey did not know this? Are his survey results verifiable, reproducible, and falsifiable–or are they none of the above? Why should we trust them?

Let me note that Mark Ward’s solution to people not knowing the difference between thee/thou/thy and ye/you is not to instruct them in the difference–it is to reject the KJV so that they are reading some modern version where you can NEVER know the difference. Quite a solution, no?

5.) I would be interested if you have done anything to encourage KJVO saints to do something like read KJVs that have the (small number of) archaic words defined in the margin of their Bibles, as do many study Bibles, the Defined KJV, etc.

I would love to find out I am wrong, but I think he has done exactly nothing to encourage saints who are going to cleave to their KJVs to understand them better by having them read editions of the Authorized Version where the archaic words are defined in the margin. I will applaud Dr. Ward when he donates the profits from his book against exclusive use of the KJV to purchasing copies of works that define its archaic words, such as David Cloud’s Believer’s Bible Dictionary, and donating those books to KJVO Christians. But I am not holding my breath.

If not, could you explain why you believe such a solution to your “false friends” idea is insufficient, and why what needs to be done is to replace the KJV with a multiplicity of modern versions that do things like take “hell” out of the Old Testament and replace it with that easy to understand and commonly used word “Sheol,” or attack the classical doctrine of the Trinity by changing the Son from being “only begotten” to being “unique,” or change the Son’s going forth from the Father in His eternal generation from being “from everlasting” to the Arian “from ancient days,” and so on, that would be appreciated. If you do not appreciate such changes in modern versions, I am wondering if you have any written sources or videos warning about them.

I am aware of exactly nothing written or taught by Dr. Ward warning about any of these serious corruptions–really evil “false friends”–in many modern Bible versions. Nor am I aware of Dr. Ward ever explaining why such a solution is more than sufficient to deal with the small number of KJV archaisms–just like there was not one word of criticism of Dr. James White’s inaccurate claims, the ones I was actually dealing with, in my video “Is the King James Version (KJV) Too Hard to Understand? James White / Thomas Ross Debate Review 11.” Only KJVO people deserve criticism, it appears.

I at least would rather have a Bible that teaches Athanasian Trinitarianism but uses “conversation” in an older sense meaning “conduct” than a Bible that has a nice new “conduct” translation but undermines the holy Trinity in some verses (while, thankfully, still supporting it in others).

Wouldn’t you?

Also, please feel free to get in touch with me if you ever change your mind about being willing to publicly dialogue or debate on this matter.

I have offered to debate him multiple times and he has refused. Could it be that his position is not defensible in open debate? Could it be that his whole case would fall apart if he had to do what Christ and the Apostles did in the Gospels and Acts, namely, debate and refute their opponents face-to-face?

I happen to think there would be more profit from a face-to-face encounter where we both have equal time to present our case than there is in your producing videos on your YouTube channel that are mainly preaching to your choir while I do the same on my KJB1611 channel with videos that will mainly be watched by people who are already convinced of the perfect preservation of Scripture. Finally, thank you for complementing me as being “super intelligent.” That was very kind of you. The “very dangerous” part, maybe not so much, but I suppose we can’t have everything. I am not planning to respond to any comments here, as I am not convinced that YouTube comments are the best place to engage in scholarly discussion, but I will look forward to hearing from you if you are able to answer my questions. Thanks again, Thomas

Dr. Ward did respond to my comment as follows:

Ross has said he won’t reply here. So I’ll reply to just two items for the sake of my viewers. (No reply on nos. 1, 2, and 5.)

Why do you think he does not want to answer questions #1, 2, and 5? It isn’t because I won’t reply on his YouTube channel in the comment section. Doesn’t he want me to have the best and most accurate information for when I actually respond to him, God willing? Surely it is not because he does not have a good answer to those questions. Right?

3. I mentioned in the video that I was offering my thoughts as a reader of the Greek New Testament; I self-consciously chose not to cite authorities here.

Does he cite authorities somewhere else, then? Where? Anywhere? I thought it was interesting that after I asked this question in part 2 of his three part series, in part 3 he mentioned that he had started reading a book on Hebrew discourse analysis. Great, good for him. He never said a word about my actual question–how much of the Hebrew Old Testament itself, and Greek New Testament itself, has he actually read?

4. All of the information I am able to release publicly about the participants in the study is available at kjbstudyproject.com, on the Demographic Data page that is linked in the main navigational menu. I refer interested viewers there.

The demographic data seems to indicate that the people who took his survey were not Mormons or Oneness Pentecostals, if the people who took the survey told the truth. So that is useful, and I appreciate that he pointed that out. But there is still something very wonky with his survey results. And, of course, we have no way of verifying, corroborating, or falsifying that whatever people said in the survey is actually the truth. Dr. Ward claimed his survey was “definitive,” when it is incredibly far from anything of the kind. But I do appreciate him pointing to that “Demographic Data” page, even though I wish he had taken the time to make sure that words like “remove” are actually archaic by spending just a bit longer looking at standard Hebrew lexica before putting his survey out.

Let me end this blog post by reiterating that, while his attempt to deal with my Biblically-based case for the English of the KJV is solely reactive, in that he never thought of actually seeing what God’s objective standard is for Bible translation by looking at the language level in Scripture until I brought this to his attention, by the grace of God, I am thankful if his videos at least get people to start to thinking that way.

Also, again, this is by no means a comprehensive response to his three videos or to his book–just a few thoughts to whet your appetite.

Finally, let me point out that this exchange illustrates why those who believe in the perfect preservation of Scripture and the Authorized, King James Version should learn the Biblical languages, especially if they are spiritual leaders. The large holes in his argument are much more easily visible if one knows Hebrew and Greek.

–TDR

Q, Synoptic Gospel Dependence, and Inspiration for the Bible

May 17, 2024 / 10 Comments on Q, Synoptic Gospel Dependence, and Inspiration for the Bible

Does it matter if one adopts a belief in “Q” and rejects the historic belief that the synoptic gospels–Matthew, Mark, and Luke–are independent accounts? What happens if one rejects this historic belief for the theory, invented by theological liberalism and modernism but adopted by many modern evangelicals, that Mark was the first gospel (instead of Matthew), and Matthew and Luke depended on and altered Mark, using a (lost) source called “Q” that just happens to have left no archaeological or historical evidence for its existence? What happens if we adopt source, tradition, and redaction criticism? Let me illustrate with the comment on Matthew 25:46 in John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 1034–1037. Nolland is discussing how to go behind the text of Matthew’s Gospel to what the historical Jesus said (which he assumes is different); he is discussing what Matthew added and changed from what Christ originally said, which, supposedly, was handed down in little bits of tradition here and there, and which Matthew used, along with his dependence upon Mark and Q. I have added a few comments in brackets within Nolland’s commentary.

While the account has a totally comprehensible sense in its Matthean use, various unevennesses and tensions suggest a complicated history. At various points there seem to be Matthean accents and even quite Matthean features. [In other words, Matthew added and changed what the Son of God said.] … On the basis of the tensions and difficulties [which are not really there] in the account many scholars have held that Matthew has cobbled this account together [what a nice description] out of traditional fragments and OT resources. Others would be prepared to identify a remnant of a parable in vv. 32c–33 and a significant fragment of tradition in vv. 35–36. But perhaps even this is too pessimistic. [Perhaps? We aren’t sure?]

We have had cause to notice that the king in various of Jesus’ parables was originally God, but he has become Jesus himself in secondary use of the parable. [The Watchtower Society and the Unitarians would be delighted.] This is likely to be true of all three of the immediately preceding parables. In the other cases the adjustment is likely to be pre-Matthean, but this time it may be Matthew himself who is responsible for the change.

Without vv. 31–32a, ‘by my Father’ in v. 34, and ‘my brothers and sisters’ in v. 40, the account could be focussed on God and not on Jesus. [Note how he is willing to cut out portions of the Word.] With some brief, now-lost beginning to introduce the king, the restored parable is free of the tensions and difficulties that have been identified in the Matthean account. With the loss of vv. 31–32a the account will be of the eschatological judgment of Israel rather than of all nations. So we can now make sense of the unquestioning recognition of the status of the king by those on the left and the assumption that they would have served him if it had been visible to them that that was what was involved. Both those on the left and the right are Israelites who in principle recognised God as their ultimate king. … Various other Matthean features noted above may also betray his intervention, [of course, all of what he is saying is speculative.] but these do not disturb the basic functioning of the narrative. … Matthew has bundled a lot of cross referencing into his account [in other words, he assumes Christ did not refer back to His earlier teaching, but Matthew changed it so that it referenced back to earlier passages] in a manner reminiscent of his development of 9:27–31. It remains an open question whether the fourfold repetition of the list is a pre-Matthean feature. It is reminiscent of the repetition involved in the inclusion of 25:16–18, which was judged above to be pre-Matthean but not original. [“Not original” means Christ did not actually say it.]

The pre-Matthean account that emerges is still not a parable, only an account of the judgment that makes use of a comparison (if this is not Matthean) and speaks of God as ‘the king’. But could there be a genuine parable further behind this? A lot depends on the missing beginning. But the other places where the narrative world of a parable about a king is broken are vv. 34, 41, and 46, and we would have to give up ‘your brothers and sisters’ suggested above for the pre-Matthean account. A possible beginning sentence for a parable might be something like ‘There was a king who entered into judgment with his people’ (all the future tenses of the account would need then to become past tenses). If in v. 34 ‘Come, you blessed ones’ was followed by something more appropriate to the narrative world, and similar adjustments were made to v. 41, then the narrative world of a parable would be complete (while v. 46 completes the narrative logic, it is not strictly necessary, but it could be adjusted in a corresponding manner).

There is one important proviso here to describing both the Matthean and, behind that, the immediately pre-Matthean account as ‘an account of the judgment’. We have already noted the tension between 24:31 and 13:41, where the angels respectively gather the elect and take off the wicked to punishment. Mt. 25:31–46 offers a different picture again. Not the angels, but Jesus/God acting like a shepherd makes the division himself (perhaps the angels might be used for the initial gathering), and the two groups are arranged on either side of him. … The further along this track behind the Matthean material we go, the more our account of it becomes necessarily speculative. [My note: No kidding!] But there appears to be no insurmountable barrier to tracing the origins of the Matthean account back to the historical Jesus. And the original that we might attribute to the historical Jesus offers the same challenge about the importance for judgment day of God’s profound self-identification with his people.

Nolland-who is considered “conservative,” not a liberal, by many, and his commentary in the NIGTC series representative of a broadly “evangelical” commentary series–makes the common and unreasonable assumptions that Matthew, who would have been there to here Christ teach and who was controlled by the Holy Spirit, needed to depend upon tiny fragments of tradition passed down here and passed down there by who knows who, and also borrow from Mark (who was not there, like Matthew was). Through this whole process what Christ actually said got changed, and so we need to attempt to reconstruct what Jesus Christ actually said by going behind Matthew’s Gospel to the hypothetical, reconstructed words of the historical Jesus.

This anti-inspiration nonsense affects evangelical apologetics. When I debated Shabir Ally he could not believe that I denied that there was a “Q” document and that the gospels were dependent on each other. Other Christians that Shabir debated accepted that these lies were true.

This sort of anti-inspiration and anti-historical nonsense about Q, sources, and redaction is all over evangelicalism and just about completely controls theological liberalism. It even infects portions of those who call themselves fundamentalist, chiefly among those who deny the perfect preservation of Scripture and so are not King James Only. Beware of “evangelical” commentaries on the Gospels and “evangelical” leaders who adopt critical methods and deny the Biblically faithful and historically accurate view that the synoptic gospels are independent accounts and give us eyewitness testimony.

–TDR

Reformed Systematic Theology v. 1, Joel Beeke & Paul Smalley

May 10, 2024 / 25 Comments on Reformed Systematic Theology v. 1, Joel Beeke & Paul Smalley

I recently finished reading Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology vol. 1: Revelation and God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019). I had purchased it on Logos Bible Software and, because I thought it had lots of good features, also purchased a physical copy with Reformation Heritage Books (which may be cheaper than getting it on Amazon, which I linked to above with an affiliate link. They currently have the entire four volume set at a heavily discounted price. I have not read volumes 2-4 (yet!) so I cannot comment on their quality.) I read almost all of the 1158 pages of the book on my phone in small snippets of time, such as when going up and down in an elevator, or standing in a line, and so on. I am about 60 pages into volume two, reading it in the same way. Let me commend to you being purposeful with the time God gives you; there are many time-suckers on a typical cell phone and on the Internet, but you can choose to avoid them and do something useful when you have a minute or two or five here and there.)

Positive features of Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology vol. 1: Revelation and God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019).

There are many positive features of volume one of Reformed Systematic Theology. These include:

1.) The book consistently seeks to make doctrine practical. While it seeks–and achieves–theological precision, it consistently applies doctrine to life. The book does not just seek to increase one’s mental comprehension of Biblical teaching, but seeks to be the instrument of the Holy Spirit in applying the truth of Scripture to transform the whole man. As Dr. Beeke is the president of the Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary, we should not be surprised that, as an heir of the Puritans, he seeks to apply doctrine practically to life. The authors explain their purpose in writing as follows:

This systematic theology explores the classic teachings of the Reformed Christian faith from a perspective that is biblical, doctrinal, experiential, and practical. Today’s churches need theology that engages the head, heart, and hands. Too often, we have compartmentalized these aspects of life (as if we could cut ourselves into pieces). The result has been academics for the sake of academics, spiritual experience without roots deep in God’s Word, and superficial pragmatism that chases after the will-o’-the-wisp of short-term results. The church has suffered from this fragmented approach to the Christian faith. However, we have learned from the Reformers, the British Puritans, and the Dutch Further Reformation divines an approach to Christianity that combines thoughtful exegesis of the Holy Scriptures, rich exploration of classic Augustinian and Reformed theology, an experiential tone that brings truth into the heart, and practical applications for life.

Joel R. Beeke, “Preface,” in Reformed Systematic Theology: Revelation and God, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), 17–18.

This practical emphasis is commendable, and it makes the book an edifying read.

2.) Reformed Systematic Theology is consistently conservative, evangelical, and Reformed in its theology. While Scripture does not teach Calvinist soteriology, if one is aware of the standard imbalances in Reformed doctrine, there is not much else in terms of “bones” to spit out while one eats the meat. There are no unexpected strange doctrines, but a solid presentation of the doctrines of revelation and of the infallible, inerrant Bible and of the God of Scripture, with the only things that are off being the standard errors of Reformed theology (in terms of theology proper, getting too close to making God the author of sin by saying that He decrees sin and justifying the horrifying Calvinist doctrine of reprobation). While I would not just hand this book to a new Christian and tell him to believe everything it says, I would not be concerned about giving it to someone training for the ministry who knows the problems with Reformed doctrine and is inoculated against them from Scripture. I believe people in the latter class could be greatly blessed by much good Biblical explanation and practical application in this book.

3.) Reformed Systematic Theology uses the King James Version as its base Bible version. I believe that Dr. Beeke preaches from the KJV, so this is not surprising, but it is still refreshing to not have to read lots of quotations from inferior modern Bible versions. On occasion the ESV is quoted, but the large majority of the time it is the KJV, which is a blessing for King James Only Christians.

4.) Interestingly, Paul Smalley is a Reformed Baptist, while Joel Beeke is a Reformed paedobaptist. I cannot agree with the paedobaptism, but I am thankful that at least one of the two authors is a minister in a Baptist church, even if it is a Reformed Baptist congregation.

5.) When it is appropriate Beeke and Smalley make warnings such as: “Worldliness diminishes a man’s soul and makes him petty; knowing God ennobles a human being.” (Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology: Revelation and God, vol. 1 [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019], 509). It is great to read a systematic theology that warns against worldliness and points one, instead, to knowing God as the cure for it!

6.) The book discusses doctrines, such as Divine simplicity, that I am afraid that graduates from many Baptist Bible colleges and institutes will give you a blank stare if you ask about them. (Do you know what Scripture teaches about Divine simplicity? If not, maybe you should read the part of Reformed Systematic Theology about that doctrine and find out what it is.)

7.) My physical copy of Reformed Systematic Theology is a quality hardcover book that is well-made and easy to read. It is also written in well-written and engaging English. It is scholarly and excellently done.

Concerns with Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology vol. 1: Revelation and God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019).

1.) My major concern is, naturally, that the Bible does not teach unconditional election and reprobation, limited atonement, or irresistible grace in salvation (and, depending on how one defines things, total depravity and the perseverance of the saints could also have problems). Reformed Systematic Theology is unabashedly Reformed. One who has not already read independent Baptist systematic theological works such as Robert Sargent’s Landmarks of Baptist Doctrine from Bible Baptist Church Publications would be well-advised to start there before reading a Reformed systematic theology, even one that has the commendable features mentioned above.

2.) While I am thankful that Reformed Systematic Theology uses the Authorized, King James Version, it does not have a section on the preservation of Scripture. The book’s outline on the doctrine of revelation is at the bottom of this blog post (please see down there).

You can see that there is a lot of good stuff in there. However, there is nothing either supporting or denying the perfect preservation of Scripture. One who recognizes that he has all of God’s Words in the Old and New Testament Textus Receptus will not have his faith attacked, but neither will he have it confirmed.

3.) I also do not want people who read this book and are encouraged by its good English, its many edifying and encouraging practical applications, and its solid theology in many areas to become improperly enamored with Reformed paedobaptist theology. I do not doubt that Dr. Beeke is a sincere and converted man whom I expect to see in heaven, but the special presence of Christ is not in his Reformed paedobaptist organization. If you can explain and defend why Reformed soteriology is wrong and why, in the doctrine of God, Scripture does not teach that God ordains sin or unconditionally reprobates people for His glory (!!), you may get many blessings from this book. Maybe you will even find it engaging enough to read the whole thing on your phone while waiting in lines and going up and down in elevators and the like.

–TDR

Here is the outline of the section on the doctrine of revelation. I did not take the time to re-introduce all the tabination, so please pardon the fact that everything is just in a straight line.

X. Theological Fundamentals of Divine Revelation
A. Biblical Terminology of Divine Revelation
1. Old Testament Terminology
2. New Testament Terminology
B. Basic Biblical Perspective on Divine Revelation (Genesis 1–3; Psalm 19)
1. The Revelation of the Sovereign God to His Image Bearers
2. The Revelation of God by His Creation (General Revelation)
3. The Revelation of God by His Word (Special Revelation)
4. The Response of God’s Servants to His Word (Applied Revelation)
C. Summary Statement on the Biblical Doctrine of Divine Revelation
X. General Revelation
A. General Revelation: Biblical Teaching
1. Revelation around Man in Creation
a. General Revelation of the Divine Nature
i. It Reveals God to a Limited Degree
ii. It Reveals God in an Open and Plain Manner
iii. It Reveals God according to His Will
iv. It Reveals the Invisible God
v. It Reveals God’s Divine Nature
vi. It Reveals God throughout History
vii. It Reveals God through His Created World
b. General Revelation of Divine Wrath in a Fallen World
2. Revelation within Man
a. General Revelation according to the Image of God
b. General Revelation via the Human Conscience
3. The Use and Efficacy of General Revelation
a. The Universal Knowledge Granted through General Revelation
i. God Exists, and Created All Things
ii. Atheism Is Folly
iii. God Has a Unique Nature as God
iv. Idolatry Is Wicked
v. God Holds Man Accountable to His Moral Law
vi. Sinners Are under God’s Wrath and without Excuse
b. The Universal Response of Mankind to General Revelation
c. The Proper Christian Use of General Revelation
i. The Church’s Missiological Use of General Revelation
ii. The Church’s Doxological Use of General Revelation
B. General Revelation: Philosophy and Science
1. Christianity and Rational Philosophy
a. Not Necessary in Order to Know and Glorify God
b. Teaches Some Valid and Useful Truths
c. Proposes Systems of Thought Antithetical to the Gospel
d. May Be Used Only with Radical, Biblical Critique
e. Recognizes Legitimate Methods of Reasoning
2. Christianity and Empirical Science
a. Operates with Delegated Authority
b. Can Investigate Nature with Confident Rationality
c. Must Work from a Posture of Intellectual Humility
d. Must Realize That Its Conclusions Possess Only Human Certainty
e. Should Pursue Knowledge with Prayerful Dependency
f. Limited by Its Ultimate Insufficiency to Make Us Wise
g. Must Work with God-Fearing Integrity
h. Should Make Use of Its Findings to Promote Grateful Doxology
C. General Revelation: Natural Theology and Theistic Arguments
1. Various Rejections of Natural Theology and Theistic Arguments
a. Karl Barth
b. Cornelius Van Til
2. Toward a Biblical, Reformed Approach to Theistic Arguments
a. God Testifies to Himself through the Natural World
b. Belief in God Is a Valid Presupposition of Human Thought
c. The Proper Posture of Human Reason Is to Fear God as His Servant
d. The Sinner’s Mind Is Alienated from God, and Cannot Reason to Its Creator
e. The Philosophy of Non-Christians Is Distorted by Satan
f. A Right Use of Reason Depends upon the Spirit-Illuminated Word
g. Christians May Make Rational Arguments from Creation to God
h. Christians May Use Arguments to Show the Foolishness of Those Who Deny God
i. The Wise Use of Theistic Arguments Varies with Culture and Education
j. Christians Should Beware of Glorying in Human Wisdom
k. Theistic Arguments Are Appeals to Divine Witness in Creation
l. Theistic Arguments Are at Best Like the Law That Convicts but Cannot Save
D. Some Historical Perspective on Natural Theology and Theistic Proofs
1. Ancient Roots of Natural Theology
a. Pagan Literature: Varro, Plato, Aristotle, and Zeno
b. Early Christian Apologists: Aristides, Justin Martyr, and Tertullian
c. Early Greek Fathers: Athanasius, the Cappadocians, and John of Damascus
d. Latin Christianity: Augustine
e. Assessment of Ancient and Early Christian Natural Theology
2. Medieval Development of Natural Theology
a. Muslim and Jewish Scholarship: Avicenna, Averroes, and Maimonides
b. Christian Medieval Scholasticism: Anselm and Thomas Aquinas
c. Assessment of Thomist Natural Theology
3. The Reformation’s Critical Interaction with Natural Theology
a. Critique of Natural Theology: Luther and Calvin
b. Critical Appropriation of Theistic Arguments: Vermigli, Junius, and Turretin
c. Assessment of Early Reformed Views of Natural Theology
XI. Special Revelation: Theological Introduction
A. Special Revelation: Biblical Teaching
1. The Trinitarian, Mediatorial Work of Special Revelation
a. The Son Is the Only Mediator of Divine Revelation
b. The Father Is the Sovereign Author of Divine Revelation in the Son
c. The Spirit Is the Effective Agent of Divine Revelation in the Son
2. The Finite Human Character of Special Revelation
3. The Manifold Historical Modes of Special Revelation
a. Supernatural Verbal Revelation
b. Supernatural Visual Revelation
c. Supernatural Providential Revelation
d. Supernatural Incarnational Revelation
4. The Personal, Propositional Content of Special Revelation
B. Errors Regarding Special Revelation
1. Special Revelation Extended to Hierarchical Tradition
2. Special Revelation Subordinated to Human Reason
3. Special Revelation Diffused to Harmonize All Religions
4. Special Revelation Redefined as Holy Encounter
5. Special Revelation Confined to Historical Events
XII. The Bible as the Word of God
A. The Word of the Prophets and Apostles Is the Word of God
1. The Word of God Preached through the Prophets and Apostles
2. The Written Word of God: The Old Testament
3. The Written Word of God: The New Testament
B. The Spirit’s Inspiration of the Written Word of God
1. The Reality of Verbal Inspiration
2. The Extent, Meaning, and Implications of Inspiration
a. Extent: Plenary Inspiration
b. Meaning: God-Breathed Word
c. Implications
i. Authority
ii. Veracity
iii. Sufficiency
iv. Clarity
v. Necessity
vi. Unity in Christ
vii. Efficacy
XIII. The Properties of the Written Word
A. The Authority of the Bible
1. The Source of the Bible’s Authority
2. Biblical Authority and the Church
3. The Authentication of the Bible
4. Biblical Authority versus Personal Autonomy
5. Practical Implications of Biblical Authority
B. The Clarity of the Bible
1. The Perspicuity Controversy
2. Practical Implications of Biblical Clarity
C. The Necessity of the Bible
1. The Necessity of the Gospel for All Mankind
2. The Publishing of the Gospel in Written Form
3. The Preservation of the Gospel to the End of the Age
4. Practical Implications of the Bible’s Necessity
D. The Unity of the Bible in Christ
1. The Great Theme of the Bible
2. The Manifold Forms of Christ’s Revelation
3. Practical Implications of the Bible’s Unity in Christ
E. The Efficacy of the Bible by the Spirit
1. The Word and the Spirit of Conviction
2. The Word and the Spirit of Life
3. Practical Implications of the Bible’s Efficacy by the Spirit
F. The Inerrant Veracity of the Bible
1. Inerrant Veracity Defined
2. Inerrant Veracity Clarified
3. Biblical Teaching on Scripture’s Inerrant Veracity
4. Practical Implications of the Bible’s Veracity
5. Objections to Inerrancy
a. Human Fallibility
b. History Is Not Essential to Religion
c. Contradictions with Modern History and Science
d. Contradictions in the Bible
e. Theological Novelty
H. The Sufficiency of the Bible
1. Biblical Sufficiency Defined
2. Biblical Sufficiency Clarified
2. Biblical Teaching on Scripture’s Sufficiency
3. Practical Implications of the Bible’s Sufficiency
XIV. The Cessation of Special Revelation
A. Arguments for Charismatic Continuationism
1. God’s Ancient Promise
2. The Eschatological Last Days
3. Cessation at Christ’s Second Coming
4. The Spirit’s Ministry to the Body
5. Edification of the Saints
6. God’s Command
7. Historical Movements
8. Personal Experiences
9. The Reality of the Supernatural
10. The Silence of Scripture
B. The Uniqueness of the Apostolic Age
1. The Apostles of Jesus Christ
2. A Biblical Pattern of Miraculous Ministry in History
3. Apostles in Pentecostal and Charismatic Churches Today
C. Practical Implications of the Apostles’ Ministry
1. We Must Receive the New Testament as the Word of God
2. We Should Distinguish between Modern Teachers and the Apostles of Jesus Christ
3. We Must Beware of False Apostles and Prophets Working Wonders
4. We Must Seek the Power of the Holy Spirit
D. The Cessation of Revelatory Gifts Such as Prophecy
1. The Finality of Christ
2. The Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets
3. The Fallibility of Modern “Prophets”
E. Pastoral Concerns about Evangelical Prophecy
1. Continuationism Tends to Put People in Bondage to Individual Leaders
2. Continuationism Tends to Put People in Bondage to Presumptuous Beliefs
3. Continuationism Tends to Put People in Bondage to Human Thoughts, Impressions, and Feelings
XV. Applied Revelation for Practical Fruit
A. Personal Fruit of Applied Revelation
1. Personal Faith in the Scriptures
2. Personal Study of the Scriptures
3. Personal Experience through the Scriptures
B. Familial Fruit of Applied Revelation
C. Ecclesiastical Fruit of Applied Revelation
1. Transformation in Corporate Life
2. Balance in Pastoral Ministry
3. Zeal in Evangelism
4. Dependency in Leadership
5. Priority in Education
6. Saturation in Worship
D. Societal Fruit of Applied Revelation
E. International Fruit of Applied Revelation
F. Doxological Fruit of Applied Revelation

Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology: Revelation and God, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), 29–35.

Books By David Cloud Read Aloud: Can You Help Truth Get Out?

March 1, 2024 / Leave a comment

Way of Life Literature, run by Bro David Cloud, has many excellent resources. David Cloud has also written many excellent books, as well as useful videos one can find on his website. While not infallible, of course, they are well-researched, sound in doctrine, and something I could recommend highly to almost any Christian. I am very thankful for David Cloud’s works. His books, along with those published by Bible Baptist Church Publications, helped me to become a Baptist separatist instead of a mushy evangelical after I was converted by the grace of God.

Today, sadly, many people do not read. Brother Cloud has given me permission to have at least some of his books read aloud and then made available on fora such as YouTube, Rumble, and Audible.

If you would be interested in reading aloud some David Cloud books, such as his works on Biblical preservation, Bible texts and versions:

Faith vs. The Modern Versions

For Love of the Bible

The Glorious History of the English Bible

Bible Version Question and Answer Database

The Modern Bible Version Hall of Shame

Why We Hold to the King James Bible

or some of Cloud’s other books, such as:

Dressing for the Lord

The Future According to the Bible

History and Heritage of Fundamentalism and Fundamental Baptists

and you have a good reading voice–speaking clearly, with expression, and not one that will put people to sleep–and enough commitment to finish something once you have started it, please contact me and let me know.

Thank you.

Church Planting Methodology: Where Should a New Church Meet?

February 23, 2024 / 7 Comments on Church Planting Methodology: Where Should a New Church Meet?

In relation to church planting, where should a new church meet? On this blog we have, in the past, learned the history of how Bethel Baptist Church in El Sobrante, CA was started by Jesus Christ; see part 1, part 2, part 3, and part 4 on that encouraging topic. Grace and Truth Baptist Church is a new church planting work in San Francisco that is seeking to follow the Lord and obey and practice all of Scripture. They currently do not have a building to meet, and the preacher there–a friend of mine for many years–had discussed the qustion with me, and asked us to pray for them, as they sought a place to meet. I asked the advice of a number of Baptist preachers, pastors, and missionaries / evangelists concerning the pluses and minuses of a variety of options concerning places to meet. With their permission, I have shared their responses below. Please feel free to comment on these responses and share any Biblical thoughts or practical experiences you have concerning them. (The response have been lightly edited for things like grammar and material that was not related to this question in this post was removed.) I asked the following question:

Church Planting Methodology:

Where Should A New Church-Plant Meet? The Question

… I am wondering if you have any thoughts on the meeting place for a new church plant’s meeting place. What are the advantages of renting a place in:

1.) A store front-type location, vs.

2.) A church building that is in use by a different congregation, vs.

3.) A home?

In terms of #2, do you have any thoughts on a church property that is by a weak Baptist religious organization, vs. some other religious organization (Presbyterian, Lutheran, Pentecostal, etc.) or even a cult meeting house (Seventh-Day Adventists that do not use their building on the Lord’s Day)?

I am wondering if a neo-evangelical or even modernistic Baptist congregation that allowed a separatist Baptist church-plant to use its facility could end up confusing visitors to the new separatist church plant. Certainly nobody would want people to end up joining a cult or becoming a Pentecostal by meeting in a church building of those religions, but perhaps the differences would be more obvious and that would be less likely than with a compromised Baptist congregation offering its meeting place (?) I am wondering if many people would not be willing to meet in a home (although Biblically there is nothing wrong with it).

So any Biblical exegesis, application of Biblical principles, or other Biblically-based ideas you have would be appreciated. Feel free to share this email with someone else if you think that that third party brother would have some good advice here. …

Church Planting Methodology:

Where Should A New Church-Plant Meet? Reply #1

Just my thoughts based on what I see in the Scriptures and what I have experienced. The place is not the main thing, but the assembly. Therefore, if you start assembling at your house that would be great, or another brother’s house, that is good. If you and the members decide to rent a facility, then, together as a church you can decide to do that and finance that as a church body (Amen). If you decide to rent a space (commercial space or have some type of agreement for a space with another “church” or religious entity – that too is fine (remember Solomon’s porch, synagogues, and the school of Tyrannus – were places that facilitated a temporary meeting place for the churches) – then rent it out as a church, do your best NOT to assume the payment of the rent alone BUT function as a church body (rent it together as a church). THEN, if and when the Lord would add to your assembly – a more suitable and stable place could be acquired (again, at that point you will move on to a building – as a church body, purchasing the building, etc). I see no problem using a SDA building, space, or hotel conference room, nursing home lobby, library hall, community hall, etc. Religious or not. It is the assembly that matters – not the meeting place, per se.

Where Should A New Church Plant Meet? Reply #2

Hi,

I wouldn’t like renting a false religion place when it wasn’t meeting. I would rather have the storefront. Meeting in the home, I would do that too.

Where Should A New Church Plant Meet? Reply #3

Meeting in SDA building wasn’t really my original plan. But I’m in a market that is high priced with very few options, and it has worked. We don’t really have any contact with the SDAs here. Most of them are from Africa, as we have a large group of refugees/immigrants in [town]. We use their building on Sunday and for the most part it has worked. The positives are that it is a place to meet that usually is inexpensive, with very little setup, and we put signage out on Sundays to limit confusion. We also put our hymn books and some Bibles in the pews and remove theirs in setting up. We are also careful to leave things better than we found them. So we haven’t worn out our welcome.

As far as negatives, for the most part they keep things kinda tidy but there is often some clean up or cleaning to do before Sunday morning. Also, the building here is rather old.

I think the biggest challenge is communicating to people where your church is. I say clearly that we rent the 7th Day Building on Sundays. Or if we do advertising I put the address and underneath “also the SDA Building.”

Also depending upon how strict your SDA group is they might ask you to not serve pork if you have a meal there.

We have a different building where we try to do special functions like special meetings. We will have a Good Friday fellowship at the other venue. It provides a neutral place for people to invite friends to hear the gospel. Just an idea. We also do a turducken feast in November. Last year it brought over 40 visitors to hear the gospel. My point you don’t have to be limited by a building. We still use multiple locations. It’s not easy but is what we have to work with.

In the summer we do a lot outdoors BBQ’s (it is amazing who will show up for an hotdog and hamburger and some friendship), outreach and midweek Bible Study/prayer meetings.

Unfortunately, people do like an identity with a building. So that in itself is a negative; curb appeal is a big help in church planting but not always possible.

Lastly I will say that a large number of Baptist churches in [our state in the USA] used an SDA building in the beginning. Some had good experience some not. I know of one where some of the SDA members started attending the Baptist church and realized the error that they were being taught hence they lost their welcome. That’s not a bad thing; I try to always have a plan B. I think that if something like that happens God will provide for the next step.

On a personal note we are praising the Lord here. We have almost finished paying off the parsonage and property we have, so we are getting close to having our own building as the Lord provides.

Where Should A New Church Plant Meet? Reply #4

Just prayed that God would guide and direct you in this matter.

I think each option you listed can have its pros and cons depending on the community and culture of the people you are trying to reach.

A store front can be more visible, but it can often give the vibes of rinky-dink. It could also be a bit more pricey.

A church building that is used by another group can give off the feeling of being “churchy,” but it can put off some people that don’t want to go in a church building. I know of a church planter in [a place] that is using a 7th Day Adventist building. You could ask his opinion on how it is working … However, at the end of the day a building is just a building.

A home can be a good place to hold a Bible study, but I think in today’s culture it could put a great many people off. Have you considered something more neutral such as a community center, school function room, or something similar?

Some practical things to consider when seeking a place to rent:

– location, location, location: easy access, parking, will some people be put off by the surrounding area?

– facilities in the building: kitchen, disabled access, parking

– how long will you be able to meet in that location

When I was looking for a place to rent, I prayed about it and then just started calling different facilities to see where the open door might be. We had a fairly easy decision, because our current location was the only available place to rent.

When I sought the Lord about where to plant a church, I also considered the need of the area. Was there a gospel preaching church in the community? If so, were they active in evangelism and discipleship?

Various thoughts: within the bounds of Scripture, Paul and Barnabas were sent out from an assembly where they were faithfully ministering. Acts 12. Paul adapted how he lived and ministered for the sake of the Gospel, 1 Cor 9:19-23. Paul immediately obeyed the Lord’s leading, Acts 16:10.

I trust God will make the way clear and plain for you.

Where Should A New Church Plant Meet? Reply #5

Good morning … I have done all 3 of these.

You have some considerations…

if you are looking to save money…the home is best.
If you are looking at most appealing for people to walk into off the street … another church building
If you are looking to start from scratch … I prefer Jesus’ model.

Win people one by one … meet in the house of the key man … man of peace. This will be the person who is the common connection between the ones you are working with and the home will be no problem because they all know this man.

Then keep reaching key men and meeting in different homes with those in that connection group.

Finally combine the groups once you have people saved and committed to following Christ. Now you look for a meeting place.

By far I prefer Jesus’ method … although I realize this is not the American way.

Hope it makes some sense.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Church Planting Methodology: Questions About The Answers

I appreciate the Baptist brethren in Christ who took the time to share these answers with me. In relation to their responses, the following questions come up.

Are there issues about associations in relation to meeting in a place that pertains to a false religion? It is true that Solomon’s porch, synagogues, and the school of Tyrannus (mentioned in response #1) were not places associated with Christianity, but none of them were the Temple of Diana, either. Solomon’s porch and the synagogues were associated with the God of Israel, while the school of Tyrannus was not associated with a specific false religion. It looks like response #2 shares those concerns, in contrast to response #3, which is willing to meet in the building owned by a cult, the Seventh-Day Adventist “Church.”

Is there a difference between utilizing the meeting place of a cult (Seventh-Day Adventism, Mormonism, Oneness Pentecostalism) and the meeting place where there are disobedient brethren (non-separatist evangelicals)? How much difference does it make if the people in the false religion, or the disobedient brethren, are around (Sunday meeting) or not (Sabbath worshippers)? Does Paul preaching in synagogues after Christ had already established His church and turned away from Israel as His institution help answer this question?

How does the question of “curb appeal” factor in? Scripture does not teach that one has to have a building at all, but does meeting in a building rather than a home relate to loving one’s neighbor as oneself? How much of a factor is it that more people will be willing to visit in a church building than in a home? Is that even true? (Response #4 suggests it is not necessarily the case). How much of a factor is being “rinky-dink” (as response #4 brings up)?

Response #3 referred to the practices of a number of Baptist churches in that brother’s state. What lessons can be learned from Baptist history on this question? Response #3 also seemed to lean more towards a “go and invite to church” versus “Go ye into all the world and preach” (Mark 16:15) philosophy. How does the question of whether the assembly is a place geared to evangelize the lost, versus a place to edify and equip the saints so they can go into the world and preach to the lost (Ephesians 4:12), impact the question of a meeting place? How is the question of a meeting place affected if a church is seeking to grow by making disciples who can knock on doors and evangelize themselves, versus a church having an emphasis on inviting many children into the building by giving them candy and toys, and inviting targeted groups of adults into the building with various special events and give-aways?

The point in response #4 about building facilities, such as parking, a kitchen, and disabled access are important. I have no idea what laws and regulations relate to a church meeting in someone’s home. Does the home need to be ADA compliant and have wheelchair access (for example)? Does it need to have a certain number of fire extinguishers?

Response #4 also brought up the question of the surrounding area. How do factors such as the crime rate, or racial demographics, impact a meeting place’s location?

How much of a factor is how long one plans to meet, in God’s sovereign timing, at a particular place?

Response #5 was the most different, and, it seems, was advocating something where the method had the most significance. While responses #1-4 expressed a variety of levels of agreement and disagreement, in general the idea was that the location was not all that important (with the exception of some responses arguing that one should not meet in the building of a false religion). However, response #5 is arguing that a specific model is found in the ministry of the Lord Jesus. Who would want to do something other than what Christ did?

In relation to response #5, reference was made to Luke 10:6-7:

And if the son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon it: if not, it shall turn to you again. And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house.

Does this verse prove that we should be looking for a key man in whose house a church plant should meet? The passage refers to Christ sending out 70 disciples to evangelize Israel. Were churches established in these places, and, if not, how does that affect the application of this passage? Are there dispensational factors here we need to consider? Does the pattern change from the Gospels into Acts and the Epistles? Do we see the evangelists in Acts looking for a “son of peace” in this way? In light of the broad use of the Biblical “son of” language, how much should we conclude from the “son of peace” language? Is there a difference between simply preaching to “every creature” (Mark 16:15) and focusing on reaching key men? Are they inclusive of each other or exclusive, and to what degree the one or the other? In a big city can we be seeking to reach “every creature,” yet meeting in a home not be an issue, because everyone coming to church knows the “son of peace”?

Church Planting Methodology: What Do You Think?

What do you think? How should church planting ministry be undertaken?

–TDR

The Bible Makes Us Baptists: Free Christian Book Audio

February 9, 2024 / Leave a comment

The Bible Makes Us Baptists, (originally called In Editha’s Days: A Tale of Religious Liberty), is a Christian book for children written in 1894 by Mary E. Bamford. It is a work of historical fiction, narrating the life of an Anabaptist family in England running for their lives because fo their faith in the Bible, during the dark days when Roman Catholicism still controlled the United Kingdom. You can order a physical copy of the book at Amazon (affiliate link), or perhaps get it more inexpensively at a place such as Book Heaven.

However, the main point of this post is to inform you that you can hear the book read aloud for free on my KJB1611 YouTube channel here. The chapters are getting (pretty) consistently posted. So if you, or your children, want to hear an edifying Christian book read aloud, please use the link below to listen to The Bible Makes Us Baptists read aloud for free.

Click here to hear The Bible Makes Us Baptists (In Editha’s Days; A Tale of Religious Liberty) by Mary E. Bamford read aloud for free.

–TDR

King James Bible & Sam Gipp, Peter Ruckman & Gail Riplinger

January 12, 2024 / 18 Comments on King James Bible & Sam Gipp, Peter Ruckman & Gail Riplinger

Who is King James Only Advocate Sam Gipp?

Sam Gipp is an extremist defender of the King James Bible (also known as the King James Version or Authorized Version) of 1611 (KJB / KJV / AV). Gipp has been heavily influenced by the “Baptist” heretic Peter Ruckman, having graduated from Ruckman’s Bible institute, and having received an honorary doctorate from Ruckman’s educational institution. His views are also very similar to those of Ms. Gail Riplinger. Thus, Sam Gipp is a representative of Ruckman’s brand of King James Onlyism (KJVO).

While I strongly disagree with Mr. Gipp on his Ruckmanism, I am thankful that he preaches the gospel, as far as I know, and I trust that people have been born again through his preaching. I rejoice that there will be people in heaven who are there because the Spirit used the Word through the (very!) imperfect vessel of a Ruckmanite preacher (Mark 9:38-39; Philippians 1:15-18).

Sam Gipp Peter Ruckman Pensacola Bible Institute honorary doctorate — Gipp Receiving His Honorary Th. D. from Ruckman

I do not know if Mr. Gipp agrees with Ruckman’s gospel-corrupting heresy that people in different periods of time have been and will be saved by faith and works together, although if Gipp does not agree with it, he certainly does not separate from and plainly warn about Peter Ruckman’s false gospel and tell everyone to separate from Ruckman and his many heresies and blasphemies. Gipp does follow Ruckman in calling black people “nig–r”; he calls on white people to start regularly using this inappropriate term for blacks. He also makes foolish statements that undermine the gospel and will cause unbiblical offense (Mark 9:42), such as: “I hope you racists enjoyed this racist rant by a fellow racist. Tell your racist friends about it.” (Sam Gipp, “‘Racist’ the New ‘N-word,’ August 1, 2020. Bold print reproduced from the original.)

Dr. Gipp also agrees with Ruckman’s unbiblical KJVO extremism. For example, in Gipp’s Answer Book, he says: “The King James Version we have today … is the very word of God preserved for us in the English language. The authority for its veracity lies not … in the Greek Received Text” (pg. 24; note that the KJV is not said to be authoritative because it accurately translates the ultimately authoritative Greek text, but is allegedly authoritative independent of the Greek Received Text.). “QUESTION #30: The King James Bible is a mere translation from Greek to English. A translation can’t be as good as the originals, can it? ANSWER: A translation cannot only be “as good” as the originals, but better” (pg. 69; the humorous and embarrassingly bad reason provided is that when Enoch and others were “translated” to heaven, they were better afterwards than before, along with two other texts where the English word “translation” appears that have absolutely nothing to do with rendering the Bible from one language to another.). People should be “convinced that the King James Bible is the infallible Word of God” and therefore “remove those little so called ‘nuggets’ from the imperfect Greek” (pg. 115) to study only the English of the King James Version. Gipp’s Answer Book offers many words of praise for Peter Ruckman (pg. 89) but not one syllable of warning.

Sam Gipp: Ruckmanite Extremism

I recently was at an event where Christians from a variety of backgrounds were present. I was able to have a conversation with a sincere Christian man who, unfortunately, had been strongly influenced by Sam Gipp’s view on the King James Bible. (I would not be surprised if he simply wanted to have certainty about Scripture rather than really being excited about Ruckman’s claims of alien breeding facilities run by the government, Ruckman’s carnal language, and so on.) A friend of mine mentioned to him that I had debated James White on the King James Version. This brother in Christ asked me what I thought of Gipp. I said I would be happy to debate him, too. (That was the Biblically faithful answer, but not the answer this Christian brother wanted to hear, I suspect.) I would indeed be happy to debate Dr. Gipp on a proposition such as: “Because God has preserved His Word in the English language, study of the Greek and Hebrew texts of Scripture is detrimental or, at best, useless.” If Gipp will affirm this, I will deny it in any venue that is, within reason, mutually agreeable to both of us. I can be reached through the “contact us” page here if Dr. Gipp is open.

This Christian brother influenced by Mr. Gipp proceeded to argue that nobody really knew Greek, because it is a dead language. He seemed to think that there is no reason to look at the Greek and Hebrew texts of Scripture (a conclusion also advocated by fellow KJVO radical Ms. Gail Riplinger in her book Hazardous Materials: Greek and Hebrew Study Dangers).

Gail Riplinger New Age Bible Versions KJV KJB AV King James Version Only KJVO — KJV extremist Gail Riplinger

When I asked this sincere Christian brother if he knew where the actual Greek words spoken by Christ and recorded by Matthew, Mark, and the other New Testament writers. were, he said that he did not know where the Greek words of the New Testament were; but he believed the King James Version was perfect. This Christian man referred to an argument made by Gipp in his Answer Book allegedly proving that agapao and phileo have “absolutely NO DIFFERENCE” (pg. 93, Answer Book–capitalization in the original) in meaning because it is not easy to backtranslate them from English into Greek, and, therefore, there is no need to look at Greek for anything (pgs. 93-94). What Gipp’s argument actually proves is that backtranslating is no easy matter and that the phileo and agapao word groups have significant overlap in their semantic domain; the leap from conclusions about these specific words to the conclusion that Greek is useless is breathtaking and totally without merit, of course. One could, with the same argument, prove that clearly distinct Hebrew and Greek words for miracles are absolutely synonymous, or prove that any number of other words that have overlap in their semantic domains actually have “absolutely NO DIFFERENCE” in meaning.

Sam Gipp’s Ruckmanism is Wrong Because It Violates Scripture

There are a number of reasons why I disagreed with my dear brother and his advocacy of Ruckmanism as filtered through Sam Gipp.

First, and most importantly, his position is unscriptural. It denies the perfect preservation of Scripture, instead arguing for a sort of restoration of an unknown and lost Bible. When the Lord Jesus said:

Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4).

He was teaching that man must live by every single one of the Hebrew and Greek words that were penned by Moses, the Old Testament prophets, and (proleptically) by the New Testament apostles. The Lord Jesus was not talking about English words when He spoke Matthew 4:4 in Greek. When Isaiah 59:21 says that God’s Words would be in the mouths of every generation of the saints from the time that they were inspired and forever into the future, the Holy Ghost through Isaiah was not making a promise about English words. The words that were in the mouths and in the hearts of the saints, near them and not far off (Romans 10:6-9; Deuteronomy 30) were not English words, but Hebrew and Greek words (and, of course, a little bit of Aramaic). When David and his greater Son rejoiced in the pure words of God that would be preserved forever (Psalm 12:6-7), He was speaking about Hebrew words, not English words. Hebrew has jots and tittles (Matthew 5:18)–the Lord speaks of the smallest Hebrew consonant, the yod, and the smallest Hebrew mark on the page, the vowel chireq (a single dot; consider also the Hebrew accents). When this Christian brother said that he did not know where the Greek and Hebrew words of God were, he was denying the perfect preservation of Scripture. Ruckmanism is too weak on the preservation of Scripture.

Second, the Ruckmanism of Ruckman, Gipp, and Riplinger, which denies that one should utilize Hebrew and Greek, changes God’s glorious and beautiful revelation into hiddenness. God is not hiding Himself in His Hebrew and Greek words. He is, in ineffable beauty and glory, revealing Himself. To downplay in any way the very words chosen by the Father, spoken by Christ, and dictated by the Holy Spirit through the original authors of Scripture is wrong, wrong, wrong. It is 100% wrong to say that we should not look at or study those words. No, we must love them, trust in them, read them, memorize them, meditate upon them, and (if necessary) die for them. I do not doubt the sincerity of my Christian brother who was influenced by Gipp, but it is wickedness to downplay in any way the actual words spoken by the Holy Spirit because of something as ridiculous as the fact that Enoch was better off when he was “translated.”

The two reasons above are the most important ones. Ruckmanism violates Scripture’s promises of preservation and changes the original language words that were the delight of our sinless Savior upon earth, and for which the New Testament Christians were willing to die, into a closed book.

Ruckmanism is Wrong Because It Simply Is Not True

There are also many other reasons why Ruckman, Gipp, and Riplinger are wrong when they tell people not to look at the Greek and Hebrew texts of Scripture. There actually are many “wondrous things” (Psalm 119:18) that God has placed in the Greek and Hebrew texts of Scripture for His children’s instruction and delight, from puns to elements of poetry to syntactical structural markers and discourse elements, that do not show up in even a perfectly accurate English translation. (You can see many of these in my study on why learning Greek and Hebrew is valuable, especially for Christian leaders). Unfortunately, Sam Gipp in his Answer Book does not even acknowledge, much less deal with, these facts. He assumes that ascribing value to Greek and Hebrew necessarily means the English of the Authorized Version is inaccurate, when that simply does not follow. For example, consider Acts 5:34-42:

34 Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space; 35 And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men. 36 For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought. 37 After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed. 38 And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: 39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God. 40 And to him they agreed: and when they had called the apostles, and beaten them, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. 41 And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name. 42 And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.

:34 ἀναστὰς δέ τις ἐν τῷ συνεδρίῳ Φαρισαῖος, ὀνόματι Γαμαλιήλ, νομοδιδάσκαλος, τίμιος παντὶ τῷ λαῷ, ἐκέλευσεν ἔξω βραχύ τι τοὺς ἀποστόλους ποιῆσαι. 35 εἶπέ τε πρὸς αὐτούς, Ἄνδρες Ἰσραηλῖται, προσέχετε ἑαυτοῖς ἐπὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τούτοις, τί μέλλετε πράσσειν. 36 πρὸ γὰρ τούτων τῶν ἡμερῶν ἀνέστη Θευδᾶς, λέγων εἶναί τινα ἑαυτόν, ᾧ προσεκολλήθη ἀριθμὸς ἀνδρῶν ὡσεὶ τετρακοσίων· ὃς ἀνῃρέθη, καὶ πάντες ὅσοι ἐπείθοντο αὐτῷ διελύθησαν καὶ ἐγένοντο εἰς οὐδέν. 37 μετὰ τοῦτον ἀνέστη Ἰούδας ὁ Γαλιλαῖος ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τῆς ἀπογραφῆς, καὶ ἀπέστησε λαὸν ἱκανὸν ὀπίσω αὐτοῦ· κἀκεῖνος ἀπώλετο, καὶ πάντες ὅσοι ἐπείθοντο αὐτῷ διεσκορπίσθησαν. 38 καὶ τὰ νῦν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀπόστητε ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων τούτων, καὶ ἐάσατε αὐτούς· ὅτι ἐὰν ᾖ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἡ βουλὴ αὕτη ἢ τὸ ἔργον τοῦτο, καταλυθήσεται· 39 εἰ δὲ ἐκ Θεοῦ ἐστιν, οὐ δύνασθε καταλῦσαι αὐτό, μήποτε καὶ θεομάχοι εὑρεθῆτε. 40 ἐπείσθησαν δὲ αὐτῷ· καὶ προσκαλεσάμενοι τοὺς ἀποστόλους, δείραντες παρήγγειλαν μὴ λαλεῖν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, καὶ ἀπέλυσαν αὐτούς.41 οἱ μὲν οὖν ἐπορεύοντο χαίροντες ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ συνεδρίου, ὅτι ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ κατηξιώθησαν ἀτιμασθῆναι.42 πᾶσάν τε ἡμέραν, ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ καὶ κατ’ οἶκον, οὐκ ἐπαύοντο διδάσκοντες καὶ εὐαγγελιζόμενοι Ἰησοῦν τὸν Χριστόν.

In this passage, Gamaliel makes the famous statement that if the Christian religion “be of men, it will come to nought: but if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.” The translation in the King James Version is perfectly accurate. However, Greek has several different ways to express the conditional idea of an “if” clause. A Greek 1st class conditional clause assumes the reality of the condition, while a Greek 3rd class conditional clause ranges from probability to possibility; it is the difference between a petite woman struggling with heavy groceries telling a muscular body builder, “If you are so strong, help me!” (that would be a Greek 1st class conditional) and one of two evenly-matched boxers in a ring saying, “If I win our boxing match, I will be the champion” (which would be expressed using a Greek 3rd class conditional). In Acts 5, Gamaliel’s “if this counsel or this work be of men” is a Greek 3rd class conditional clause, while “if it be of God …” is a 1st class conditional. Gamaliel’s balancing a 3rd class with a 1st class conditional clause indicates that he assumes–correctly–that what the Apostles was preaching was actually from God, and the Jewish leadership could not overthrow it–indeed, attempting to do so was to fight against God.

There is nothing wrong with the KJV’s translation of this passage–English simply does not have different words for “if” like Greek does, and that is not the KJV translators’ fault. The Authorized Version is perfectly accurate, but there still is value in studying the Greek words dictated by the Holy Ghost through Luke. Is this a question of a major doctrine? No, of course not. But does it affect how an expository preacher explains this passage? Yes. Why should the hungry children of God not have everything that their Father wants for them? Why should some of the food the Good Shepherd has for His little lambs in the infallible Greek words of the Book of Acts be kept from them?

The argument of my Christian brother that nobody really knows Koine Greek because it is a dead language (Hebrew seems to be left out of this argument, as it is the living tongue of the nation of Israel) is also invalid. Imagine if someone in China is born again and then adopts a Ruckmanite view of the King James Version. He does not care if he learns to engage in conversation in English–he just wants to read the KJV. His goal is to read a particular written text, not to gain conversational ability. He does a lot of work and becomes fluent in reading Elizabethan English, progressing to the point where he can sight-read and translate into Chinese large portions of the KJV, although he never takes the time to learn how to, say, order a hamburger at McDonalds or talk about the weather tomorrow. Would a Ruckmanite say that this person really does not know English? Would he not say that he has learned what is by far the most important thing in English–learning to read the Bible? Would he say that this Chinese Christian should not use the KJV to shed light on his Chinese Bible? No, he would be completely in favor of this Chinese Christian comparing his Chinese Bible with the King James Version.

Let us say that this same Chinese Christian, as a result of carefully studying his King James Bible, discovers that he should not set aside Greek or Hebrew. He reads verses like: “If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha” (1 Corinthians 16:22) and realizes that the KJV itself, by transliterating instead of translating “Anathema” and “Maranatha,” is calling on him to look at the original language text. He therefore learns Greek the same way he learned English. He does not care if he can order a gyro in Koine Greek, or talk about a YouTube video in Koine Greek, but he progresses to the point where he can sight-read large portions of the Greek New Testament and translate it into Chinese. Can we say that this Chinese Christian does not know Greek? Is it wrong for him to use his knowledge of Greek to gain insight into his Chinese Bible? How can we say that he can use English to gain insight into his Chinese Bible, but not Greek?

Furthermore, let me add that, if he is starting from scratch, this Chinese Christian would find mastering the Greek of the New Testament easier than achieving fluency in English. There are the same number of vocabulary words in the Greek New Testament as there are words known by the average four-year-old child, and far fewer words in the Hebrew Old Testament than the average eight-year-old knows. The simple country farmers that were the large majority of the population in ancient Israel, and the slaves and lower-class people who were the large majority of the members of the first century churches, could understand the Bible in Hebrew and Greek. Learning the English of the KJV is a harder task (if starting from scratch) than learning the Greek of the New Testament or the Hebrew of the Old Testament. Because Ruckmanites are–conveniently–overwhelmingly native English speakers, they assume (without proof) that English, with all its irregularities, exceptions, and complications, is an easy language and that Greek and Hebrew are much more difficult, and ask why God would hide his Word in the hard languages of Greek and Hebrew instead of preserving (re-inspiring? re-revealing?) it in the easy English language. It would actually be more accurate to ask: “Why would God hide His Word in the difficult language of modern English, instead of preserving it in the easier languages of Koine Greek and Biblical Hebrew?” What is more, dare we say that God is not allowed to inspire and preserve a perfect, canonical, complete revelation in a language that becomes a dead language? Has God’s Word failed, because languages change over time? God forbid!

Believe the Textus Receptus and the King James Bible:

Reject Ruckman, Gipp, and Riplinger

There are many other problems with Ruckmanism. Reject Ruckman’s heresies on the gospel, Ruckman’s racism, Ruckman’s carnal spirit, and Ruckman’s many other bizzare doctrines and practices. Reject the extremism on the KJV of Peter Ruckman, Sam Gipp, and Gail Riplinger. Their indefensible position leads many away from the KJV to embrace modern versions. Instead, believe God’s promises of the perfect preservation of His Words. The Hebrew and Greek Textus Receptus contain all the words God inspired and preserved. Since the KJV is a fantastically accurate translation of those inspired and preserved Hebrew and Greek Words–the ultimate and final authority for all Christian faith and practice–its English words are authoritative and have the breath of God on them. All Christians in the English-speaking world should be King James Only. None of them should be followers of Peter Ruckman, Sam Gipp, or Gail Riplinger.

–TDR

The Nestle-Aland Greek Text is Based on 0% of Greek MSS: #14

December 29, 2023 / Leave a comment

My fourteenth debate review video of the James White / Thomas Ross debate on Biblical preservation or King James Onlyism goes through John 13 and examines every single variant between the Nestle-Aland Textus Rejectus and the Received Text or Textus Receptus. It is valuable to those who watched the debate, since it proves that Dr. White cannot be consistent when he attempts to prove the superiority of the Nestle-Aland text and modern English versions by attacking the Received Text based on one word in Ephesians 3:9 and one word that is in some TR editions in Revelation 16:5. His text has orders of magnitude more minority readings than does the Textus Receptus, so his attacks are not just like him pointing one finger at the KJV while four fingers point back at his LSB; rather, it is like a millipede pointing one leg at the KJV while all his other legs are pointing at the LSB.

However, the analysis in this video is also very helpful for those who never end up watching the debate. (I discussed debate-specific matters that relate to what is examined in video #14 in video #13.) While I do not doubt that I am biased, since I created the video, I believe it would be valuable for anyone who is entering the Baptist ministry and is going to confront textual-critical issues, valuable for any student of Biblical Greek who wishes to understand the overall differences between the TR and the NA/UBS Greek text, and valuable for any Christians who wish to have a level of understanding of the matter of Biblical preservation beyond what is rudimentary.

In this video, I demonstrate that in John 13 alone, the Nestle-Aland text rejects:

90% or more of Greek manuscripts 43 times
95% or more of Greek manuscripts 42 times
99% of Greek manuscripts or more 28 times
99%+ of Greek manuscripts 18 times
100% of Greek manuscripts in John 13:2.

Extrapolating for the entire New Testament from John 13, the Nestle-Aland text rejects:

99% of Greek MSS c. 4,680 times
90%+ of Greek MSS c. 11,180 times.

I also demonstrate that in vast numbers of short sections of text the Nestle-Aland text does not look like any known Greek manuscript on the face of the earth, and that even Nestle himself, from whom the Nestle-Aland text is named, recognized that the critical texts extant in his day were a patchwork that never existed in real space and time in textual history. The Nestle-Aland or United Bible Society Greek text is indefensible Scripturally, historically, and rationally.

I would encourage all defenders of God’s preserved Word in the Textus Receptus to learn, understand, and use these facts as they stand for the perfect preservation of Scripture. I believe these facts are not as well known in King James Only circles as they should be.

I also demonstrate in this video some facts about the Textus Receptus and how it compares to printed Majority Text editions that are not well known. While there certainly are minority readings in the TR–approximately 1% of the time when there are variants–and there are good reasons to follow the TR in this small percentage of Greek text for Scriptural and historical reasons–there are also plenty of places in all printed Majority Text or Byzantine Priority editions–whether that of Hodges / Farstad, Robinson / Pierpont, or Pickering–where the printed Majority Text follows a minority of Greek manuscripts while the Textus Receptus follows the majority. In fact, in John 13, while the TR and the Byzantine priority text editions were very close to each other, the TR actually follows the majority of Greek manuscripts in more letters in the chapter than does any printed Majority Text edition. The fact that the TR frequently follows a majority of Greek manuscripts when printed “Majority Text” editions do not is also a fact that is not well known enough in King James Only circles.

You can watch the video using the embedded link below, or view it at FaithSaves.net, Rumble, or YouTube.

These are important facts. Christians who believe in the perfect preservation of God’s Word can rejoice in them. Those who defend modern English versions and the corrupt United Bible Society / Nestle – Aland Greek text from which they are translated need to both understand and explain why these things are so, and why they are defending as God’s Word a patchwork text that never existed in real space and time in the history of textual transmission.

–TDR

The KJV’s “Translators to the Reader” King James Onlyism Refuted?

December 1, 2023 / Leave a comment

In the James White / Thomas Ross debate “The Legacy Standard Bible, as a representative of modern English translations based upon the UBS/NA text, is superior to the KJV, as a representative of TR-based Bible translations” James R. White made the astonishing claim that the “Translators to the Reader” refutes King James Onlyism. I touched on the main points of Dr. White’s claim in previous review videos, and in my twelfth debate review video I examine James White’s final arguments to this end, both from our debate and his book The King James Only Controversy.

James White quotes the preface to prove “the need for translations into other languages.” Of course, White provides no written documentation at all from any pro-Received Text, pro-KJV, or pro-confessional Bibliology source that is against translating the Bible into other languages.

He quotes the Translators to the Reader to prove that the KJV translators “use[d] … many English translations that preceded their work.” Who denies this?

He points out that the preface supports “study of the Bible in Greek and Hebrew.” Of course! The large majority of King James Only advocates would agree.

White points out, concerning the KJV translators, that: “Their view that the Word of God is translatable from language to language is plainly spelled out.” Again, White provides no documentation at all of any KJV-Only group who denies that Scripture can be translated from one language to another.

White claims that the KJV translators were “looking into the translations in other languages, consulting commentaries and the like.” Who is denying one should look at commentaries?

White argues: “[T]he KJV translators were not infallible human beings.” Of course, no advocate of perfect preservation is cited who has ever claimed that the KJV translators were “infallible human beings,” just like when White’s King James Only Controversy on page 106 talks about people who think that Beza was inspired, and on page 180-181 about people who think Jerome was inspired, and on page 96 about people who think Erasmus and Stephanus were inspired, no KJV-Only sources are provided who make these ridiculous claims, since, of course, there are no such sources.

Dr. White makes other unsubstantiated and absurd claims. Learn more in the twelfth debate review video at faithsaves.net, or watch the debate review on YouTube or Rumble, or use the embedded link below:

–TDR

Patristics Quote All New Testament Except for 11 Verses?

October 27, 2023 / 2 Comments on Patristics Quote All New Testament Except for 11 Verses?

In evangelistic Bible study #1, “What is the Bible?” (see also the PDF here), I (currently) have the statement:

[A]ll but 11 of the 7,957 verses of the New Testament could be reproduced without a single manuscript from the 36,289 quotes made by early writers in Christendom from the second to the fourth century.

I also have this statement in my pamphlet The Testimony of the Quran to the Bible.

I cite this statement from what is usually a highly reliable and scholarly source, Norman Geisler’s Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics:

“[I]f we compile the 36,289 quotations by the early church Fathers of the second to fourth centuries we can reconstruct the entire New Testament minus 11 verses.” (Norman L. Geisler, “New Testament Manuscripts,” Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Reference Library [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999], 532).

However, Elijah Hixson and Peter J. Gurry, eds., in Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2019), 228-238 have presented a strong case that this oft-repeated statement is not accurate. On the other hand, the following less specific statement is defensible:

Besides the textual evidence derived from New Testament Greek manuscripts and from early versions, the textual critic has available the numerous scriptural quotations included in the commentaries, sermons, and other treatises written by early church fathers. Indeed, so extensive are these citations that if all other sources for our knowledge of the text of the New Testament were destroyed, they would be sufficient alone for the reconstruction of practically the entire New Testament. (Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 4th ed. [New York: Oxford University Press, 2005], 126)

While Metzger and Ehrman’s statement is defensible, unless new evidence comes to light to overturn Hixson and Gurry’s case, the more specific statement in Geisler’s book, which I reproduced in my evangelistic Bible study, is not defensible or accurate. The “11 verses” claim is too specific, and the 36,289 quotations is also too specific. Sometimes it is hard to distinguish a quotation from an allusion, a summarization, or other less specific types of reference. I intend to remove the 11 verses statement derived from Geisler’s fine encyclopedia (still a great book, despite this one mistake) from Bible study #1 and from The Testimony of the Quran to the Bible and replace it with the less-specific statement. (I have not gotten around to doing it yet, but that is on the agenda.)

I was wrong to (unintentionally) reproduce inaccurate information. God is a God of truth. Also, please do not use the inaccurate statement yourself, but the accurate one, in the future, and if you are using these Bible studies in your church, please start using the updated and accurate ones once they are available; if you have extra copies already printed that contain the inaccurate statement, you might want to clarify that it is not technically correct.

The overall case for the accuracy of the New Testament remains infallibly certain from God’s promises and overwhelmingly strong from a historical perspective.

–TDR

WHAT IS TRUTH

Tag Archives: doctrine

Recent Posts

INDEX FOR WHAT IS TRUTH

Mark Ward / Thomas Ross Videos on King James Version English

Q, Synoptic Gospel Dependence, and Inspiration for the Bible

Reformed Systematic Theology v. 1, Joel Beeke & Paul Smalley

Positive features of Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology vol. 1: Revelation and God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019).

Concerns with Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology vol. 1: Revelation and God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019).

Church Planting Methodology: Where Should a New Church Meet?

Church Planting Methodology:

Where Should A New Church-Plant Meet? The Question

Church Planting Methodology:

Where Should A New Church-Plant Meet? Reply #1

Where Should A New Church Plant Meet? Reply #2

Where Should A New Church Plant Meet? Reply #3

Where Should A New Church Plant Meet? Reply #4

Where Should A New Church Plant Meet? Reply #5

Church Planting Methodology: Questions About The Answers

Church Planting Methodology: What Do You Think?

The Bible Makes Us Baptists: Free Christian Book Audio

Click here to hear The Bible Makes Us Baptists (In Editha’s Days; A Tale of Religious Liberty) by Mary E. Bamford read aloud for free.

King James Bible & Sam Gipp, Peter Ruckman & Gail Riplinger

Who is King James Only Advocate Sam Gipp?

Sam Gipp: Ruckmanite Extremism

Sam Gipp’s Ruckmanism is Wrong Because It Violates Scripture

Ruckmanism is Wrong Because It Simply Is Not True

Believe the Textus Receptus and the King James Bible:

Reject Ruckman, Gipp, and Riplinger

The Nestle-Aland Greek Text is Based on 0% of Greek MSS: #14

The KJV’s “Translators to the Reader” King James Onlyism Refuted?

Patristics Quote All New Testament Except for 11 Verses?

Post navigation

AUTHORS OF THE BLOG

Pages

Recent Comments

Archives

Meta