Home » Posts tagged 'naturalism'

Tag Archives: naturalism

New List of Reasons for Maximum Certainty for the New Testament Text

May 13, 2024 / 1 Comment on New List of Reasons for Maximum Certainty for the New Testament Text

ANSWERING AGAIN THE “WHAT TR?” QUESTION

Sixty-Six Books

Many evangelicals claim maximum certainty on sixty-six books of the Bible. “Are you certain there are sixty-six books of the BIble?” “Yes.” “What verse in the Bible says to expect sixty-six books?” “None.” “So what is your basis for sixty-six books of the Bible?” Many of their reasons would match what I would give for certainty on the text of the Bible, certainty on what the exact words are.

The reasons for certainty on both the books and the words relate to biblical principles for canonicity. Nothing in the Bible states how many books one should expect though. And yet these evangelicals still declare maximum certainty about “sixty-six.” Sixty-six came from God. No verse saying that, but they still rely on scripture for their certainty. They don’t have mere confidence for sixty-six books. They have certainty.

Very often the same evangelicals’ direct inquiries to me about where the Bible says God would preserve the textus receptus, those particular Latin words. In addition they ask for a verse with the exact words, “King James Version” in a scriptural promise somewhere. They consider these to be “arguments.”

The question arises, “How do we know, for instance, the epistle of James is in the Bible or Galatians or any other single book?” What gives the certainty for inclusion of particular books? How do we know when we’re reading Hebrews that it is in fact the Word of God, more than a mere ancient, naturalistic book?

The Preservation of Words

On the other hand, does God promise to preserve His Words perfectly in a single printed edition of the New Testament? This gets to the crux of the “which TR” question. Scripture teaches perfect preservation of scripture, but how do we know what the words are? How do we know what the books are? The answer is the same to those last two questions. In fact, scripture talks about words and not about books. It’s easier to prove the preservation of words from scripture than it is books.

The Bible doesn’t provide naturalistic rules for deciding on the words of the Bible, ones like shorter or more difficult reading and older manuscript. Men made up those rules and with them, they added, “You can’t be certain.” God’s Word though says you can and should be certain. You expect certainty based upon scripture. The Bible also provides criteria not in the nature of rules, but in presuppositions, promises, and principles. Scripture provides a template, paradigm, or model for what to expect from God and His preservation of scripture.

I want to review the right presuppositions again. Again. I’ve done this a lot, but here we go again, because based on information from my critics, no one answers this. [Not liking the answer does not qualify as not answering.]

I’m going to give a list, because obviously lists are greater click bait. And if I don’t have a list, I shouldn’t say “list” in my click bait title.

1. God Inspired Specific, Exact Words, and All of Them.

Not Just the Gist

Someone named Eugene Peterson did a paraphrase of the Bible, called The Message. That’s very often how people want to deal with scripture. It’s a message and so the very words don’t matter so much, as long as you get “The Message.” What’s God saying to you? Here’s the gist of it, that’s all that matters. And part of the gist, of course, comes from Eugene Peterson’s brain.

I say, get the gist of scripture. It’s important. But that’s not all that matters. God gave words. Every one of them matter. You don’t get the gist without words and God said this in many different passages. I’m not going to review those with you on this point, but it is true.

Some people miss the gist, and that’s too bad. They need to and should get that too, but God first gave words. Christians have believed that every word matters. God gave specific, exact ones. He delivered them to His institution. They received them (think Textus Receptus here).

All of Them

I added, “and all of them,” because God’s Word, the Bible, or scripture is not 50 percent of the exact words or even 95 percent. It is all of them. I’m happy to have 10 percent of them, but He gave 100 percent. I should expect 100 percent. God even uses the word, “all.” He gave each Word and then all of them.

God inspired only one Bible. There are not two. People don’t have options as to what the Bible is. It isn’t a multiple choice. The question, “Which Bible do you use?” does not reflect what the Bible says about itself. This kind of idea, which is prevalent now in evangelicalism, is destructive and it comes from unbiblical presuppositions about the Bible.

2. After God Inspired, Inscripturated, or Gave His Words, All of Them, to His People through His Institutions, He Kept Preserving Each of Them and All of Them According to His Promises of Preservation.

Expectations

One can and should expect this second point in the list because God said He would do it. He promised it. Evangelicals or modern version proponents very often say God didn’t say “how” he would do it. But He also did say how he would preserve His Words. Believers should have those scriptural expectations. This is part of living by faith.

Preservation of scripture means God keeping each of the words and all of them that He gave. Keeping them then means their being available to every generation of believers.

The preservation of scripture means what the Bible says that preservation of scripture means. It does not mean keeping every word in one particular physical handwritten copy that makes its way unblemished down through the following decades, centuries, and millennia or the annals of history. Every word and all of them would remain available for God’s people. There isn’t a peep about variants and manuscript evidence.

Not Naturalistic

Before someone goes anywhere else in answering questions about manuscripts, printed editions, and translations, he must settle on the first two points of this list. He should start with what the Bible says. He should not begin with an observation of history, “external evidences,” and naturalistic occurrences to which to conform his belief. The Bible explains its own inspiration and preservation in a very clear way. It’s not hard to understand. Everyone will get the text and version issue wrong if he does not get these first two points of this list right.

What I’ve witnessed for decades now exclusively with modern version and critical text adherents is the absence of a biblical presupposition about the preservation of scripture. They don’t want to touch that. If that is their basis for how they approach their outcome, they know it will contradict what they’re saying. What I’ve seen instead is that they start with a criticism or refutation of what has already been published and propagated on the doctrine of preservation through church history.

Presuppositions

Instead of starting with a scriptural position themselves, modern textual criticism proponents begin with naturalistic presuppositions like modernists of the 19th century did. Based on those, they saw we can’t believe perfect preservation, because it didn’t happen. They know it didn’t happen because variants exist between manuscripts. It’s far worse than that even. Their position starts with tests normally applied to secular literature, which have no promise of preservation because they’re solely of human origin.

Some critical text and modern version proponents straight out deny preservation. Others don’t have a theology of no preservation of scripture. They’d be too embarrassed to say that. Instead they leave their audience with ambiguity, leaving their listeners confused on the subject, playing a shell game. God’s Word doesn’t teach that. Anything they call their biblical position arises to criticize someone who starts with a biblical doctrine with the purpose of either denying it, confusing it, or muddling it.

The elimination of a biblical doctrine of preservation affects the authority of scripture. Critical text and modern version proponents are eradicating the doctrine or preservation ironically to preserve their preference. In so doing, they cause people to take the Bible less seriously. When people are not sure whether those are the actual words of God, they are less likely to believe and then keep what they say.

More to Come

How Evangelicals Now Move the Goalposts on Bibliology (part two)

March 26, 2024 / 2 Comments on How Evangelicals Now Move the Goalposts on Bibliology (part two)

Part One

Man’s Lust As An Agent of Change

Scripture itself chronicles an entire world history long Satanic attack on scripture. It is one of the few major components of apostasy, even as seen in 2 Peter 1. Man wants to do what he wants to do, what the Bible calls “lust.” He follows his own lust. The authority of scripture gets in the way of man’s own desires, so he follows the ideology of Satan by attacking scripture. Without the Bible, authority returns to himself and he goes his own way without compunction.

People who want to do what they want to do are the audience for evangelical outreach. These people look askance at true Christianity, wanting something closer to what pleases them not God. Mere biblical stuff does not attract or allure them.

Evangelical churches and organizations have choices about growth and then budgets. Evangelicals like the same comforts as their potential audience, who want to please themselves. They “get” that audience, because they operate in a similar trajectory. Christianity becomes another way of getting things, except with a lot of the negatives removed. It’s not true, but a desirable narrative, what people would want their Christianity to be. Much in scripture gets in the way of the false narrative.

The Bible becomes the casualty in the clash of desires, please one’s self or pleasing God. These desires compete and something’s got to go. Evangelicals will not keep their attendees without something going. One can see the biblical and historical doctrine of scripture change.

Naturalism in Academia As An Agent of Change

Naturalism also rose and took hold in academic institutions in the United States in the 19th century. This included evangelical ones and then churches out of these. Supernaturalism became unacceptable. The doctrine of the Bible reads from scripture as supernatural. God is in charge of His Words and He wants, even requires, people to follow suit. If professing academics try to take that supernatural point of view, they won’t fit in academia. They won’t be the smart ones, might not find their supernaturalism acceptable for publication.

So how did and does biblical, historical, or classical bibliology change? How did even evangelicals move the goalposts? It’s not always through all evangelicals taking the new positions, but it’s also accommodation of the new positions.

This series will not cover every diversion from scriptural bibliology, but it will represent the point of the title, moving the goalposts for bibliology by evangelicalism.

Moving the Goalposts on Inspiration

Scripture teaches that “all scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16), so that is true. The historical, biblical position on inspiration is “verbal, plenary inspiration.” God inspired every Word and all the Words. The authority of scripture comes from that, even as seen in the rest of 2 Timothy 3:16: “and is profitable for doctrine,” etc. The authority of scripture proceeds from inspiration.

I provide three examples of moving the goalposts on inspiration, not necessarily in any order. Evangelicals see large numbers of deconversions or departures from the faith. These young people or students see apparent inconsistencies, incongruities, contradictions, or what look like errors. I remind you of the mixture of these discoveries with their lust. Why should these young people continue in this path without a perfect book?

The Christological Approach Pushed by Dan Wallace and Others

A text or book verbally, plenarily inspired by God must be perfect, every word and all of them. Since people “don’t see that,” they push the eject button. The presupposition for verbal, plenary scripture comes from scripture. Some might call that circular reasoning. Critics would say that no one should operate on circular reasoning. Daniel Wallace, longtime professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, offers instead what he calls an incarnational or Christological approach.

Describing Christology over Bibliology

This incarnational approach defers to errors in scripture, but says that the Word isn’t a textbook. In fact, the Word is Christ. Christ is perfect, so His Word is perfect. Sure you find contradictions and errors there in the Book. Wallace can’t vouch for a literal inerrancy. There is a mystical aspect to the faith, that starts with Jesus and not the Book.

The high view of scripture according to Wallace comes because of the perfection of Christ. He is the Word. Then those who start with Jesus go to scripture with the same view He had. As you read this, I can understand your seeing or thinking there are some gaps in Wallace’s position.

You might think, “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God” (Romans 10:17). It seems faith proceeds from the Word of God, not an experience external to the Word of God with Christ. What is this mystical experience? And if Christ is Who He is, I would expect Who He says He is, then isn’t His Word actually perfect? That is what He says. If He says it, and then we look into scripture and find it isn’t true, what does that say for the testimony of Christ?

John Wenham

Wallace seems somewhat honest about his expectations of the Bible. They are diminished by scholarship. He went back to the drawing board on inspiration, authority, and inerrancy, unlike when Bart Ehrman came to that same juncture. He found a book written by John Wenham in 1972, called, The Bible and Christ. There Wallace found this innovative position, and it’s the one he pushes on his students. Christ is a Perfect Christ no matter if the actual Words of scripture are perfect, and He would contend that we know that by a supernatural, extra-scriptural experience with Christ.

John Frame found the same shortcomings of Wenham’s book in a review he wrote in 2012. This is not an endorsement of Frame, but I would agree with Frame’s assessment of the approach that Wallace embraces on the Christology over Bibliology doctrine. Wallace moves the goalposts on bibliology. Perhaps many evangelicals would reject Wallace’s position, but they wouldn’t call it neo-orthodox. They would accommodate him. Someone included the following in a definition of neo-orthodoxy, which I believe is true about it:

Neo-orthodoxy teaches that the Scripture is a communicator or medium revealing God rather than being revelation by itself. The Word of God is Jesus Himself rather than Scripture serving as God’s Word. The emphasis is on an encounter with God rather than a focus on the inspired words of Scripture.

This kind of thinking, now spoken by evangelical Daniel Wallace, liberals embraced in the writings of Emil Brunner and Karl Barth. This is the end for evangelicalism, when its leaders sway the adherents into this direction and these types of positions.

More to Come

The Requirement of Censorship with the Separation of Church and State: The Truth of the Bible Requires Institutional Adherence

January 19, 2023 / 4 Comments on The Requirement of Censorship with the Separation of Church and State: The Truth of the Bible Requires Institutional Adherence

Recent Twitter Files reveal widespread and coordinated censorship there. Where vile language acceptable, those speaking truth have lost their jobs. Long before, state institutions censored the most important truths in human history without recrimination.

Before you continue, I offer you a guide. This post will move outside of most people’s box. I ask you not to delve into the establishment clause of the first amendment of the United States Constitution. Before you jump to practical ramifications, consider the truth of the post.

The Truth, the Logos

When you read Genesis 1 in the Bible, you are reading the account of the beginning of all time, space, and matter. Everything originates with God out of nothing. That is the explanation for everything. It does not even exist without Him, but He also sustains it.

The Bible record is truth as well as is the truth. Scripture presents itself as the truth. Jesus, God the Son, said to His Father God in John 17:17, “Thy Word is truth.” It might make you feel good and help your life, but that is just a byproduct of its truth. It works because it is the truth. The truth is one, because God is one. Nothing in this record contradicts any other part. God does not deny Himself.

God created man in His image and with His likeness. He intended man to reflect Him in his nature. Men should treat and look at the world in every aspect like God would. They should follow what God says, the truth, for and about everything. God expects men to view the world, see it, like He does.

Modernists speculate a fully naturalistic origination and continuation of all things. They opine this as progress from the superstition of ignorance. In fact, the premoderns had it right. It never was a natural world. The Greeks were right in their concept of cosmos, which they called logos, an intelligence that permeated all space and matter and in contrast to random and chaotic naturalism.

People in John’s day understood his Logos in John 1:1, who He said was Jesus Christ, was the source for this cohesion, intelligence, and order. Paul wrote that in Christ were hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:3) and that by all things consisted (1:17). That was the Logos.

No Bifurcation of Truth

Paul was also emphatic in the truth of Christ’s bodily resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:3-4). Jesus showed Thomas the wounds in His hands. He was one, whole Person. A physical body was the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19-20). Both body and spirit glorified God. This contradicted a pagan dualism, that separated truth into separate spheres of the spiritual and physical.

This New Testament presentation matches the Old Testament concept of truth, “the fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge” (Proverbs 1:7). Every aspect of knowledge falls under the purveyance of God’s truth. Even though someone may divide the truth into various fields such as government, economics, math, and biology, it still is one cohesive, orderly truth proceeding from the one mind of one God.

Whatever field or region under the sovereignty of one truth splinters from the one, or whenever it does, it becomes distorted, superficial, meaningless, and subjective. The greatest advancements today in philosophy and science come in what Stephen Meyer calls “the return to the God hypothesis.” The universe is fine tuned. A cell is irreducibly complex. In philosophy, only God explains the existence of everything that exists. It’s impossible for something that exists not to have a reason for its existence.

Separating the truth from government, art, music, and economics, leaves any one in chaos and moral relativism. The gospel does not stand apart from all the truth of the Bible. And the gospel itself cannot and should not be divided into separate components of different degrees of subjective value. For instance, it is good for social reasons and perhaps psychological ones but not to reconcile to God and appease His holy wrath.

Religion the Truth, Equal with Facts

The state is good with religion as long it isn’t the truth. If it becomes the truth, it is equal with facts, science, math, and engineering. True religion cannot just stop with the true definitions of a man and of a woman. Next it says you go to Hell if you reject Jesus Christ. Even worse it limits your marijuana use.

Much of the philosophical conversation today revolves around what I here write. One faction, even considered conservative now, bemoans the loss of Western Civilization and its advantages. It is the water in which we swim, even if no longer Judeo-Christian ethics.

Classically liberal intellectuals warn readers and listeners. They won’t like the disappearance of Christianity, hearkening Nietzche’s prophecy about the death of God in the 19th century. However, if you remove the resurrection, ascension, and second coming of Christ, the consummation of all things in the future literal, physical reign of Jesus Christ, you eradicate all of Christianity. It is a whole that cannot be separated into disjunctive parts.

Total Truth

For a long time Christians self-censored by backing away from total truth (the title of Nancy Pearcey’s book). They stopped bringing the truth to all the subjects and every institution, all ordained by God. The dismissal of one is the dismissal of all.

A moral statement is either true or false. True moral statements come from the Word of God. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, nothing else the Bible says is true. Paul says this in 1 Corinthians 15. You cannot chop the Bible up like that. The moral values become meaningless without the truth of the history and the scientific declarations.

The table of nations in Genesis 10 is the truth. The prophecies of Daniel 11 are the truth. What scripture says all over about men and women is the truth. These are not subjective and relativistic. They are objective. They are true. All these writings should be taught everywhere as truth, not in religion class as an alternative along side the lies of other religions.

The separation of church and state, which is not in the United States Constitution, necessitates censorship. Anything church related is only church related and stays in the church. Only state stuff belongs in the state, which as many of you know, includes everything in the world, including biblical issues like marriage and parenting practices. Then the state labels all of theirs science and facts and outside of the state, unless cooperating with the state, subjective, private, and even conspiracy. If it is truth, it is your truth, subjective truth, which is fine as long as you keep it outside of institutions.

Take Moses into the Supreme Court Building

For awhile the state has been fine with a sculpture of Moses with the two tablets on the Supreme Court building. It is a decoration. It is a ritual. Maybe it’s even an archetype into which you read whatever you want. They cannot use it as grounds for decision making, even if its self-evident truths form the basis for logic, argument, and morality.

Perhaps a government and big business or oligarchical complex now joins in widespread censorship. Let’s just say that complex does censor the citizenry of the United States and other Western countries. Christians already censored themselves by segregating themselves away from God’s world and keeping the truth away from its institutions, whose very existence arises from that truth.

God requires more than talking about the truth at church. He requires adherence to the truth in every institution. This is the teaching of all nations. True discipleship requires national adherence. Churches at least should adhere, but their goals are further than that. They want the knowledge and dominion of His truth everywhere.

The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, Postmodernism, and Critical Theory

October 19, 2021 / 2 Comments on The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, Postmodernism, and Critical Theory

People in general don’t want to be told what to do. This arises from the sin nature of mankind, a cursed rebellion passed down from Adam. So people won’t have to do what an authority tells them, they disparage the credibility of it. They especially attack God in diverse manners so He won’t hinder or impede what they want.

Premodernism, Modernism, Postmodernism, Critical Theory, and Epistemology

The premoderns, even if some did not view themselves or the world correctly, related everything to God. Truth was objective. They knew truth either by natural or special revelation of God. If God said it, it was true, no matter what their opinion. Many invented various means to deal with their own contradictions, but God remained God.

Modernism then arose and said revelation wasn’t suitable for knowledge. Modernists could point to distinctions between religions and denominations and the wars fought over them. Knowledge instead came through scientific testing, man’s observations, consequently elevating man above God. Man could now do what he wanted because he changed the standard for knowledge. Faith for sure wasn’t good enough. With modernism, faith might make you feel good, but you proved something in naturalistic fashion to say you know it. Modernism then trampled the twentieth century, producing devastation, unsuccessful with its so-called knowledge.

Premoderns had an objective basis for knowledge, revelation from God. Moderns too, even if it wasn’t valid, had human reasoning, what they called “empirical proof.” Postmoderns neither believed or liked scripture or empiricism. This related to authority, whether God or government or parents, or whatever. No one should be able to tell somebody else what to do, which is to conform them to your truth or your reality. No one has proof. Institutions use language to construct power.

Postmodernism judged modernism a failure, pointing to wars, the American Indians and institutional bias, bigotry, and injustice. Since modernism constructed itself by power and language, a postmodernist possesses his own knowledge of good and evil, his own truth, by which to construct his own reality. No one will any more control him with power and language.

Critical theory proceeds from postmodernism, but is ironically constructed to sound like modernism. It’s not a theory. Theory is by definition supposed to be rational and associated with observations backed by data. Critical theory criticizes, but it isn’t a theory, rather a desire. People desire to do what they want and don’t want someone telling them what to do, so they deconstruct the language to serve their desires and change the outcome. In the United States especially, theorists criticize white males, those who constructed language and power for their own advantage. According to their theories, white men kept down women, all the other races, and sexual preferences.

The postmodernism behind critical theory procures its knowledge with total subjectivity. Those proficient in theory based on their own divination know what’s good and evil, making them woke to this secret knowledge. They have eaten of the tree. White men are evil. The patriarchy is evil. Anyone contesting gender fluidity and trangenderism is evil.

Epistemology is a field of study that explores and judges how we know what we know and whether we really know it, that it is in fact knowledge. What is a sufficient source of knowledge? You can say you know, but do you really know? The Bible uses the term “know” and “knowledge” a lot. Biblical knowledge is certain, because God reveals it. You receive knowledge when you learn what God says. You can’t say the same thing about what you experience or feel.

The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil

In Genesis 2 (vv. 9, 17), what was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? In the same context, Genesis 3:5-7 say:

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods,, knowing good and evil. 6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. 7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

If Adam and Eve depended on what God knew, they would not have eaten of the forbidden tree. Instead they trusted their own knowledge. The tree wasn’t the tree of the knowledge of good. God provided that knowledge. Just listen to Him. Eating of the tree brought the knowledge of evil. The knowledge of evil, what someone might call, carnal knowledge, reminds me of three verses in the New Testament.

1 Corinthians 5:1, It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife.

Ephesians 5:3, But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints.

Romans 16:19, For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil.

God discourages the increase of the knowledge of evil. Do not become curious with evil. Upon eating, however, Adam and Eve, ceased their simplicity concerning evil (Rom 16:19). God forewarns the knowledge of evil and we need no other basis for the knowledge of good other than God. God is good. All goodness comes from above (James 1:17).

Carnal Knowledge

Critical theory posits a special knowledge, like that of the gnostic. What the theorist knows now is evil, because he stopped listening to God as a basis for what he does. He doesn’t want to do what God tells him to do. He wants to do what he wants and now with an objective basis for his knowledge, his theory. Like James wrote, temptation occurs when lust draws us away and entices us. Rather than knowledge or truth, critical theory is lust, like what Adam and Eve had in the garden.

When someone does what he wants, he now has experiential knowledge of that thing, something like carnal knowledge. He functions according to his own lust, his own feelings. He’s being true to himself, so true by his own presupposition. His truth is his truth. He’s authentic. He listens to his music. He eats what he wants, drinks what he wants, watches what he wants. A man wears a dress because he wants to wear it. She pierces herself wherever and with whatever she wants and lies with another woman if it’s what she wants, if she’s being true to herself. This clashes with God, but God is only a construct anyway of a white patriarchy for the purpose of power.

The person who knows evil is a person of the world, doing what he wants, experiencing it all for himself. Maybe his parents said, no. They’ve warned, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not. He is wise unto that which is evil, which is impressive in this world. He has a worldly vocabulary that conforms to how he wants to talk. It’s not profanity any more. That was all just a construct. It’s authentic speech, art imitating life and life imitating art. It’s like the pursuit of Solomon without God — altogether vanity and vexation of spirit.

That the knowledge of evil makes one wise is a lie of temptation. Critical theory standardizes lies and turns them into a curriculum. Someone can claim an expertise, become a licensed operator of these lies. Theorists don’t just condone the lies, but institutionalize them.

Eve saw the fruit of the tree. It was good. It would make her wise. This was critical theory. She was now woke. No one constructs his own reality. The effects of her eating was reality, was true, and both Adam and Eve dealt with those consequences. Every man will face that. In the end, the theories, that aren’t even theories, won’t make any difference before a holy God. All theorists will stand before God and understand with impeccable clarity the objectivity of truth, not constructed by man, but revealed by God. Best for everyone that they do not wait until then, but start listening to Him now as their source of knowledge.

WHAT IS TRUTH