Home » Posts tagged 'presuppositions'
Tag Archives: presuppositions
The Church Fathers Are NotThe Church Fathers
I already have several series going, which include one on the Antichrist and globalism, one on the way people contort Matthew 5:17-20 to eliminate the doctrine of preservation, another one exploring Christian nationalism, and the one below, which I would predict has two parts, but it might just end here. I wanted you to know, Lord-willing, I would return to some of these series as I see fit.
*****************************
Church Fathers
If you grew up in a Baptist church like I did, then you didn’t hear anything about “church fathers.” I never heard that language until perhaps college, and I actually don’t remember when I first heard the terminology. No one referred in any of my childhood Baptist churches to a church father. I would doubt that I even heard of church fathers in high school, even though I attended and graduated from a Christian high school.
At some point as a child, I heard about “Father Abraham.” Sometime soon after that, I learned that Abraham was the father of the nation Israel. I also found that Abraham’s son Isaac and grandson Jacob were the Patriarchs. The English word, Patriarch, comes from the Latin, pater, which means Father. If you asked me who the Patriarchs were, I would answer, “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” Still, I never ever heard about any church fathers. Because of Galatians 3:7, now I might add that Abraham is also my Father, since I too am a child of his by faith in Jesus Christ.
Who are the Church Fathers?
So who are the church fathers? As you read this, maybe still you’ve never heard of the church fathers. However, now when people say “church fathers,” I know of whom they speak. I took a course in grad school, called “History of Christian Doctrine,” which examined the church fathers. Part of the requirements for my grad degree was historical theology. Okay, so who are these people called “church fathers”? I didn’t give them that name.
A Roman Catholic theologian named Johannes Quasten systematized ancient Christendom with his book, Patrology, which discusses what ancient Christian writers said. Historians had designated this study as Patristics. The earliest I read this term Patristics is in the 18th century and in German. Quasten defined “Church Fathers” as those Christian writers from New Testament times until Isidore of Seville (636) in the Latin world and John of Damascus (749) in the Greek world.
A second century writer, Irenaeus, who himself people call a “church father,” wrote:
For what any person has been taught from the mouth of another, he is termed the son of him who instructs him, and the latter [is called] his father.
Clement of Alexandria, also a church father, wrote:
We call those who have instructed us, fathers.
Apparently, the basis for this designation originated from Deuteronomy 32:7:
Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations: ask thy father, and he will shew thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee.
Proto Roman Catholic Fathers
From my reading through the years, I see these men, called church fathers, as proto-Roman Catholics. I’m not saying they would surrender or acquiesce to the Roman Catholic Council of Trent, if they read it. However, in general Roman Catholics embraced these men, claimed them, and then designated them as their fathers. The teachings of these fathers developed into later Roman Catholic dogma. Roman Catholics use them as credence for their false doctrine.
The earlier “fathers” were not in general as filled with error as the later ones. They show the incremental departure from true New Testament doctrine and practice. Their errors provide the basis for later and more severe error. Today men justify their own false doctrines historically by referring to something in the patristic writings. They can and do say that they have historical justification from the fathers for unbiblical beliefs and practices.
Value of the Church Fathers
I’m not saying the fathers are not without merit. You can find true beliefs and accurate exegesis of scripture in their writings. In many cases, they sound like sincere, true believers. Those writings also do validate certain doctrine and practice existed at that period of time, which is important for the history of doctrine. The patristic works show that people believed these things at this time according to these writings. They also indicate a consideration of New Testament books as the Word of God and a belief in Jesus Christ. From what they wrote, we see the reality of a love for the Bible among them.
The church fathers are very old writings, some of the oldest ancient writings that we possess. They are relevant as historical matter. They authenticate the story of Christianity. We can get from them an understanding of some what happened at that time. From the mere historical standpoint, they are very valuable.
The Church Fathers Were Not the Church Fathers
With all the above said, I don’t believe the church fathers are the church fathers. They’ve been labeled “the church fathers,” but they are not the fathers of the true church. I acknowledge the notoriety of these men called “the church fathers.” They represent a particular view of history with a trajectory toward a state church.
The best and really only evidence of the true church is scripture. One should judge the veracity of a church by what the Bible says it is. The Bible says what a church is. Then when someone examines something called a church, he tests it by scripture.
I would contend that the church fathers are better the fathers of the state church, which isn’t a true church. The state church chose the writings they would preserve. Based on biblical presuppositions, I contend that other men followed more closely to scripture. Their writings did not survive, because they clashed with Roman Catholic viewpoints. Those men represent a different trajectory of history.
Evidence for Church Fathers
Scriptural Presuppositions
You’ve heard, “To the victors go the spoils.” The victors very often also write the history books. The state church dominated most of the period of history from Christ until today. Its history and advocates of its history also dominate. For centuries, the state church had no problem destroying whatever did not support the state church, including the writings of which it did not approve. This means often leaving no historical trace of the presence of its enemies.
Based first upon biblical presuppositions, I and others believe that churches always existed separate from the state church. From some historical record, we believe they were known by different names. I think enough evidence exists to identify them by some of those names (example). Rather than a state church, these were autonomous and persecuted churches operating independent of state churches.
Churches that represent the biblically acceptable viewpoint left enough historical evidence, a footprint, to acknowledge their existence. Their trajectory leaves adequate trace of their scriptural legitimacy. Someone pictured it with a rope across a river, held on each side by men. You can see where the rope goes into the river and where it comes out. You know the rope continues in between, but you can’t see it at every point. However, you know the rope is there.
Enough of a History
The New Testament tells the story of true churches, local only. Evidence shows true churches existed then after the invention of the printing press. Some proof also indicates their presence in between. I would contend that the church fathers are the apostles and first pastors in New Testament times. The historical trajectory of those fathers does not move through those called, “the church fathers.” Therefore, the church fathers are not the church fathers. I don’t accept them as mine.
The actual fathers have little mention in church history. God did not promise to preserve their history and little of their history did survive. These are primitive Baptists first called Christians in Acts 11:26. True New Testament churches, that believed and practiced the Bible, continued through history separate from the state church.
The White-Ross Debate: Who Won?
Watch the Debate
White and Ross Arguments
White’s Presentation
In mid-February, James White debated Thomas Ross about which was better, the Legacy Standard Bible (LSB) or the King James Version (KJV). White argues with an entirely naturalistic presupposition, saying that only manuscript evidence shows the underlying text of the KJV, the Textus Receptus (TR), is worse than that of the LSB, the Nestles Aland critical text (NA). Furthermore, he says the KJV uses archaic words and has less information for an accurate translation of certain technical words. He also tries to demonstrate some translation errors in the KJV, not in the LSB.
Ross’s Scriptural Presuppositions
Ross argues with a scriptural presupposition. The TR is superior to the NA based on the doctrine of preservation. The TR meets God’s promises of preservation in His Word. Ross asserts and then proves that scripture teaches verbal plenary original language preservation by means of true churches for every generation of believers. He also shows this identical teaching is the historical position clearly believed by the church, relying on the same passages. The NA is absent from its confessions or published materials. The TR only fits a scriptural and historical presupposition.
On the other hand, Ross shows that we know that the NA text was not in use for at least 1000 years. That isn’t preservation. Founders and proponents of the critical text, such as Wescott and Hort, deny the scriptural and historical doctrine of preservation. Like White, they take an only naturalistic presupposition and method. This alone is enough to say the TR/KJV is superior to the NA/LSB, because the latter does not proceed from biblical presuppositions or methods.
Naturalistic, Manuscript Evidence
Conjectural Emendations
In addition, even using naturalistic means, the sole criteria of White, Ross shows the NA is inferior to the TR. Ross gives evidence that the editors of the NA 27th edition, the underlying text for the LSB, used over 100 “explicit conjectural emendations.” He provides two examples of this in Acts 16:12 and 2 Peter 3:10. This debunks the one apparent example of conjectural emendation in the TR in Revelation 16:5.
Over 100 conjectural emendations is worse than the one example of White. Reader, do you understand the truth here? It’s a hypocritical argument that doesn’t work. Please do not give a blind eye to this out of sheer loyalty to White and his winning a debate. This is the truth. It shouldn’t matter how fast Thomas Ross said it. Speaking fast is a red herring as an argument.
No Manuscript Evidence
White asserts no manuscript evidence for one NT reading, the one in Revelation 16:5. He says there is light evidence for one word in Ephesians 3:9 and the Comma Johanneum in 1 John 5:7. Ross shows there is no manuscript evidence for at least 41 separate lines of text in the NA, evidenced by Swanson in his New Testament Greek Manuscripts: Variant Readings Arranged in Horizontal Lines against Codex Vaticanus. None of this occurs in the TR. Based on the ratio of Matthew and Mark text to the rest of the New Testament, that would result in 191 total for the NT.
How could textual critics publish a text like described? Even as a so-called science, textual critics don’t see their work as a science at all. Ross quotes this from Metzger and Ehrman in their foremost book on textual criticism. They don’t see anyone able to refer to the text as an original text. This strongly contradicts the position of the church based on biblical presuppositions. Ross quotes White himself in his debate with Douglas Wilson, that we will never have a certain text.
On the issue of the text alone, Ross blows away White. The TR is by far a superior text. When White mentions the papyri, Ross shows him the earliest, P52, a piece of the gospel of John that is identical to the TR. After praising the papyri, White changes tunes and says that it was a very small fragment, attempting to have it both ways. Relying on Pickering and Hoskier, Ross shows how that there are long sections of identical readings of the TR in the manuscripts. He includes photos of these.
White Attacks on Ross
White tries to attack the KJV by bringing up one possible conjectural emendation, one for which apparently Beza says he had a manuscript. One word in Ephesians 3:9 has limited manuscript support. He attacks the TR reading in 1 John 5:7. White doesn’t rely on scriptural presuppositions. Counting manuscripts and their age, that’s what he’s got. This is not how believers approached this issue. White himself says that the NA wasn’t available for hundreds of years. He speaks like this is a good thing. It is an obvious admittance, that Ross pointed out, that God did not preserve his text.
To be honest, White should accede to the Ross argument about no manuscript evidence for NA readings in 41 places in Matthew and Mark. Instead, he starts talking like they don’t matter for the translation. This shows a double standard. He attacks the TR in Revelation 16:5, one place, and excuses 41 places. He even apologizes for the NA27, the basis of the LSB, what he’s trying to defend in the debate. White says he doesn’t trust the editors, but he does his own textual criticism.
The Translation Issue
White spends some time on the translation issue. Ross answered him. The Granville Sharp rule doesn’t hurt the translation of the KJV in Titus 2:13. The LSB is fine there. Ross makes the point that Jude 1:4 fits the Granville Sharp in the KJV, while in the LSB, it does not. That point received crickets from White. Relating to the lexical issue of technical terms, Ross says that they’re still difficult to understand for identifying what those animals and minerals were. The lexical aids can help in understanding, but they do not resolve this issue in either the KJV and LSB.
Ross and White spent time discussing the translation of the Hebrew of Yawheh or Jehovah (or LORD) in the Old Testament. Ross referred to the pronunciation of the vowel points, a fine argument. Ross also gave a good answer on “servant” or “slave.” The Hebrew word is not always our modern understanding of “slave.”
Other Problems for White
White said he believed we have all the words in all of the manuscript evidence, and yet he contradicts himself in 1 Samuel 13:1, pointed out by Ross. White doesn’t believe there is a manuscript with the wording of that verse. I guess people don’t care about that contradiction. He doesn’t believe in preservation, we know that from his Douglas Wilson answer, exposed by Ross in the debate.
As well, White referred to a Hebrews reference to the prophet Jeremiah. He said the author quoted the Greek Septuagint, essentially arguing that the author of Hebrews and then Jesus in the Gospels used a corrupt text. Modern critical text advocates use this Septuagint argument as a kind of scriptural presupposition.
Ross gave White a good answer on the Septuagint question, referring to the theology of John Owen. Owen answered this point in his writings. He also quoted the introduction of a standard academic text on the Septuagint by Jobes and Silva, taking the same position as Owen espoused. This debunks the false view that Jesus and other NT authors would have quoted a terribly corrupted text and translation of the Old Testament.
Style Points?
In the end, White had to attack Thomas Ross for his style, reading too fast and having too many slides. Come on. Keep it to the subject at hand. Easily, someone could attack White for style. White broad brushes TR and King James supporters with inflammatory language all the time. When Ross shook his hand at the end and gave him a book, White sat there looking disdainful. White attacked his character after the debate, saying he was showing off. He almost always name-drops and mentions his debate of Bart Ehrman and his 180 debates as automatic winning credentials.
In the comment section of the videos, people attack Ross for mentioning winning the debate. They are debating. If White won, his followers would say this again and again. It’s a picky criticism. There is criteria for a debate. Ross negates the affirmative of White and puts him on the defensive. That’s the definition of winning a debate.
Answering Questions
Some people have said that Ross didn’t answer White’s questions. I ask them, which did he not answer? They are silent. White, attacking Ross for perfect preservation, something the debate wasn’t about, tries to catch Ross in a gotcha moment by asking about Revelation 16:5. Ross says that he sympathizes with Beza’s having a manuscript with the word there. That is an answer.
White asks Ross if the King James translators could have done a better job in Acts 5:30. Ross said they were both fine, but KJV wasn’t wrong. That is an answer too. Like Ross, I believe the KJV is an accurate translation. That doesn’t mean I or he wouldn’t translate it differently.
On sheer content alone, Ross crushed White in this debate. He wins because of his scriptural presuppositions. The Bible is the truth. Where the Bible speaks, that is reality. Anything that contradicts it is false. Even on the evidence, Ross won, because based on White criteria, he showed the NA had weak to no manuscript evidence. White tried to avoid this, just by saying that Ross misrepresented the evidence. Ross didn’t. White was not prepared for this argument. It’s not going to change either, because that evidence is still true.
The Blue Trinitarian Bible Society Greek New Testament or Scrivener’s Greek New Testament
Someone said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. When I hear a critique of the perfect preservation view, standard sacred text view, or verbal plenary preservation view, it almost always focuses on ‘which text is the perfect text of the New Testament.” In the White/Van Kleeck debate, White asked this kind of gotcha question, which Textus Receptus edition is identical to the autographs? A person then waits for the answer.
In the Van Kleeck/White debate, White asked Van Kleeck whether Scrivener’s TR is the perfect Greek text. He said, “Yes.” I’m not saying it’s a good argument, but it works well with a certain audience.
I watched a critical analysis of Van Kleeck in the debate, and the podcast started with the moment White asked Van Kleeck that question. The critical analysis is essentially ridicule of the most inane variety. The young man in the podcast with three other men simply repeated Van Kleeck’s answer and then summarized it with a mocking voice. They didn’t explain why Van Kleeck’s answer was wrong. It just was. Why? Because it is so, so strange and ridiculous.
The critical text side does not have a settled text. If the question were reversed, that side would say it doesn’t know, unlike it’s proponents might say about knowing the 66 books of the Bible. They would say that’s knowable, even though the oldest extant complete twenty-seven book manuscript of the New Testament dates to the fourth century. Books are knowable. The words are not. Why? No biblical reason, only naturalistic ones. The same reasons could be used to debunk any doctrine of the Bible.
I believe Van Kleeck said that Scrivener’s or the blue Trinitarian Bible Society Greek New Testament is identical to the autographs of the New Testament because that corresponds to His bibliological position. If someone says he believes the biblical and historical doctrine of scripture, his saying there is a perfect text conforms to that belief. If he did not know what the text was, he would also admit that he doesn’t believe what the Bible says about itself or what churches have believed about what the Bible says about itself. An alternative is to change the historic and scriptural doctrine of bibliology to fit naturalistic presuppositions.
A biblical methodology that proceeds from a biblical bibliology must fit what the Bible says about itself. Because of this, it believes that the agreement of the church is evidence. This is the unity of the spirit. I’m not going to continue through every aspect of a biblical bibliology but all of those components combined lead to an agreement on one text. Van Kleeck had the audacity to utter it with confidence. I’m assuming that his confidence and assertiveness comes from faith that comes by hearing the Word of God.
Van Kleeck attacked the presuppositions of White in the White/Van Kleeck debate. He wanted to expose the naturalism. White wouldn’t answer the questions and the moderator would not require an answer. White also took the offensive by saying that the audience also was offended by the questions. It’s a common tactic of the left, when they “channel” everyone in the United States by speaking for “the American people.” Van Kleeck asked if there was even a single verse of the New Testament that was settled, guaranteed never to change with a future find of older manuscript evidence. White would not answer.
A vast majority of the opponents of the biblical and historical view on the preservation of scripture say the Bible doesn’t say how God would preserve scripture. I like to say that the whole Bible describes how God would do it. The Bible is very clear about how God said He would preserve what He said. If He told us how, that castigates all the means other than how He said, which includes modern textual criticism.
Very often, even among the standard sacred text proponents, they will not say what the perfect edition is. They anticipate the reaction. They ready for the ridicule. If it isn’t that blue Trinitarian Bible Society textus receptus, then what is it?
Recent Comments