Home » Posts tagged 'Thomas Ross'

Tag Archives: Thomas Ross

AI Friday: Who Won the Thomas Ross/James White KJV Debate?

Again, I asked AI the question of the title of today’s post, and here was it’s answer.

The debate between Thomas Ross and James White regarding the superiority of the King James Version (KJV) versus the Legacy Standard Bible (LSB) was marked by a clear division in perspectives on textual criticism and translation philosophy.

Debate Overview

Participants and Positions:

James White affirmed that the LSB, based on modern textual criticism and the Nestle-Aland Greek text, is superior to the KJV, which relies on the Textus Receptus.

Thomas Ross denied this claim, arguing for the KJV’s superiority based on its textual basis and historical usage within Protestant traditions.

Key Arguments:

James White argued that modern translations like the LSB are more accurate due to advances in textual criticism and manuscript discoveries.

Thomas Ross countered by emphasizing the preservation of Scripture as understood by KJV advocates, asserting that the KJV translators intended their work to be seen as superior to all previous translations.

Critical Points Raised:

Ross highlighted that White failed to provide substantial evidence from primary sources regarding what KJV translators would support today.

He also pointed out that many of White’s claims about modern translations undermining key doctrines were not substantiated with adequate historical context or documentation.

Conclusion Drawn from Reviews:

Post-debate analyses from various observers suggest that while both sides presented compelling arguments, Ross’s emphasis on historical fidelity and doctrinal integrity resonated strongly with those who hold traditional views of Scripture preservation.

Overall Assessment:

The debate did not yield a definitive “winner” in a traditional sense; however, many proponents of KJV-only perspectives believe that Thomas Ross effectively defended his position against James White’s assertions.

In summary, while both debaters presented their cases passionately, many observers lean towards viewing Thomas Ross as having won the debate, particularly among those who advocate for KJV-only positions.

***********************

I asked AI why Thomas Ross won the debate with James White and it concluded:

In summary, Thomas Ross won the debate against James White due to his strong argumentation on textual preservation, effective use of Scripture, engaging presentation style, ability to address counterarguments effectively, appeal to historical context, and connection with the audience’s values regarding traditional biblical texts.

Announcement for and Thanks to Thomas Ross on What Is Truth Blog

Biography

Many years ago I met Thomas Ross as a young man.  My wife and I moved to the San Francisco Bay Area two weeks after we married in August of 1987.  Thomas grew up in San Francisco with a single mother.  We came into contact when he was still college age.  He had already received Christ, graduated from University of California at Berkeley at the age of 19, and was training to serve the Lord by attending Fairhaven Baptist College (read his testimony tract, his story in html, and his resume).

Thomas Ross came back to the San Francisco Bay Area and served with and at the church I started, Bethel Baptist Church, for several years.  I acted as a proxy father to him in his betrothal and marriage to Heather Roberts and stood as his best man in his wedding.  He and Heather settled in Wisconsin to minister at Muckwonago Baptist Church under her father, Rhon Roberts, for many years before coming back to California in 2020 after my wife, parents, and I moved to Oregon to start Jackson County Baptist Church in Medford.

What Is Truth and Faithsaves.net

I began What Is Truth?  Opinion Based Upon the Bible (also kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com and kentbrandenburg.com) in 2005 and Thomas joined me in 2012 when we were at the old blog address.  He started writing or publishing every Friday.  As many of you reading here know, I normally write on Mondays and Wednesdays and he writes or publishes here on Fridays.  Thomas and I write with different styles and some different content, but we believe essentially the same.  We’re almost identical in our belief and practice.

Thomas also has his own website, faithsaves.net, with a wealth of material mainly written by him.  I would assess that among independent Baptists almost no one has published as much biblical, scholarly material as Thomas Ross.  It is also very helpful, practical, and free at his site.  It is a great service to God and the faith and conduct of true Christians and New Testament churches.

Doctrine of Sanctification and Debates

No one in evangelicalism, I would safely say, has done as much work on the doctrine of sanctification.  The material by Thomas Ross on biblical sanctification surpasses anything else I have seen.  No one knows this subject better than he.  I point especially to his one thousand plus pages in his PhD dissertation.  The title is The Doctrine of Sanctification: An Exegetical Examination, with Application, in Biblical, Historic Baptist Perspective, to which is Appended a Historical, Exegetical, and Elenctic Evaluation of Influential Errors, Particularly the Keswick Theology (free pdf of it).

In recent years, Thomas began doing scholarly debates.  He has taught college and seminary classes and posted them free at his youtube channel.  He debates high level scholars on the other side with biblical and historical arguments on many different topics.  I was there for the first of his debates in 2005 against Church of Christ foe, Larry Hafley, on the subject of baptismal regeneration.  Out of it came his book, Heaven Only for the Baptized?  The Gospel of Christ vs. Pardon through Baptism.  It is the best book available against baptismal regeneration, a false doctrine that has damned millions to Hell.

Evangelism

Filling a great need in churches, Thomas wrote several evangelistic Bible studies, again available for free at his website.  You can also watch them on his youtube channel.  He also wrote several various tracts and pamphlets for the purpose of doing spiritual warfare with different strongholds against the true gospel.

No one that I have ever known or met is more evangelistic than Thomas Ross.  As scholarly and well-learned as he is and as hard as he worked to become like this, nearly every day he either preaches the gospel to someone or gives one or multiple gospel tracts to people.  When he was much younger, I would stop at a gas station to get gas.  By the time I left the station, Thomas had given a gospel tract to everyone at the station.  If he is on public transportation, someone on the bus or train will probably hear the gospel from him before he arrives at his destination.

I could write many more positive paragraphs about Thomas.  However, I am writing this post to announce that Thomas is leaving the What Is Truth blog and writing here with me for the foreseeable future.  I will still host his posts here and hopefully edit the format of all of his, so that they become easier to read.  You may have noticed that he has not published here for a few weeks.  You can still read his writings that will continue to accumulate at faithsaves.net.

Future for Thomas Ross

What are the future plans of Thomas Ross?   The Bible says:  “teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom” (Psalm 90:12).  For quite a while, Thomas has pondered if he should keep writing on the blog or use that time, instead, for other projects for God’s work.  He is not done with writing, Lord willing, but he now has other projects to which he wants to devote himself.

One,

Thomas wants to finish his dissertation on the Biblical doctrine of sanctification.  He is almost done, but he needs to finally finish.  You can still click on the link above to get everything he did so far.

Two,

Brother Ross wants to write a multi-volume historic Baptist systematic theology.  He would rather stand before Christ with this done, but fewer blog posts written, than more blog posts, but that work not completed.  You can check faithsaves.net at least on the first and fifteenth of each month to see what is new there from him.  He also intends to keep adding useful material on his KJB1611 YouTube channel and his KJBIBLE1611 Rumble channel.  You can and should subscribe to those and check in regularly if you are not already doing that.

Three,

Thomas Ross needs to prepare college and seminary classes that need to get done.

Four,

Thomas wants to do some more debates.  Debating James White, or Dan Barker, or Shabir Ally, or Douglas Jacoby requires proper preparation, which can be very time-intensive.

Last,

Lord-willing, still living in San Francisco, CA and taking care of his dear mother, Thomas and Heather want to evangelize with the goal of helping an independent Baptist church start there.

All these above goals will take far more time than what Thomas has to do them even without writing here on Fridays.  He will move on from here from henceforth.  Please pray for him.  You can contact him directly at his website — that’s the easiest way.

Conclusion

I would contend that Thomas Ross is perhaps the greatest scholar among independent Baptists.  Scholarship-wise he is on the level with any evangelical scholar.  This is not his talking, but my saying this.  He’s never said anything like this to me.  I don’t believe anyone has worked harder or committed more to learning scripture than him either.   He continues at an incredible pace, especially with his circumstances.  He does it in relative anonymity to maintain his convictions and stand.

With his abilities and work ethic, if Thomas Ross were an evangelical or conservative evangelical, he could make a living teaching in some seminary and then writing books.  He could be very well known and a feather in the cap of graduate schools across the country.  He chose not to do that.  His convictions and commitment to his belief and practice excluded him from that.  Not many men would do that.  Almost no one, maybe no one, has done that.  I commend him for that sacrifice.  For many years, he accomplishes what he does by working as a security guard and then economizing as efficiently as anyone with whatever funds he gets.

No doubt, Thomas wishes a loving goodbye to his readers on the blog.  He would be glad to write that himself, but I chose to wrap up his time here with my thoughts about him.  Know that he wishes you good will and blessing as he and you move into what God has for him and you.

So, I bid Thomas Ross a fond adieu here at my blog.  Farewell to him to his future life and endeavors.

“It’s Alive!” — The Modern Creation of a FrankenText

Mary Shelley and Frankenstein

Mary Shelley, born in 1797 in London, completed her novel, Frankenstein, in 1818.   The lead character in her novel, Victor Frankenstein, succeeds at piecing together parts from dead corpses.  He sews them together and brings them to life with electricity.

In the original novel by Shelley, the words, “It’s alive!”, don’t appear.  They came into the public consciousness in the 1931 film adaptation of the novel.  In the book, when Victor first animates his creature, he is horrified by its appearance and immediately flees from it.  The scene is described with a sense of dread and regret rather than excitement or triumph.

Frankenstein was a fictional monster built from parts from various dead bodies.  The pieces don’t fit because they come from all different bodies.  In the same way, a Frankentext constructs a brand new text, using words plucked out from many different manuscripts.

Thomas Ross, Dwayne Greene, and the Frankentext

On a few different occasions, people used the term “Frankentext” to describe a brand new, diverse text from many varied sources.  In recent days, I’ve heard a man, Dwayne Greene, use it in a podcast.  He titled some of his episodes with the word.  Greene refers to a practice that Thomas Ross earlier pointed out in his debate with James White about the modern critical text of the New Testament.  The fifth of United Bible Society’s edition of the Greek New Testament, the same as the Nestle-Aland 28th edition, is a Frankentext.

I wrote in a post about Ross’s debate with White:

In his debate with White, Ross dismantled White’s position with evidence, point by point. White himself resorted to ad hominem style arguments by regularly pointing out how fast Ross talked and judged his motives. He never answered Ross’s primary argument against the underlying text of the LSB and other modern versions of the Bible. Ross showed plainly how that in hundreds of places, lines of underlying Greek text behind the LSB had zero manuscript evidence.

Talk about the Frankentext

I talk about this again in something else about the debate:

In every place the USB/NA has no extant manuscript support for its lines of readings (again, over 100), the TR has manuscript support. This should end White’s manuscript argument. Ross pointed this out in the debate in a very clear fashion. White would not recant of his position.

In a post to review the debate and explain how Ross won, I wrote:

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.

A Further Description from Me

In another post, referring to this, I wrote to describe this:

The other side, the critical text and multiple modern version position, does not follow scriptural presuppositions. It proceeds from naturalistic and relativistic ones. This is especially seen in the hundreds of lines of Greek text for its New Testament with no manuscript evidence. Critics pieced together lines of text that never existed in any copy anywhere and anytime.

The above is what I (and others) mean by a FrankenText.  Mark Ward in one of his recent podcasts interviews a friend of his getting his PhD in textual criticism, and he asks the man about this Frankentext problem, referring to Dwayne Greene.  He uses the term with the man.  In answer to the question, Ward’s friend says that all Greek New Testament texts are Frankentexts, including the Textus Receptus.  This is an outright, utter falsehood.  It isn’t true and it deceives or misleads people.

Lies Including the Textus Receptus As a Frankentext

The Textus Receptus does not contain hundreds of lines of text with absolutely zero manuscript evidence.  Those lines in the critical text of the New Testament (the UBS and NA) have no manuscript support in any manuscript.  That doesn’t occur with the received text of the New Testament, the basis of the King James Version.  Manuscripts actually have those readings.  There is minority support for certain words, but lines of text are found in manuscripts for the Textus Receptus.

A common line of argument today, people term, “Whataboutism?”  It is defined:

Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in “what about….?”) is a pejorative for the strategy of responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation instead of a defense against the original accusation.

Ward’s friend does this.  Instead of dealing with the problem of these lines of text with no manuscript evidence, he uses whataboutism.   In fact, even his whataboutism isn’t true, which sometimes is the case with this sort of argumentation.

CBGM

More Frankentexts are bound to arise because of a new method of modern textual criticism, given the shorthand CBGM.  It’s going to sound impossibly technical, but it means, “Coherence Based Genealogical Method.”  To try to put it simply, someone wrote this:

The computer application itself aggregates relationships between readings based on agreement with other readings as well as based on their disagreements. Basically, it compares Greek manuscripts, finds the similarities and differences, and then uses an algorithm to decide which is “probably” the right reading.

This same article said this about CBGM:

CBGM is a relatively new approach to textual criticism using a computer program in order to determine the validity of a reading (somewhere between 1997 and 2000). By “reading”, we are referring to anything from a single word of Scripture to a phrase, or even a more substantial section of the Scriptures. In this method, the computer becomes a tool in determining which readings are “most likely authentic”. Having said that, it should be noted that it still requires much interaction from the users.

Frankentexts will increase.  Is that a concern?  It looks like, not so much.  That criticism that your line of text has zero manuscript evidence doesn’t matter as much as it once did.  All of this sadly departs from a supernatural, divine presupposition about preservation of scripture, embracing instead a naturalistic, humanistic viewpoint about lost scripture in need of restoration.

 

Assessing the New Appalling Slander of Thomas Ross

Mark Ward Says in a Recent Youtube Video Concerning Thomas Ross:  “I Regard Him as an Extremist of a Particularly Dangerous Kind, the Kind that Is Super Intelligent”

Thomas Ross debated James White last year with White arguing in the affirmative the proposition that a new translation, the Legacy Standard Bible (LSB), was superior to the King James Version (KJV).  Ross took the opposition.   Since White was in the affirmative, Ross refuted White’s arguments for that proposition.  The above quote from Ward comes from an introduction to the first of three videos he is producing to answer ones Thomas Ross made after the White debate.

Answering Thomas Ross gets far more traffic for Ward at his site.  I don’t want to make it easier for him, so I’m not linking to his series.  You can find it on your own, if you want to see it.  He also mentions me in the video.

An Extremist of a Particularly Dangerous Kind?

So why does Ward say Thomas is “an extremist of a particularly dangerous kind”?  He gives no reasons.  None.  The definition of ad hominem is this:  “(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.”  Like James White himself, Ward attacks Thomas Ross as a person and not his position.  He does not explain.  I’m saying this is appalling slander of Ross by Ward.

What does Ward mean, “extremist”?  The definition of “extremist” itself is derogatory.  Collins Dictionary defines extremist:

1. a person who favours or resorts to immoderate, uncompromising, or fanatical methods or behaviour, esp in being politically radical. adjective. 2. of, relating to, or characterized by immoderate or excessive actions, opinions, etc.

And then Ward says Ross is “of a particularly dangerous kind.”  So Thomas Ross is not just “dangerous,” but “particularly dangerous.”  Those words themselves are extreme.  Their very mention of another person, a truly saved person as Thomas Ross, requires explanation.  Ward gives none.  He just makes the claim.

What Ross Does

Thomas Ross is careful first to come from scripture.  He exposes or exegetes scripture very carefully for his positions.  Second, he backs his positions with historical doctrine.  He shows how that others in the past take the position, so his doctrine is not new or innovative.

In his debate with White, Ross dismantled White’s position with evidence, point by point.  White himself resorted to ad hominem style arguments by regularly pointing out how fast Ross talked and judged his motives.  He never answered Ross’s primary argument against the underlying text of the LSB and other modern versions of the Bible.  Ross showed plainly how that in hundreds of places, lines of underlying Greek text behind the LSB had zero manuscript evidence.  Instead of answering, which he couldn’t, White insulted Thomas Ross as a person, just like Ward is doing.  This shouldn’t help White or Ward.  It should warn off their listeners.

Ward Poisons the Well

Ward is free to go ahead and make statements like he did about Thomas Ross.  He can do that, but anyone reading should take note of what he is doing.  His statement should discredit him.  It is a classic, informal logical fallacy called, “poisoning the well,” which means the following:

Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a type of informal fallacy where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing something that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well can be a special case of argumentum ad hominem, and the term was first used with this sense by John Henry Newman in his work Apologia Pro Vita Sua (1864).

Ward and his audience very often attack the persons of their opposition.  Ross offered a face-to-face discussion or debate with Ward and Ward refused.  He says it is because Ross is an extremist and dangerous, and then he proceeds to treat Ross as though his arguments were legitimate, needing addressing.  Do you see the obvious contradiction there?  Ward contradicts his own fallacious reasoning.

Any Reasons for Ad Hominem Attack by Ward?  None

The only possible reason one could ascertain for why Ward poisons the well and uses the ad hominem against Ross is because Thomas Ross is “super intelligent.”  Why would intelligence and even super intelligence be a negative for someone on a subject matter?  Ross doesn’t claim super intelligence for himself.  Ward made that claim for Ross and gave it as the only reason for Ross’s extremism and danger.

Mark Ward explained that when Ross offered him an in person debate, his counsellors told him that it was not worthy of Ward’s own personal gifts and the purposes of his work.  And yet Ward has plenty of time to produce three videos dealing with “super intelligent” Ross, where Ross cannot answer him in person.  What evaluation could someone make of such a dodge of Ross by Ward?

Think of Wards accusations if it were a court of law, where the accused “extremist” and “particularly dangerous” individual cannot answer his accuser.  Only the prosecution speaks.  Ward sits alone and makes slanderous declarations against Ross with no cross examination.  This is unjust treatment of unbiblical and sinful manner.

Injustice toward Ross

Psalm 89:14 says:

Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne: mercy and truth shall go before thy face.

Proverbs 21:3 says:

To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice.

It is not just to make a false, slanderous accusation against a godly Christian man like Thomas Ross, no explanation or reasons, and not give him a face to face opportunity to answer his accusation.  This is not due process.  It is not justice.  Mark Ward treats Thomas Ross in a manner of contempt like Jesus warned against in Matthew 5:21-26, akin to murdering someone in his heart.  A man claiming to be a Christian like Ward should not treat another man, whether Christian or not, with contempt.  Ward treats a believer like Ross with contempt.

Doubling Down on Appalling Slander of Ross

Someone in the comment section dealt with Ward’s appalling slander of Ross, when he wrote:

It seems interesting that you would make the claim that Ross is a “extremist of a particularly dangerous kind” because he is “super intelligent”. When the same could, and probably should, be said about you. Btw. This comment meets your comment requirements because it is no more of an ad hominem attack than you yourself made.

To that, Ward answered:  “I stand by what I said. Every word.”  He had a great opportunity to retract, and he didn’t.  Instead, he doubled down on his appalling slander of a Christian gentleman and scholar.

Ross wasn’t even dealing with Ward in the videos to which Ward refers.  He was elaborating on the arguments of the White debate.

Ross Not Extreme or Dangerous

What makes anyone an extremist and dangerous and then on this issue of the intelligibility of the KJV?  Ross takes the position that God preserved all of the words of God in their original language for every generation of believer.  Is that really an extreme and dangerous position now?  It is the biblical and historical position of the church.

Ross answers arguments against the intelligibility of the KJV made by White in the debate.  Truly saved people all over the United States still use the KJV in their churches.  It is still the most commonly used version of the Bible in conservative Bible believing churches in the United States.  It’s not extreme to do so.  And it is not extreme to defend the intelligibility of the KJV.  There are good arguments for its continuation, which is why so many people still do use the King James.

Jordan Peterson and Douglas Murray Recently on the KJV

I was listening to Jordan Peterson in an interview with British conservative journalist Douglas Murray.  Peterson asked Murray:

I have a friend who is extremely erudite and literate and charismatic and maybe Canada’s most remarkable journalist. . . . He has the knowledge a vast corpus of poetry and its evident in the manner in which he speaks, because he has that lilt and cadence and rhythm that’s part and parcel.  And you’re very very well spoken.

And Peterson asks Murray to what he attributes that quality of his.  Murray answers:

In my case it is the great good fortune of having been brought up with the King James Bible, . . . . which if you have [that] in your head and you recite [it] every Sunday, gives you a pretty good idea of how to cadence the English language.

Murray characterized this as ‘furnishing his mental furniture and having to furnish it well.’  Murray didn’t see the King James Bible as extreme and dangerous to his public usage of language and understanding how to speak to a modern culture.  No, it was a great help, the greatest help to his speaking ability, communicating to a contemporary people.

It is not good at all to slander your Christian opponents as a strategy to discredit them with ad hominem attacks.  This is what Ward and White do and very often from which I’ve seen and read.  I call on Ward to cease, desist, and retract such appalling slander about Thomas Ross and others.

THE MOOD IS NOT THE PROBLEM IN MOSCOW, IDAHO (part two)

PART ONE

Over a decade ago I read a book by Douglas Wilson, that described a philosophy for his writing, represented in the title:  A Serrated Edge.  His and the Moscow, Idaho mood is portrayed by a serrated edge and the use of satire.  Let me again announce that I accept Wilsonian written serration.  It’s more interesting at least and sometimes more effective writing.  Someone else once said, “The pen is mightier than the sword.”  Maybe for Wilson, “His pen is equally mighty to a serrated knife.”  Many of the targets of Wilson’s writings deserve their serration from his satirical analysis.

Strict Adherence to the Westminster Confession of Faith on Baptism

Douglas Wilson and his posse in Moscow, Idaho get attention with the style or mood of their writing and other operations.  A focus on mood neglects serious problems, most notably their confusion on the gospel.  Wilson and Moscow are strong adherents to the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), which says this (Article 28):

Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ . . . . to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life.

Furthermore, the WCF says (Article 28) that “by the right use of this ordinance the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants).”  That is all salvific language applied to baptism.  Wilson takes this very seriously in his view and preaching of salvation.

John Calvin, the Protestant and Reformed Forefather

Calvin’s Institutes

From what I read of Wilson, he does not believe that baptism guarantees future salvation for the one baptized. Neither does any Roman Catholic.  Roman Catholics would say faith is necessary for salvation.  They would reject “faith alone.”  To clarify his position, Wilson wrote:  “Baptism is an effectual means of salvation to worthy receivers.”  John Calvin, whose theology Wilson follows, wrote (Institutes, 4:17:1, 4:15:3, 4):

God, regenerating us in baptism, ingrafts us into the fellowship of his Church, and makes us his by adoption . . . whatever time we are baptized, we are washed and purified . . . forgiveness, which at our first regeneration we receive by baptism alone . . . forgiveness has reference to baptism.

Calvin’s “Antidote” to the Council of Trent

Calvin also published (1547 Antidote to the Council of Trent, Reply to the 1st Decree of the 5th Session):

We assert that the whole guilt of sin is taken away in baptism, so that the remains of sin still existing are not imputed. That this may be more clear, let my readers call to mind that there is a twofold grace in baptism, for therein both remission of sins and regeneration are offered to us. We teach that full remission is made . . . by baptism . . . the guilt is effaced [and] it is null in regard to imputation. Nothing is plainer than this doctrine.

In the same publication Calvin continued:

We, too [as do the Catholics], acknowledge that the use of baptism is necessary—that no one may omit it from either neglect or contempt. In this way we by no means make it free (optional). And not only do we strictly bind the faithful to the observance of it, but we also maintain that it is the ordinary instrument of God in washing and renewing us; in short, in communicating to us salvation. The only exception we make is, that the hand of God must not be tied down to the instrument. He may of himself accomplish salvation. For when an opportunity for baptism is wanting, the promise of God alone is amply sufficient.

Wilson doesn’t distinguish himself from the teaching of his spiritual father, Calvin.

Thomas Ross’s Statement

Thomas Ross wrote in his book, Heaven Only for the Baptized?:

Those who think that infant baptism was the instrument of their receiving forgiveness, those who think that they received the sacrament as confirmation and evidence that they were already regenerated in the womb, and those who think they had water applied to them in infancy as evidence that they were certain to be regenerated in the future unless they consciously rejected the “sacrament” and its efficacy are underneath a terrible spiritual delusion. They will certainly be damned unless they recognize that their unbiblical religious ceremony did nothing beneficial for them, admit they are still lost, and then repent and believe the gospel.

With the Protestant or Reformed Catholics, this very serious problem relates to what Paul writes about adding circumcision to grace in Galatians 5:1-6.  The Protestant or Reformed Catholics see infant sprinkling as New Testament circumcision.  This does not proceed from the Bible, but from allegorization of scripture and tradition.

Galatians

The Galatians added circumcision to grace, which was enough for Paul to say in Galatians 5:2-4:

Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.  For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.  Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

No one should come close to what the Galatians did.  Paul uses very strong language, saying, “Christ shall profit you nothing” and more.  This is how they perverted the gospel to the degree that Paul wrote in 1:6-9 that it was “another gospel.”  Those who preached it, he said, “let them be accursed.”

Infant Sprinkling and John Gill

Wilson wrote a defense on infant sprinkling, To a Thousand Generations: Infant Baptism – Covenant Mercy For the People of God.  He wrote:  “we must be content with nothing less than a clear biblical case requiring infant baptism” (p. 9).  And yet, not one verse in scripture mentions infant baptism or sprinkling.  Consider what 17th century English Baptist preacher or pastor John Gill wrote about infant sprinkling:

The Paedobaptists are ever restless and uneasy, endeavoring to maintain and support, if possible, their unscriptural practice of infant-baptism; though it is no other than a pillar of popery; that by which Antichrist has spread his baneful influence over many nations; is the basis of national churches and worldly establishments; that which unites the church and world, and keeps them together; nor can there be a full separation of the one from the other, nor a thorough reformation in religion; until it is wholly removed: and though it has so long and largely obtained, and still does obtain;

I believe with a firm and unshaken faith, that the time is hastening on, when infant-baptism will be no more practiced in the world; when churches will be formed on the same plan they were in the times of the apostles; when gospel-doctrine and discipline will be restored to their primitive luster and purity; when the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper will be administered as they were first delivered, clear of all present corruption and superstition.

Cultural Stands Don’t Undo These Problems

Wilson may take a position closer to the Protestant or Reformed Catholics than his contemporary Reformed fellows do.  He could argue that he is more consistent than them with the doctrine and practice.  I respect the teaching of Wilson on many cultural issues.  He helps on cultural and social ones.  These are attractive to many evangelicals and even professing Baptists, their not hearing this in their own churches.  Those, however, cannot undo the problems with the unscriptural doctrine I’m addressing. However, the Moscow troubles don’t end with infant sprinkling.

More to Come

The Doctrine of Inspiration of Scripture and Translation (Part Four)

Part One   Part Two   Part Three

In the history of Christian doctrine, true believers through the centuries have been in general consistent in their position on inspiration.  When reading historical bibliological material, homogeneity exists.  Changes emerged with modernism in the 19th century and then many novel, false beliefs sprouted up.  In many cases, men invented new, wrong positions on inspiration in response to other erroneous ones, a kind of pendulum swing.

Summary

To begin here, I will summarize what I have written so far in this series.  God inspired sacred scripture over 1600 years, using 40 human authors.  John Owen wrote concerning human authors:

God was with them, and by the Holy Spirit spoke in them — as to their receiving of the Word from him, and their delivering it to others by speaking or writing — so that they were not themselves enabled, by any habitual light, knowledge, or conviction of truth, to declare his mind and will, but only acted as they were immediately moved by him. Their tongue in what they said, or their hand in what they wrote, was no more at their own disposal than the pen in the hand of an expert writer.

God breathed a product of almost entirely Hebrew and some Aramaic Old Testament and completely Greek New Testament letters and words.  Then He used His institutions, Israel and the church to keep those words, preserve and distribute them.  The London Baptist Confession reads:

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them.

Immediate Inspiration

And Remain Inspired in Copies

The inspiration of the “original manuscripts” believers called “immediate inspiration,” to distinguish from ongoing inspiration of preserved words and accurate translations of the preserved words.  The preserved words and readings, “the original texts,” remained inspired.  Francis Turretin wrote:

By the original texts, we do not mean the autographs written by the hand of Moses, of the prophets and of the apostles, which certainly do not now exist. We mean their apographs which are so called because they set forth to us the word of God in the very words of those who wrote under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

“Apographs” are the copies of the original manuscripts or the copies of the copies.  What about a translation from the preserved, inspired original text?  Is that inspired?

And Remain Inspired in Accurate Translations

In the last post (the third one), I showed 1 Timothy 5:18 among other places in the New Testament indicates that an accurate translation is scripture.  An accurate translation as sacred scripture remains inspired.  This is seen in Peter’s preaching in Acts 2 on the Day of Pentecost.  Peter used Psalms 16, 110, and Joel 2 in the sermon.  The audience heard those translated to Parthian, Mede, Elamite, Mesopotamian, Cappadocian, Pontus, Asian, Phrygian, Pamphylian, Egyptian, Libyan, Cyrene, Latin, Cretan and Arabian (Acts 2:9-11).

Supportive Materials

Rather than quote and write about the same thing that Jon Gleason already wrote, I point you to his post on the subject of the continued inspiration of a translation.  I will, however, reproduce two quotes from A. W. Pink he used:

The word “inspire” signifies to in-breathe, and breath is both the means and evidence of life; for as soon as a person ceases to breathe he is dead. The Word of God, then, is vitalized by the very life of God, and therefore it is a living Book. Men’s books are like themselves—dying creatures; but God’s Book is like Himself—it “lives and abides forever” (1 Peter 1:23). . . . .

The Holy Scriptures not only were “inspired of God,” but they are so now. They come as really and as truly God’s Word to us, as they did unto those to whom they were first addressed. In substantiation of what I have just said, it is striking to note “Therefore as the Holy Spirit says, Today if you will hear His voice, harden not your hearts” (Heb. 3:7, 8); and again, “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says (not “said”) unto the churches” (Rev. 2:7).

He also refers to a journal article, written in 1982 by Edward W. Goodrick that mirrors Pink and others who predated B. B. Warfield.  You should also read the article by Thomas Ross, entitled “Thoughts On the Word Theopneustos, “given by inspiration of God” in 2 Timothy 3:16, and the Question of the Inspiration of the Authorized Version.”  For many biblical reasons, one should consider an accurate translation of the preserved original text to be inspired and sacred scripture.

Conclusion

Because of erroneous views of double inspiration and English preservationism today, I advocate the terminology, “immediately inspired,” and just for more clarity, “derivative inspiration.”  Perhaps best, one should say “given by inspiration of God” and then continued inspiration in preserved original texts and accurate translations of those texts.  I consider the King James Version the inspired Word of God.

The Hypocrisy and Deceitfulness of the Chief Critical Text Attack on the Received Text of Scripture

The Ross-White Debate produced at least one major and helpful revelation.  It showed the hypocrisy and deceitfulness of the chief modern critical text attack on the received text of scripture.  I want you to understand this.  White called the USB/NA textually superior because the Roman Catholic humanist Erasmus in 1516 had one extant manuscript for one variant in Ephesians 3:9.  He said that variant opposed nearly the entire manuscript tradition.

Erasmus, Humanism, and Roman Catholicism

Roman Catholic?

Before I dig into White’s assertion, let’s consider the information about Erasmus, a major part of his and other’s contention.  In 1516 Erasmus published a printed edition of the Greek New Testament, essentially the same text used for every translation of the New Testament for any language for hundreds of years.  True believers called this their Bible.  They broke from and stood against Roman Catholicism because of it, which advocated a Latin text, not an original language one.  It also opposed in general the Bible in the hands of the populace.

Erasmus was Roman Catholic in 1516.  Who wasn’t Roman Catholic in 1516?  Martin Luther still was.  John Calvin, albeit a boy, still was.  Ulrich Zwingli was.  William Tyndale was.  No one was Protestant.  Erasmus at least conflicted with the Roman Catholic Church when that was rare.  The English Reformation didn’t start until 1534.  This point should be a laughable one.  Almost every historian considers Erasmus a key forerunner of the Reformation.

Humanist?

Erasmus was a humanist, but that is not by a modern definition, where man is the measure of all things.  Secular humanists don’t believe in God.  Erasmus believed in God.  His humanism was a defense of the humanities.  This advocated for the study of the classical languages, literature, grammar, rhetoric, and history.  Regarding scripture, he promoted the study of the biblical languages, Hebrew and Greek.  Part of Erasmus’s humanism was Philosophia Christi, a simple, ethical Christianity without the rituals and superstitions of then Roman Catholicism.

The trajectory of the text of Erasmus moved through then to Stephanus and Beza, becoming the basis of the translations into the common languages:  English, German, Spanish, French, and Dutch.  Churches received this text and translated from it into their languages.  This did not become anything acceptable to Roman Catholicism.  They continued embracing the Latin.  The Roman Catholic Inquisitions ordered the destruction of Bibles in the vernacular.

What is White doing with his use of humanist and Roman Catholic?  I believe he is doing at least two things.  One, he is attempting to mute the reality that the titans of the critical text, they’re unbelieving.  Modern textual criticism proceeds without theological presuppositions and with solely naturalistic ones.  He wants to frame Erasmus into the same category.

Two, White wants to paint an unsavory association of the received text with humanism and Roman Catholicism.  He doesn’t want his audience to think of the humanities, but of secular humanism.  He doesn’t care that this isn’t the kind of humanist Erasmus was.  He’s hoping for the chaos or confusion of the deception.  White doesn’t care if Erasmus was Roman Catholic.  That doesn’t bother him about Athanasius or Augustine.  He knows too about the reality of Erasmus.  This is a mere rhetorical tactic.

Extant Manuscript Support for the Received Text or the Critical Text

Majority Text

On many other occasions and in the Ross-White Debate, James White said the received text (TR) was inferior because of lacking textual support.  Until Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad published their “Majority Text” in 1985, many, if not most TR advocates and others, called the TR, the majority text.  Men stopped referring to the TR as the majority text because people would think they referred to the Hodges-Farstad publication.  Why did men call the TR the majority text and the critical text, the minority text?

The TR is based on the majority of the manuscripts.  It is a Byzantine text.  A majority of the extant Greek manuscripts of the New Testament come from the area of the Byzantine Empire.  The TR agrees 99 percent with a majority of the manuscripts.

Hypocrisy and Deceit

White pointed to one word in Revelation 16:5 having no extant manuscript support.  This is his favorite argument against the TR.  He says that it is a conjectural emendation of Beza.  He points to one word in Ephesians 3:9 having the support of one extant manuscript.

Ross exposed the hypocrisy and deceitfulness of White’s chief argument against the TR and in favor of the USB/NA (critical text).  He showed how that in over a hundred places a line of reading in the USB/NA has no (zero) manuscript evidence.  White has one example.  Ross had over a hundred.

In addition, the entire critical text relies on a minority of the manuscripts, which is why men called that text, the minority text.  How could the TR be worse because one percent of it has support in the minority and the critical text does that for its entire text?  The USB/NA relies on very few manuscripts.  If that’s worse, as seen in White’s attack on the TR, how could he support the USB/NA over the TR?

In every place the USB/NA has no extant manuscript support for its lines of readings (again, over 100), the TR has manuscript support.  This should end White’s manuscript argument.  Ross pointed this out in the debate in a very clear fashion.  White would not recant of his position.

Ad Hominem

Instead, as he almost always does, White used ad hominem argument, attacking Ross personally, and then he tried to confuse the audience about what Ross said.  With no evidence, he told the audience this just wasn’t happening.  In essence, he said, “Don’t believe Ross, he doesn’t know what he’s doing and what he says really isn’t the truth,” followed by zero proof of that.

By writing this post, I could be associating with someone who is ignorant and a liar.  I should be careful.  This is what White wants his followers to believe about Ross.  Joining me in an association with Ross’s arguments is Jeff Riddle.  He and I do not know each other, but he too supported what Ross said.

I didn’t hear or see one person on White’s side, which would be in the thousands, debunk with any proof at all what Ross showed in the debate.  Since the debate, I read more of the White technique of slandering his opponent.  They focused on how many slides he had and how fast he talked.  They said the KJVO position was awful, not understanding that Ross showed in the debate how that according to White, the KJVO position fits a wide spectrum of possible positions.

A Choice

White and others have a choice.  They can concede to Ross and those who believe like him, including myself.  Or, they can go back to the drawing board to try to get better arguments.  I would say, get arguments period.  The Ephesians 3:9 and Revelation 16:5 examples do not qualify as an argument from someone who supports readings with zero manuscript support.

The future bodes tough for White and his associates.  The situation is not going to change.  They have what they have.  Nothing new is arriving for them.  Personal attack, hypocrisy, and deceit are the best they have.

What About the Accusation of So-Called “Mystical Explanation” or “Omniscience” Against a Perfect Original Language Preservation of Scripture?

A New Attack on Verbal Plenary Preservation of Scripture

Ross-White Debate

After the Ross-White debate, I saw one particular regular attack on the biblical and historical doctrine of the preservation of scripture.  This is the perfect or verbal plenary preservation of the original language text of the Bible.  Critical text advocates, who deny that doctrine, call the opposing position a “mystical explanation,” “omniscience,” the “Urim and Thummim,” or “Ruckmanism for all intents and purposes.”  The part about Ruckman hints at double inspiration thinking.  You say you believe the church possesses a perfect text of scripture in the original languages. They say that requires a work of God like inspiration or a mystical gift on the level of omniscience.

The historical doctrine of preservation says God preserved His Word.  That is a supernatural explanation.  God did it.  Something supernatural occurred.  Any claim of supernaturalism could be prey to the attack of mysticism, omniscience, saints possessing the Urim and Thummim, or the Ruckman charge.  If copyists make errors and manuscripts have variants, how do believers know what the words are?  Do they flop back into a trance-like state and their body moves like a puppet to the correct word?

The Imagery, a Mockery

The imagery painted by critical text advocates accuses men testing a variation between texts with a seer stone or divining rod.  Someone printing a New Testament edition swoons into a condition where his body becomes taken over by God in the decision of a correct word in a text.  It really is just a form of mockery, because none of their targets for this ridicule come close to this description.

The critical text advocates leave out a supernatural explanation.  They don’t like that criticism.  They don’t want theological presuppositions to guide, only the so-called science.  Someone might claim perfection, if it’s God working.   They rather defer to human reason as a tool.  That allows for the error they favor as an outcome. They won’t say it’s God.  At most, a few might say that God designed human reason like He did for the invention of a new vaccination.

The Providence of God

Used for Preservation of Scripture

The language used in the supernatural intervention in God’s method of preservation with and through His church is the “providence of God.”  The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) reads:

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical.

You can read the language there, “God . . . by His singular care and providence.”  In 1680 preacher of the gospel, John Alexander wrote:  “seeing the Scriptures by the Providence of God kept pure . . . . seeing the Scriptures as they now are were transmitted to us by the Church, unto whom the Oracles of God were committed, and against whom the Gates of Hell shall not prevail.”  In 1721 Edward Synge wrote:  “Still it pleased God, by his overruling Providence, to preserve his Written Word, and keep it pure and uncorrupted . . . . by which means the Fountain, I mean the Text of the Holy Scripture, was kept pure and undefiled.”

Its Meaning

John Piper in 2020 wrote a very large book, entitled, Providence.  In the first chapter, he gives a lengthy explanation of the word, concluding that it means concerning God, “He sees to it that things happen in a certain way.”  He points to Genesis 22 as a classic description of providence, when in verse 8, Abraham says, “God will provide himself a lamb,” using “provide.”  Later, verse 14 uses the root meaning of that word “provide”:

And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen.

In the word “providence” is the Latin vide (think video), which means, “see.”  Notice in verse 14, “it shall be seen.”  The idea is that God sees, but even further, “He sees to.”  He saw the ram in place of Isaac and He saw to the ram for Isaac.

Heidelberg Catechism

As providence relates to scripture, God sees to it that every word is preserved and available to His people, just like the ram was provided and available to Abraham and Isaac.  The Heidelberg Catechism (1563) defines the providence of God:

The almighty and everywhere present power of God; whereby, as it were by his hand, he upholds and governs heaven, earth, and all creatures; so that herbs and grass, rain and drought, fruitful and barren years, meat and drink, health and sickness, riches and poverty, yea, and all things come, not by chance, but by his fatherly hand.

Providence is not by chance.  If God is keeping the original text of scripture pure by His singular care and providence, He is not leaving that to chance.  Since He will judge men by every word, which He says He will (Matthew 4:4, John 12:48), He will provide every Word.  He will “see to it.”  I know the question then arises, “How did God see to it?”

Providential Preservation

Spurgeon

Men who believe in providential preservation do not believe that God requires a trance-like state to accomplish perfect preservation of scripture.  If you asked, “How did the ram appear in the thicket to Abraham?”, you might find the answer difficult.  “He just did.”  He said He would provide, so He did.

C. H. Spurgeon in a sermon on the Providence of God says this:  “If anything would go wrong, God puts it right and if there is anything that would move awry, He puts forth His hand and alters it.”  This is how I read the description men who believed in providential preservation.

Capel

Richard Capel represents the position well (Capel’s Remains, London, 1658, pp. 19-43):

[W]e have the Copies in both languages [Hebrew and Greek], which Copies vary not from Primitive writings in any matter which may stumble any. This concernes onely the learned, and they know that by consent of all parties, the most learned on all sides among Christians do shake hands in this, that God by his providence hath preserved them uncorrupt. . . .

. . . . As God committed the Hebrew text of the Old Testament to the Jewes, and did and doth move their hearts to keep it untainted to this day: So I dare lay it on the same God, that he in his providence is so with the Church of the Gentiles, that they have and do preserve the Greek Text uncorrupt, and clear: As for some scrapes by Transcribers, that comes to no more, than to censure a book to be corrupt, because of some scrapes in the printing, and tis certain, that what mistake is in one print, is corrected in another.

You should notice that Capel uses the word, “providence.”  This doesn’t sound like the exaggerated, deceitful attacks of the critical text proponents.  I love the last sentence of that paragraph as an understanding.  I ask that you read it again:  “As for some scrapes by Transcribers, that comes to no more, than to censure a book to be corrupt, because of some scrapes in the printing, and tis certain, that what mistake is in one print, is corrected in another.”  These are not words you will hear from critical text, modern version men.

God Keeps His Words

I say God keeps His Words.  He uses His institutions to do it.  I also say God keeps the souls of the saints.  He uses many various means to do that.  It is difficult to explain how that He does it, but He does.  That too is supernatural.  Do the opponents of perfect preservation believe that God sees to that?  They do and they base that on presuppositions without resorting to words like “mystical explanation.”

The method God uses to preserve is a true one.  It is true like innermost machinery and function of a cell.  It occurs.  The DNA strands of a human being, designed by God, result in a fully grown, healthy person.  God did that.  He keeps working in His world as He sees fit.  His doing that with His words is also science.  It is supernatural and it is science.

More to Come

Do We Need Evidence Outside of the Bible or Do Biblical Presuppositions Count as Evidence?

This post relates to the Ross-White Debate and the Related Subject of Landmarkism

In numerous ways God established the truth and authority of His Word.  Believers rely on scripture for their faith and practice.  They trust the Word of God as evidence.  God said it, so it is true.

Scripture talks about Noah, so there is a Noah, Abraham, so there is an Abraham, and Moses, so there is a Moses.  You don’t have to find something outside of the Bible about these figures to believe what God says about them in the Bible.  It is self-evident.  Whatever scripture says is true.

The Bible teaches justification by faith.  Does evidence show that God imputes the righteousness of Christ to us, forgives all our sins, or justifies us by faith?  I can’t point to the truth of this outside of the Bible.  I believe it because God’s Word says it.

Was there a tree of life?  Yes.  Did the sun stand still in Joshua?  Yes.  Was there a Samson?  Yes.  How can we answer “yes” to any of these questions without something outside of the Bible?

Authentication of Scripture

Authentication of scripture exists outside the Bible.  Men investigate the people and events recorded in it, outside of it.  Nothing men find contradicts what it says.  They can’t confirm everything, but for what they can find confirmation of the Bible outside of the Bible, it confirms it.

The Bible makes thousands of predictions.  These are most often layered predictions with many different details to the prophecies.  For the prophecies to come true, much happens that involves many different people and places.  Fulfillment of every prophecy occurred.

Extra-scriptural written materials validate people and events in scripture.  Archaeology confirms people and events in the Bible.  When comparing one part of the Bible with another, one part or more confirms another part.  Different sections confirm each other with their agreement.  Fulfilled prophecies authenticate the truth and authority of what scripture says.

Copying Scripture

Scripture so impressed its readers and adherents that they copied it more than any other document.  More hand copies exist than any other document in all of history, and by far.  Hand copies of the Bible far exceed any other book.  Many, many throughout history accepted it as true.

We can look at this world and know that it didn’t occur by accident.  What we witness in nature requires more than naturalistic explanation.  The supernatural explanation of the Bible matches what we see in the world.  The comparison of passages within the Bible attest to their explanation of the origins of the world, people, nations, nature, civilization, events, and  language.  It provides a cohesive view of the world in which we live.

The Bible is its own evidence.  By itself, it is a standard.  The writings themselves ring with authority and truth.  No one could just make them up.

Scripture Is Evidence

With everything that I have written so far, a reader of the Bible can depend on its contents to believe its doctrine.  Where there is no sure evidence outside of scripture, scripture is the evidence.  If God says holy men of God wrote the words of God under verbal, plenary inspiration, we believe that.  If He says He will preserve all of those same words and how He will do that, we believe that.  Whatever might contradict what scripture says, we hold to scripture and reject what contradicts it.

Jesus said that the gates of hell would not prevail against His church, so they didn’t.  Jesus said His Words would not pass away, so they didn’t.  Believers deny whatever contradicts what God said.  They deny modern textual critics who deny the perfect preservation of scripture.  Believers deny the disappearance of true churches outside of the state church.  They deny alterations of the creation story in Genesis 1 through 3.  True Christians accept the table of nations in Genesis 10.  Everything God says is true and every man a liar.

Scripture is the test of truth.  Jesus said, God’s Word is truth.  As an example, today so-called experts talk about climate change and the end of life on earth.  We reject those claims.  Even the evidence outside the Bible challenges their assertions, but the Bible presents a different view.

The Bible Guides the Right Interpretation of History

The Bible provides the authoritative basis for the right interpretation of history.  If a view of history contradicts the Bible, believers accept the Bible over the view.  Isaiah 40 to 48 talks about the interpretation of history.  Isaiah calls these “the former matters.”  Isaiah, because of God, could relate former matters with present and future ones.  God sees it all at all times.  He knows it all.

Since the Bible is true, it is also evidence.  This is a matter of faith.  We believe it, based on that evidence.  It guides our interpretation.  When we look back at what happened, we start with presuppositions based upon the Bible.  Our interpretation of history must conform to the Bible.

In the recent debate with James White, Thomas Ross started with scriptural presuppositions.  They are true.  God said what He would do with scripture.  We might not prove the fulfillment of these presuppositions outside of scripture.  They’re still true.

If God said He would preserve every word, God would make all of them available to every generation of believers, and He would use the church to do it, that’s what we believe.  What God said provides the authoritative basis for the right interpretation of history.  I believe what God said He would do, because what He said is true.

What Pleases God

When people come up with other points of view on preservation that reject or deny what God said, I reject those.  They may say they have evidence.  I will look at it, and I have.  Their so-called evidence is an interpretation of history.  That’s all it is.  They say this and that about Erasmus or Beza or Athanasius that all conforms to their naturalistic point of view.  I listen to it, see how it fits into a biblical view of history, and if it doesn’t, I don’t believe it.  That is what pleases God.

How I look at the history of the preservation of scripture is also how I look at the history of the preservation of the church.  It is how I look at the history of Christian doctrine.  Because I don’t believe in an apostasy of orthodox doctrine and practice, I reject that it happened.  History seems to say it did in certain instances, but how trustworthy is history before the printing press?

Example

James White uses the example of Athanasius as proof that the Comma Johanneum (important part of 1 John 5:7) did not exist at that time.  Athanasius didn’t quote it apparently.  First, we have to depend on Athanasius.  Then we have to rely on the report of Athanasius.  Did someone report him accurately?  And then we have to trust the preservation of the report of Athanasius.  Why was this report preserved and other reports not?   To the victors go the spoils.

On some doctrinal content, not necessarily this one, did the Roman Catholics control the flow of information and destroy what did not confirm its doctrine?  Someone can say it’s true, because they read something.  James White did that.  It works today for his point of view.  Did what he say fit with scriptural presuppositions?  He says it fit with Athanasius, and what scripture says, be gone.  I reject his interpretation of it because it contradicts scriptural presuppositions.  That is how believers should interpret history.

Greeks Seek After Wisdom

Paul said the Jews seek after signs.  They validated with signs.  He said, Greeks seek after wisdom.  They validated with wisdom.  For something to be true, was it accompanied by signs?  For something to be true, does wisdom confirm it?  Believers say, the foolishness of preaching, which is the substance of preaching from scripture.  That glorifies God.

When James White and others present their wisdom, who is glorified?  They are.  When we speak, they say it sounds like foolishness.  Does this sound familiar when you think about what the Apostle Paul said?

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.

 

AUTHORS OF THE BLOG

  • Kent Brandenburg
  • Thomas Ross

Archives