Home » Posts tagged 'Thomas Ross'
Tag Archives: Thomas Ross
THE MOOD IS NOT THE PROBLEM IN MOSCOW, IDAHO (part two)
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)
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.
The Post Text and Version Debate Attack on the Thomas Ross “Landmark” Ecclesiology
On February 18, 2023, when Thomas Ross debated James White on the superiority of the KJV and its underlying text to the LSV and its underlying text, I was overseas. I got back to the United States yesterday. After the debate, I tried to find information about it, and could find very little to none. As of right now, I have watched a short interview someone made with Thomas Ross and a five minute criticism by James White on his dividing line program.
Criticism of Thomas Ross in the Debate
Most of the combined time of the two critical pieces after the debate dealt with one thing Thomas Ross said after the debate (not during). Thomas said he was Landmark (watch here). I don’t have a problem with his calling himself “Landmark.” It wasn’t wrong. I would not have done it in an interview, but I am glad Thomas stands by what he believes on this.
In his five minute critique of Thomas Ross on his Dividing Line, James White attacks the style of Brother Ross (between 8:45 and about 15:00). He mocks Thomas in in an insulting way for more than half his five to seven minutes because he talked too fast and used too many powerpoint slides.
All the while, in his inimitable way James White praises both his own style and his own humility. In hindsight, White should win because he used less slides and related to his audience better, not because he made better points or told the truth. Is this the standard for a debate? I haven’t seen the debate, but it would not surprise me if Thomas could have communicated better, but in the end, was he telling the truth? Did he make arguments that White did not answer and did he answer or refute White’s arguments?
Landmark?
White took a shot at Thomas Ross for being Landmark. He does not deal with it substantively, which is quite normal for White. He uses it to smear Thomas Ross. This is a debate technique often used by White.
The man, who interviewed Thomas Ross, asks him about Athanasius not using 1 John 5:7. Thomas gives a good answer. As a part of the answer, Thomas distinguishes Athanasius as state church. Since Thomas had likely just promoted a position on the church keeping God’s Words, he did not espouse Roman Catholic Athanasius as a true church.
As a separate point, is White right that Landmarkism is a flawed historical position? In his twitter feed, White says:
I wish I had known about the Landmarkism as it would have clarified a few statements in the debate. Landmarkism is without merit, historically speaking, of course.
Knowing Thomas was Landmark would not have changed the debate on the preservation of scripture. It wouldn’t.
No Issue
I get along well on the preservation issue with people who take another ecclesiological position than I do. I and others can separate this line to keep what we have in common. The confessional position of the reformed Baptists and Presbyterians says that God used the church to keep or acknowledge the canonicity of the New Testament text. Its adherents would say, “God used the church to keep His Words.” I would say, “God used the church to keep His Words.”
The reformed and Presbyterian both say the true church is universal. I say it is local. They say all believers kept God’s Words. I say, true churches, which believe in regenerate membership, kept God’s Words. This difference does not change what we believe on preservation. It would influence a debate about the nature of the church, which isn’t the debate here.
Neither James White nor any one else since the debate has explained why Landmarkism has no merit. The ex cathedra speech of White gives him his only authority. White clarifies that Landmarkism has no merit, ‘historically speaking.’ That is the most common criticism against Landmarkism. It can’t be proven historically. This parallels with White’s main criticism of the preservation of scripture. It can’t be proven historically. Does that make what God says in his Word, not true?
If we can’t prove the doctrine of justification historically, does that nullify justification?
Historicism
God does not require anyone to prove a position is historically superior. That itself is a position without merit. White selectively supports historicism when it is convenient for him. God didn’t promise to preserve history. The true position is not the one with the most historical evidence.
However, as a matter of faith, we look to history. We look to see God doing what He said He would do. We don’t have to prove He did something in every moment of every day of every year that He said He would. Historicism parallels with so-called science (cf. 1 Tim 6:20). Science cannot prove a universal negative. Roman Catholicism burned and destroyed the historical evidence of other positions. “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Heb 11:1).
True Churches, Not Athanasius
Foundational to Landarkism is the perpetuity of the church. God works through true churches. True churches always existed throughout history separate from the state church. Since the church is the pillar and ground of the truth, we trust those churches above the state church. With that as his position, Thomas Ross in part says that he respects the Waldensian text above the work of Athanasius.
We can enjoy good work from Athanasius without looking to him as a primary source. I agree with Thomas Ross. We can quote the verbiage of Athanasius to show an old defense of the deity of Christ. He is helpful in that way. No one should give too much credit to him. He was not part of the pillar and ground of the truth.
I would gladly debate James White on the text of scripture, the doctrine of preservation, or on the nature of the church. To win the debate, of course I would need to use less powerpoint slides than he and interact with my audience in a helpful way after the supreme model of James White. James White though not the pillar and ground of the truth is at least the pillar and ground of debate style.
James White / Thomas Ross debate format: King James Version vs. LSB
I am looking forward to my upcoming debate with Dr. James White. Please note the planned format below for the debate. Thank you very much for your fervent prayers and possible fasting for me and for the debate.
Debate Topic: “The Legacy Standard Bible, as a representative of modern English translations based upon the UBS/NA text, is superior to the KJV, as a representative of TR-based Bible translations.”
Affirm: James White
Deny: Thomas Ross
How the time will go:
Brief introduction to the speakers and an explanation of the character of the debate.
Opening presentation: 25/25
Second presentation/rebuttal: 12/12
Cross-examination #1: 10/10
Cross-examination #2: 10/10
Third presentation/rebuttal: 8/8
Concluding statement: 5/5
Very short break to gather any additional questions from the audience
Questions from audience the rest of the time.
For more information, see the James White / Thomas Ross debate page here.
The Essence of the Bondage Mentality or Worldview, Witnessed in Old Testament Israel and Reflected in the Democrat Party in the United States
The Israelites lived in bondage in Egypt. In this bondage, they ate a preferred variety of food without a threat of immediate death. If they went along, they could go along. However, God wanted Israel to leave the bondage of Egypt to the liberty of the land that He would give them. He raised up and then used Moses and Aaron to lead them out. God also hardened Pharoah’s heart to do his will. The Apostle Paul explains in Romans 9:17-18:
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
Deuteronomy 4:20 communicates a similar purpose: “But the LORD hath taken you, and brought you forth out of the iron furnace, even out of Egypt, to be unto him a people of inheritance, as ye are this day.” A very short while after Israel left Egypt, the people wanted back in Egypt in bondage. They could escape Egypt, but they could not escape their bondage mentality or worldview. They wanted back in bondage as seen in many passages in the Old Testament. Reacting to lesser food, they said (Numbers 11:1-7):
1 And when the people complained, it displeased the LORD: and the LORD heard it; and his anger was kindled; and the fire of the LORD burnt among them, and consumed them that were in the uttermost parts of the camp.
2 And the people cried unto Moses; and when Moses prayed unto the LORD, the fire was quenched.
3 And he called the name of the place Taberah: because the fire of the LORD burnt among them.
4 And the mixt multitude that was among them fell a lusting: and the children of Israel also wept again, and said, Who shall give us flesh to eat?
5 We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlick:
6 But now our soul is dried away: there is nothing at all, beside this manna, before our eyes.
Israel said in Numbers 20:5, “And wherefore have ye made us to come up out of Egypt, to bring us in unto this evil place? it is no place of seed, or of figs, or of vines, or of pomegranates; neither is there any water to drink.” They spoke another version in Numbers 21:5, “And the people spake against God, and against Moses, Wherefore have ye brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? for there is no bread, neither is there any water; and our soul loatheth this light bread.” They would rather stay in bondage, because liberty meant manna, while bondage apparently brought fish, cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlick.
A second group of passages repeat the words, “die in the wilderness” (Exodus 14, Numbers 21, 26), as in Exodus 14:11-12:
11 And they said unto Moses, Because there were no graves in Egypt, hast thou taken us away to die in the wilderness? wherefore hast thou dealt thus with us, to carry us forth out of Egypt?
12 Is not this the word that we did tell thee in Egypt, saying, Let us alone, that we may serve the Egyptians? For it had been better for us to serve the Egyptians, than that we should die in the wilderness.
If the people of Israel trusted God, would they die in the wilderness? It seemed like it to them. They made decisions based on this worldview or mentality. You might call the bondage mindsight also a crybaby one, because everytime Israel chose bondage, they cried or complained like a baby to God.
Also reflecting the bondage or crybaby worldview or mentality was Israel’s desire for a king. God warned against having a king. 1 Samuel 8:1-18 (click to see this passage, while reading here) records what God thinks. Israel expressed the desire in verse 5: “And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.” Their bondage mentality or worldview guided their desire. It displeased the Lord (verses 6-8) and it still does.
Thomas Ross writes about 1 Samuel 8 and chronicles the given reasons God opposes the bondage worldview, what he calls “big government” mentality. He exposes the following arguments:
- Loss of freedom of association (verses 10-13)
- Loss of freedom in a military draft (verses 11-12) [in contrast to God’s will, Deuteronomy 20:1-9]
- Loss of freedom of occupation (verses 11-13)
- Weakening of the private sector for the public sector (verses 11-13)
- Loss of Freedom of Property (verses 14-16)
- Loss of freedom and protection for physical property through “redistribution” (verse 14)
- Loss of freedom and protection for growth in wealth and income through 10% taxation (verse 15)
- Loss of freedom and protection for human “property” (verse 16)
In the end, Israel would regret its bondage or crybaby mentality or worldview (verse 18). Thomas Ross lists reasons in the text for taking this false view of the world:
- Rejection of the Word of God (verse 19)
- A Desire to Follow the Ungodly (verse 20a)
- Abdication of Responsibility (verse 20b)
- Faithlessness (verse 20a and c)
When Israel finally went into captivity, Israel also wanted to stay, similarly to returning to Egypt. Daniel begrudges this and God prophesies the chastisement (Daniel 9-12).
The Democrat Party of the United States reflects the bondage and crybaby mentality. I call it bondage rather than slave even though the latter works, if expounded. The Bible says everyone is a slave, either to righteousness or unrighteousness, so it seems unescapable. The Democrats keep people in bondage to government, which is bondage to unrighteousness according to God. Slavery to God isn’t bondage, but liberty. With liberty comes responsibility.
Going back to Egypt meant dependence on Egypt. Israel could rest in the world system, following along with its ways, never breaking from its position or direction. The Democrats sacrifice the permanent on the altar of the immediate. They encourage everyone to live a temporal life.
Late in his life, Booker T. Washington visited Washington DC from Tuskegee and on his way, he witnessed and then criticized African Americans for moving to and crowding near Washington DC to obtain their means to live. This became Booker T. Washington’s debate with socialist African American leader W.E.B. Dubois, offering different trajectories for the future. Dubois’s view won out. This became the strategy of the Democrat Party, especially represented by Woodrow Wilson and then Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Victor David Hansen on June 29 wrote a piece titled “The Cry Baby Leftist Mind.” This agrees with what I’m writing here. The overturning of Roe v. Wade brought out further crying. What will women do now? How will they survive? Democrat California says, “We will pay for your abortion.” Even Republican governor Kristi Noem of South Dakota reacts by saying, “We must do what we can to help women in crisis,” as a beginning comment. She further said, “We will continue helping women navigate pregnancies they did not plan.” That is better than paying for the abortion, but it panders to a bondage and crybaby mindset.
God does not approve of the bondage and crybaby mindset. It will not succeed in a nation. People will not be better. They will be worse. Let us oppose it together.
Recent Comments