I relatively recently wrote out the confession of faith in the
inspiration and preservation of Scripture of which the following is part
1. I would like blog readers to
read and carefully ponder what is affirmed in this part, and the parts to
follow, and engage in any discussion over them in the comment section. There is a tremendous amount of
misunderstanding of what Scripture teaches in these areas and what its
implications are on texts and versions, and I believe that the confession below
will help clarify what the Biblical position is. After posting the confession in two parts, and engaging in whatever
discussion comes up, I intend to post the entire confession in one post, and
ask you if you are willing to subscribe to it, as I have done. I believe it would assist in clarity
among brethren and churches on this matter if the following confession were
widely adopted. So please read it
with that in mind, and feel free to forward the post(s) and the entire
confession that follows to others who might also be interested in its content
or be willing to subscribe to it. Part two of the confession is posted here. The entire confession is already here in the Bibliology section.
In light of modern controversies over the
matters of the inspiration and preservation of Scripture, and to prevent
misunderstanding of my own position on these questions, I have thought it
appropriate to write a confession of my faith on these essential Biblical
truths.
I confess that God, through a supernatural
operation of His Spirit, used holy men to miraculously produce the autographs
of the 66 canonical books of the Bible, controlling them in such a manner that
the very words, and all of the words, that they recorded were the very words of
God Himself (2 Peter 1:16-21).
This miraculous production of the autographs of the Bible was absolutely
unique. It never has been, and
never will be, replicated by any individual or group of individuals whatever
who copy, collate, compile, or translate Biblical manuscripts. Consequently, all views that affirm
that any copyist, compiler, or translator of the Bible was controlled in the
same miraculous manner as the original writers of Scripture must be
rejected. I therefore reject the
views of Peter Ruckman, Gail Riplinger, and all others who affirm that the King
James Version contains advanced revelation or is superior to the original
language texts of the Bible.[i]
I confess
that the verbally, plenarily inspired Scriptures are the product of this
miraculous process (2 Timothy 3:16).
While entirely rejecting the idea that inspiration or enscripturation as
a process ever has been or ever will be replicated, I confess that accurate
copies of the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic autographa are God’s Word, having in them the breath of God
(Matthew 4:4) in the same manner that the original manuscripts were the Word of
God, inasmuch as the words of such copies are identical to the words of the
autographs. Furthermore, any copy,
to the extent that it has the same words and sentences as the autographs, is to
that extent the inspired Word of God.
I further confess, in accordance with classical Baptist and orthodox
Protestant Bibliology,[ii] that, in
the same sense that Scripture, when translated, is still Scripture, and thus is
still holy, living, powerful, sharper than any twoedged sword, and able to save
(Romans 1:2; Hebrews 4:12; James 1:21), it also still has both the quality of
having the breath of God in it and the resultant quality of being profitable (2
Timothy 3:16, pasa graphe Theopneustos kai ophelimos).[iii]
Concerning the preservation of Scripture,[iv] I confess:
1.) God
revealed the Scriptures so men could know His will both in the Old and New
Testaments and in the future (Deuteronomy 31:9-13, 24-29; 1 John 1:1-4, 2:1-17;
2 Timothy 3:14-17; 2 Peter 1:12-15). The Bible is clear that no Scripture was
intended for only the original recipient (Romans 15:4, 16:25-26; 1 Corinthians
10:11). God intended for His Word to be recognized and received by the churches
as a whole (e.g., Colossians 4:16; Revelation 1:3-4). The inspired text of
Scripture is to be guarded (1 Timothy 6:20-21) as a “form (pattern) of sound
words” for the church (2 Timothy 1:13-14) and used to instruct all future
churches (2 Timothy 2:2).
2.) The
Bible promises that God will preserve every one of His words forever down to
the very jot and tittle,[v] the
smallest letter (Psalm 12:6-7, 33:11, 119:152, 160; Isaiah 30:8, 40:8; 1 Peter
1:23-25; Matthew 5:18, 24:35).
3.) The
Bible assures us that God’s words are perfect and pure (Psalm 12:6-7; Proverbs
30:5-6).
4.) The
Bible promises that God would make His words generally available to every
generation of believers (Deuteronomy 29:29; 30:11-14; Isaiah 34:16, 59:21;
Matthew 4:4; 5:18-19; 2 Peter 3:2; Jude 17).
5.) The
Bible promises there will be certainty as to the words of God (Deuteronomy 4:2;
12:32; Revelation 22:18-19; 2 Peter 1:19; Luke 1:4; Proverbs 1:23, 22:20-21; Daniel
12:9-10; 1 John 2:20).
6.) The
Bible promises that God would lead His saints into all truth, and that the
Word, all of His words, are truth (John 16:13, 17:8, 17). Believers are not to set themselves
above the Word but receive it with the faith of a little child, rejecting
secular and worldly “wisdom” (Matthew 11:25-26; 1 Corinthians 3:18-20).
7.) God
states that the Bible will be settled to the extent that someone could not add
or take away from His words and effectually corrupt them (Revelation 22:18-19;
Deuteronomy 12:32).
8.) The
Bible shows that the true churches of Christ would receive and guard these
words (Matthew 28:19-20; John 17:8; Acts 8:14, 11:1, 17:11; 1 Thessalonians
2:13; 1 Corinthians 15:3; 1 Timothy 3:15).
9.) The
Bible presents as a pattern that that believers would receive these words from
other believers (Deuteronomy 17:18; 29:29; 1 Kings 2:3; Proverbs 25:1; Acts
7:38; Hebrews 7:11; 1 Thessalonians 1:6; Philippians 4:9; Colossians 4:16).
10.) The
Bible shows that God’s promises may appear to contradict science and reason. In
Genesis 2 we see that a newly created world may look ancient. However, the
Scriptures remind us that “it is better to trust in the LORD than to put
confidence in man” (Psalm 118:8).
We believe in order that we may understand.
11.) Christ
taught the preservation of His very words, since they will be the standard in
the future judgment (John 12:48) and men will be accountable to obey all of
them. He also warned of the vanity
of ignoring His actual words (Matthew 7:26). Christ emphatically declared, “the
scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). In Matthew 22:29 Jesus rebuked men,
saying, “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures.” If the Scriptures were only
accessible in long-lost original autographs then why would the Lord chide
people for being ignorant of words that were not available? Believers are
commanded to contend for the faith (Jude 3) and this faith is based upon the
words of God (Romans 10:17).
12.) In summary, “The just shall live by
faith” (Romans 1:17; Habakkuk 2:4) and “we walk by faith, not by sight” (2
Corinthians 5:7). Scripture, and
faith in the promises of God, must be the “glasses” through which we evaluate
historical data about the preservation of the Bible. Scripture teaches the verbal, plenary preservation of the
verbally, plenarily inspired autographa (Psalm 12:6-7; Matthew 5:18; Matthew 24:35); that the preserved words would be
perpetually available to God’s people (Isaiah 59:21); and that Israel was the
guardian of Scripture in the Mosaic dispensation (Romans 3:1-2), and the church
the guardian in the dispensation of grace (1 Timothy 3:15). The Holy Spirit would lead the saints
to accept the words the Father gave to the Son to give to His people (John
16:13; 17:8). Believers can know
with certainty where the canonical words of God are, because they are to live
by every one of them (Matthew 4:4; Revelation 22:18-19) and are going to be
judged by them at the last day (John 12:48).
-TDR
[i]
See the
articles “What About Ruckman?” and “The Problem with New Age Bible Versions by Gail Riplinger” by David Cloud, accessible, like
the other resources mentioned in this confession, at
http://sites.google.com/site/thross7.
[ii]
The
affirmation of absolute verbal and plenary inspiration for the original language
text, and a secondary, derivative inspiration for accurate translations, is the
classic position confessed by Baptists and Protestants in the Reformation and
post-Reformation era, in continuity with earlier periods of church history. For Baptist sources, see the reference
in footnote #3. Richard Muller
explains the historic Protestant position:
[Alongside] the insistence of the Reformed that the
very words of the original are inspired, the theological force of their
argument falls in the substance or res rather than on the individual words: translations can be authoritative quoad
res because the authority is not so
much in the words as in the entirety of the teaching as distributed throughout
the canon. . . . [T]he issue of “things” (res) and “words” (verba) . . . is crucial to the Protestant doctrine of
Scripture and is, as many of the other elements of the Protestant doctrine, an
element taken over from the medieval tradition and rooted in Augustine’s
hermeneutics. . . . [T]he words of the text are signs pointing to the doctrinal
“things.” This distinction between signa and res significata, the
sign and the thing signified, carries over into the language typical of
scholastic Protestantism, of the words of the text and the substance of the
text, of the authority of translations not strictly quoad verba but quoad res, according to the substance or meaning indicated by the original. . . .
[O]nly the [original language] sources are inspired (theopneustoi) both according to their substance (quoad res) and according to their words (quoad verba)[.] This must be the case, since holy men of God spake
as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, 2 Pet. 1:21, who dictated to them not
only the substance (res) but also
the very words (verba). For the
same reason, the Hebrew and the Greek are the norms and rules by which the
various versions are examined and evaluated. . . . [There is] a distinction
between authenticity and authorship quoad verba, which belongs only to the Hebrew and Greek originals,
and authenticity and authority quoad res, which inheres in valid translations. . . . Thus translations can be
used, but with the reservation that only the Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New
Testament are the authentic norms of doctrine and the rule by which doctrinal
controversy is to be decided[.] Versions that are congruent with the sources
are indeed authentic according to substance (quoad res); for the Word of God [may be] translated into other
languages: the Word of God is not to be limited, since whether it is thought or
spoken or written, it remains the Word of God. Nonetheless they are not
authentic according to the idiom or word, inasmuch as the words have been
explained in French or Dutch. In relation to all translations, therefore, the
Hebrew and Greek texts stand as antiquissimus, originalis, and archetypos. Thus, translations are the Word of God insofar as they permit the Word
of God to address the reader or hearer: for Scripture is most certainly the
Word of God in the things it teaches and to the extent that in and by means of
it power of God touches the conscience. Even so, in translations as well as in
the original the testimony of the Holy Spirit demonstrates the graciousness of
God toward us. All translations have divine authority insofar as they correctly
render the original: the tongue and dialect is but an accident, and as it were
an argument of divine truth, which remains one and the same in all idioms. (pgs.
269, 326-327, 403, 416, 427-428, Post-Reformation
Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy; volume 2,
Holy Scripture: The cognitive
foundation of theology (2nd ed.),
Richard Muller. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003; quotations and original sources not
reproduced)
[iii]
See “Are
Accurate Copies and Translations of Scripture Inspired? A Study of 2 Timothy
3:16,” at http://sites.google.com/site/thross7.
[iv]
A book
length exposition of the Biblical doctrine of preservation is Thou Shalt
Keep Them: A Biblical Theology of
the Perfect Preservation of Scripture,
ed. Kent Brandenburg, El Sobrante, CA:
Pillar and Ground Publishing, 2003. The book is a fine presentation of the doctrine by a
separatist Baptist. It can be
purchased at http://sites.google.com/site/thross7. The website also contains an exposition of a number of passages
related to the preservation of Scripture.
Compare the list of presuppositions on the preservation of Scripture
found on pgs. 73-74, “Preservation of the Bible: Providential or Miraculous? A Response to Jon Rehurek of the Master’s Seminary,” Paul
Ferguson. The Burning Bush 15:2 (July 2009) 67-100.
[v]
See “The
Debate over the Inspiration of the Hebrew Vowel Points” and “Evidences for the
Inspiration of the Hebrew Vowel Points,” by Thomas Ross, and “The Antiquity of
the Hebrew Language, Letters, Vowels, and Accents” by John Gill at
http://sites.google.com/site/thross7 for the implications of this confession to
the question of the inspiration and authority of the Hebrew vowel points.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment