Aaron Blumer posted the third article in his series at SharperIron, Preservation: How and Why. I'll provide scriptural analysis for his article in this post. I offered to send this to Aaron first to proof it, but he said go ahead and just publish, so I have. Perhaps to those on his side of things, he's clear. From my perspective, it's hard for me to ascertain what he believes because of some contradiction, it seems, in what he writes. He makes these summation statements in his second and third paragraphs:1. "Nearly all involved in the controversy are agreed that God has preserved His Word for us in some sense."
2. "Nearly all are agreed as well that Scripture teaches God will preserve forever, somewhere and in some form, every one of the words He inspired and that some believers will always have access to Scripture in some form."
3. " Though we do not have equally direct and clear statements to the effect that God also ensures word-perfect preservation (see part 2), many believe a compelling case for this kind of preservation can be derived from less direct passages."
The statements are so ambiguous that they are very difficult to figure out. His first "nearly all" sentence could mean almost anything. The second one has so many qualifiers that it is hard to put one's finger on what he means. And I really don't see how or where Scripture teaches the view that he espouses. He hasn't revealed any evidence for this view thus far nor research that shows nearly everyone believes at least what he has written.
I'm asking. Scripture teaches that God will preserve forever in some form every one of the words He inspired? What?!? In some form? Where does Scripture say that? In some form? And then "some believers" will "always" have access to Scripture in some form? How many believers? Two? Ten? And only those will always have Scripture "in some form"? Will they have all the Words or just all of Scripture in some form? What is "some form"? And Aaron supposedly got this from Scripture.
The third statement is also very difficult, but it does help us a little to interpret the other two. What he seems to say is that we don't have any teaching in Scripture that tells us that those "some believers" will have "every one of the words He inspired." Aaron is all for "some believers" will always have access to some "form" of Scripture. I can see why men on the other side have not written any doctrine of preservation up to this point. They are comfortable criticizing our position, but they strain to write their own. I don't see anywhere that Scripture says that God would preserve His Word "in some form." Where he gets that, I do not know. Nor do I know how anyone could see that as preservation. And I'm not trying to be mean here.
Initial Arguments
Aaron writes as though he has proven some point about word-perfect inspiration as opposed to word-perfect preservation. I'm happy he believes in the depravity of man, but he hasn't succeeded at showing some scriptural connection between man's limitations due to sin and the failure in preservation of Scripture. We know man is limited because of sin, but that does not mean that he can stop what God has promised He would do. Man doesn't stop sinning even after conversion (1 John 1:8, 10; Romans 7), but God still saves, preserves, and keeps His soul pure. We don't have physical evidence of this. It's all by faith in what God has said. The gap for Aaron in believing word-perfect preservation and word-perfect inspiration seems to be his own staggering unbelief, not the lack of scriptural evidence. There are more preservation passages than inspiration ones. Men have operated with the same kind of rhetorical, grammatical, and syntactical techniques upon inspiration verses as Adam uses with the preservation ones and left us without inspiration in their teachings.
Now let's get into the nuts and bolts of Aaron's article. He says that of four passages that we examined in TSKT, they only affirm a concept of preservation, but not word-perfect. It's hard to understand what Aaron is saying. I guess I'm supposed to assume that "we" in his sixth paragraph (there is no referent) means the "some believers" in his previous statements. However, "we" seems to mean himself and all believers throughout all history. And he says that the passages are "consistent with" the "idea" of "word perfect copies of Scripture." That sounds good, sounds about right. He is saying that they teach word perfect preservation. That's good! Don't get too excited, because those passages haven't, according to Aaron, shown how God was going to be able to overcome the limitations of man's depravity. That's bad! So man's depravity trumps God's sovereignty as it relates to God's Word. Where does Scripture say that? It doesn't. King Ahasuerus was sinful but He still opened up the history books on the appropriate night to read about Mordecai. Among many other events that God providentially used to save Israel, he was able to overcome the limitations of their sinfulness to accomplish it.
Then Aaron writes this: "Perhaps recognizing that these often-cited passages are not sufficient to support their conclusions, the writers of TSKT look to several other verses as well." Not true at all. Our view of preservation is the whole package. And we've got more than what is in that book. It wasn't as though we got through five or six preservation passages and then said, "Wow, this is not enough, let's add some other chapters." You can all be dispelled of Aaron's speculation about our state of mind.
Matthew 4:4
Regarding Matthew 4:4, Aaron says that "it is written" continues to the speaker's present. That's true, and as he wrote, that's what we said. We knew that. However, if those words in Deuteronomy 8:3 continue to Jesus' day, that means preservation. That use of the perfect teaches the doctrine of perfect preservation.
Then he makes a point that Matthew's use of rhema would somehow be spoken versus perhaps logos being written. Both rhema and logos are spoken words. Scripture comes out of God's mouth, it is God breathed. Rhema is used all over the NT and we don't assume that it is spoken versus written. For instance, in Ephesians 6:17, it says that the "sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God," and "word" is rhema. For Aaron to be consistent, we wouldn't have anything to use for spiritual warfare because the words we use could only be oral ones coming directly out of God's mouth. For awhile, I've thought this an inane argument, whether used by Aaron or anyone else. If truly we are to live by every oral Word of God, then that would be a greater standard for God, as we would be assured of possessing every word that God has ever said, including the ones in Scripture. It still doesn't disprove the availability of Scripture. It seems to be a red herring.
After that Aaron says the present tense of "proceedeth" means for sure here, based on the future tense "shall live," that the verb is talking about continuous action. He doesn't provide any exegetical basis besides merely his own statement. I'm thinking, "What a stretch!" The normal tense of speaking is present. There's not any big point being made here grammatically. The reason that "shall live" is in the future tense is because all the living is in the future relative to the Words that God spoke. It really is as simple as that.
It was appropriate for Jesus to quote Deuteronomy 8:3 against Satan because Satan was tempting Jesus to disobey God's Words. Jesus always submitted to the Father. In the context of Deuteronomy, it wasn't food that would keep Israelites alive, but their obedience to God's Words. Jesus was not going to turn stones to bread because that would violate God's Words. Israel could have as much bread as they wanted, but that wouldn't guarantee their survival—their obedience to God's Word would.
John 17:8
In order to knock down Thomas Strouse's chapter on John 17:8 in TSKT, Aaron makes this statement: "Strouse then cites several references to believers "receiving" the word (pp. 54-55) and, in the process, gives "receive" a special meaning: something along the lines of "to get a hold of a copy of the entire Bible that you know is a word-perfect copy" (my words, not his)." He admittedly uses "his words," not Strouse's to make a point. The problem is that "his words" do not represent Strouse's. The point that Strouse is making is that as copies of Scripture are made, God's people will receive His Words, that is, they will know what those Words are. Conclusions can be derived from that teaching, but that is the point of Strouse. Misrepresenting Strouse might be fun reading for the choir, but it doesn't do anything to Strouse's argument and especially to what John 17:8 teaches.
Then Blumer goes into attacking that point that "received Words" means "Bible canon." It is a straw man, because Strouse knows that Jesus wasn't referring specifically to the Old Testament in John 17 and that the "all Scripture" of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 at that time wasn't the entire canon. It would be. When Paul wrote to Timothy, Revelation didn't exist—should we assume something about the canonicity of Revelation from that? Of course not. And the words of the Old Testament are still Jesus' Words. He is Jehovah. And we still apply "all Scripture" to the whole Bible. The line of criticism is overt picky-ness that I can't imagine Aaron applying to others. And the point of the chapter anyway was different than one that Aaron was looking for—Strouse was expounding on the received-text attitude that would be found in genuine believers.
2 Timothy 3:15-17
Blumer's major argument here is found in these words:
[T]he passage does not say that Timothy "had access to" or "possessed" the "holy scriptures" but that he knew them. Unless we suppose that young Timothy knew every single inspired word of the Old Testament, "holy scriptures" in v.15 cannot have that meaning. Rather, it refers to the subset of the Scriptures Timothy had personally learned.
Aaron says he gets his teaching from Scripture. This one is simple. The passage says that Timothy knew the holy scriptures. The verb "hast known" is oida, which BDAG says is "to experience, to be acquainted with." Timothy had experiential knowledge with the holy scriptures. The level of Aaron's exegesis is the guess or speculation that, even though the text says Timothy did know the holy scriptures, this was not likely so. Shouldn't we just take the text at its word? Are we going to just deny what the verse actually says? This isn't a credible criticism.
I think that in light of the context we can assume that God had preserved every Word of the Scriptures that Timothy used. Unless Aaron and others want to assume that Timothy was studying directly from the original manuscripts as penned by the original authors, then we should believe, which we should, that the "all Scriptures" were the copies that Timothy and Paul had. Those were the same Words that God had breathed out. This assumes preservation.
(This paragraph is one that I added later to this post, after several comments had been made.) 2 Timothy 3:15 and 16 are connected by a grammatical point. Verse 16 begins without a conjunction, that is, it is asyndetic. So it can't be new subject matter. The holy scripture must be the all scripture because of that grammatical point. Timothy was using "all scripture." These verses assume preservation.
Blumer uses an illustration (money and hamburger) to say that we cannot conclude that the sufficiency of Scripture is based upon "all" Scripture. He is saying that some could be enough. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 say "all Scripture" throughly furnishes the man of God unto every good work. Blumer says that by that statement we cannot assume that something less than all Scripture would not be sufficient to do every good work. I don't believe that we can equate the money to buy a hamburger with the Words of God. We must be regulated by what God said, not by what He didn't. And He said that "all Scripture" is the basis for sufficiency. We should make assumptions based upon what God said, not what He didn't. What Aaron is saying is that it is possible that something less than all of Scripture would be sufficient for every good work. Who are we to assume that? We can't.
Conclusion
As we covered in the beginning of this post, it is hard to understand Aaron Blumer's view of preservation and where he might get the position he takes. What we can conclude is that he doesn't believe that we have all God's Words available. To me, that means that he doesn't believe in preservation. He says that he gets this view from Scripture. I would be happy to leave to you, when you read the passages that apply to the doctrine of preservation, to decide whether you believe the Bible teaches what Aaron says it does. The Bible does teach that God would preserve every Word and that they would all be available to every generation of believers. The God I know can and did do that.
49 comments:
"This isn't a credible criticism." Yep, it's incredible (unbelievable or unbelieving) criticism. This is precisely the german rationalistic approach that fostered higher and lower criticism.
A couple of quick replies, more later.
The first three statements you quoted are intended to summarize the nature of the debate by pointing out what is not in dispute. It's true I don't "prove" that, but anyone who goes looking in the literature can see that it's hard to find folks who disagree w/those particular points.
Second, as for "in some form," you also believe God has preserved His word "in some form," since the Received Text is a form.
That was my only point there. Some believe the form is "in heaven" some believe the form is "dispersed in the extant MSS," you believe the form is a perfect text.
We are all agreed that it is preserved in some form.
The question is what form, which is the focus of the series.
The basic argument seems also to have eluded you. I begin with your assertion that the form is a word perfect text, then examine the case for that form and argue that the case is weak.
So the absence of a verse that says "in some form" is irrelevant. In effect, it's an argument by process of elimination. If we cannot prove from Scripture that the form is a word perfect text, we are left with the belief that it takes some other form.
... unless the case can be made from external evidence, which would be a different study.
"Strouse was expounding on the received-text attitude that would be found in genuine believers."
I appreciate this sentence, particularly the phrase "received-text attitude" since it has everything to do with the difference in perspectives (KJB'ers vs anti-KJB'ers).
I have found that Aarron and those who follow his lines of reasoning have a non-Biblical definition for faith.
When challenged on the Greek of Hebrews 11:6, I looked it up for myself and found the challenger way apart from the definition of "substance".
This is what most non-KJB'ers (among the English speaking people) disagree with and cannot seem to understand concerning the words of God. (They do seem to understand it with relationship to the idea of 66 books, or else they must be relying upon what they think was a human only determination.)
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
Joe V.
Aaron,
I want to continue to believe you are on an honest quest for the truth. Some of your arguments strain at credulity in my opinion. Believe me. When you're done, people will be happy with your scorched earth method of refutation, but we want to all hope that God will be happy with us, don't we?
You say you want to stay within scripture. As an example, that Timothy couldn't have known all of the holy Scriptures jumps outside of the Bible for an argument. You interpret the "all" of 2 Timothy 3:16 based on your speculation about "hast known" of v. 15. Your speculation reigns there.
And your "in some form" discounts all the times the Bible says "words" or "jots" and "tittles." Never does the Bible say that it is preserved in some other fashion than that. I'll be happy for you to show me one verse otherwise. You'd like to make this an argument about eclectic or TR (heaven is a place, not a form), but none of those are in the Bible. So if you want to keep scriptural, you really should keep scriptural. The ambiguity ("some form") seems to be convenient right now for something that you are going unveil later upon us.
Your admission that you are involved in argument by elimination says something about what you are doing. You are not looking for a doctrine of preservation, but looking to eliminate a doctrine of preservation. The elimination of a doctrine of preservation is a doctrine. It seems you are being guided by that presupposition. People who have read scripture for years, without the help of the strained arguments you employ, have believed in the perfect preservation of Scripture. The Bible reads that way. I don't think they have entered the Bible with some agenda of elimination.
That agenda explains to me the type of arguments that you make.
Joe V.,
I agree.
Guys, about all I can say is read the article. If you're willing to give it a fair read, you'll see that it's not unclear or confusing and is based entirely on the conviction that what the Bible teaches is absolutely true and what it does not is suspect (but might still be true if external evidence commends it)
And by all means compare the article to TSKT and you'll see that I haven't misrepresented anything.
Those who are not willing to give it a fair read are beyond my help. They'll just keep misreading, getting confused by simple arguments, not noticing key words, taking statements out of context, imagining sinister "types" of arguments, and all sorts of other ways of avoiding what I'm saying rather than engaging it.
Why not just say,"Hey, my mind's made up and I'm not willing to really consider anything to the contrary"? That would save us all alot of time and it's absolutely your right.
But some are interested in looking hard at what Scripture says on the subject because their minds are not made up yet. These are the ones I'm trying to help.
To them, I just say, read the articles and decide for yourself.
Aaron,
I think people should read TSKT and you. I've not discouraged that at all, and notice you're free to comment here. You're free even to write what you've written above. You do recognize, don't you, that a refusal to believe is a closed mind. I'm ready to believe. Being persuaded by scripture would be the basis for that. But you aren't presenting any kind of positive presentation of preservation to believe. There isn't anything to believe in what you're presenting. You're presentation is about disbelieving a certain point of view. Now I'm open to disbelieve, Aaron, as you would have me, but I would have to be convinced of that, and what you're presenting doesn't do that.
When you say that the present tense of "proceedeth" means something other than what is natural to "say" or "speak," and in order to make some point that you seem to want to be there, but isn't, it doesn't read as someone who is taking it at face value. And if you wanted to persuade me otherwise, you'd have to show me how I was wrong, not just insult myself and my readers.
I'd like someone to show how above I've "avoided" what you've said. It seems like I've looked very carefully at what you've said and then linked to what you said. And I've done that to give you a fair hearing, not something everyone at SI is able to get.
I've read everything the other side has written, so I think I've "looked hard" at what they've said, and what you've said. I'm not, however, going to roll up in the fetal position and say it's OK here to agree to disagree.
Thanks.
By the way, and I don't mean to condescend, just to help, but maybe you don't know what I mean by "provide an exegetical basis." You didn't give any examples from scripture that would prove that man's depravity is related in anyway to God's promises of preservation being annulled. I would be looking for those examples. Showing us that man is depraved and then making a conclusion that this means that God would forfeit the ability to use men to preserve His Words, even though he could use sinful men to inspire those Words, isn't providing an exegetical basis. And it is, as I made note earlier, a brand new presentation in the history of Christianity, so we would really, really want to see some proof since we don't have a historic basis to believe it either.
Kent, you don't seem to be understanding what Aaron's summary statements are saying. He isn't making an argument with those statements, he is attempting to state the common ground between your view, his view, and the view of all other Bible believers. It is a statement of bare minimums.
When he says "some form", he means that you and he (and I) believe that God has preserved his words, but we don't all agree with the form where those words are preserved.
It seems that you are entirely missing his point on this.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
So "some form" is also supposed to represent perfect preservation. In other words, we are reading the very words found in the original manuscripts as preserved in copies and agreed upon by the churches. I don't think there is such a thing as preservation in some form. The words are either preserved or they aren't. If they aren't, that isn't a form of preservation. My problem is that I don't even view the other "forms" as preservation. They don't agree that we have all the words. And I thought that we were talking about what we see the Bible taught, not analyzing what it is that people believe about this.
Especially for the sake of argument, let's concede that Aaron's "nearly all" statements serve only as the common ground that people share on preservation. I don't want to concede even that, but let's just leave it to an argument about what Aaron goes on to say about the passages. We'll just have a truce on everything up to that point.
I hate to ask this, as you have spoken on this several times, but where exactly is this perfect word for word preservation? Are you refering to the TR? I'm not quite awake yet this morning. Thanks.
Hi Kent
Well... I am thinking that it does not help you to miss completely the meaning of your opponents. It seems to me that the foundation of this particular post is laid on a complete misunderstanding of Aaron's words. Thus, you build an argument on nothing. You aren't even talking past each other, you aren't talking about the same thing at all.
In your last comment to me above, are you saying that you don't want to conceded that there is common ground between you and Aaron at all? In the first paragraph of your comment, you say "I don't even view the other "forms" as preservation." Is that part of what you don't want to concede?
I have said to you in the past that I am completely confident that we have all God's words preserved. Since I don't believe that they are as well preserved in the same body of manuscripts that you do, you have trouble accepting my bona fide statement of faith that I believe in preservation, as I recall.
It is quite telling that you admit you don't want to concede even that point, I think.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Aaron,
"These are the ones I'm trying to help."
How are you "helping"? You try to remove what KJB users hold to be true, and replace it with multiple questions about text.
Your arguments are faithless, based upon science only. (I do understand that you are more learned in matters of textual criticism, and you appear much more intelligent than I. So this is not intended to be an insult.)
If you were to present a faith based solid foundational set of the words of God, I would abandon all else.
Joe V.
"...maybe you don't know what I mean by 'provide an exegetical basis.' You didn't give any examples from scripture that would prove that man's depravity is related in anyway to God's promises of preservation being annulled. I would be looking for those examples. Showing us that man is depraved and then making a conclusion that this means that God would forfeit the ability to use men to preserve His Words"
Everything in me screams that I'm wasting my time, but I'm addicted. There are worse vices I guess. So anyway, two things on this
1) Exegetcal basis for my view of preservation.
You don't seem to have noticed that our views on preservation overlap considerably. I have a theory about why, but I'll skip it for now. In part 3, you'll notice a heading "Points of agreement." Don correctly observed that these are, well, points of agreement.
That is, in both your view an mine, God preserves all of His inspired words. In both your view and mine these words are accessible to at least some believers and in some form. We disagree about the form and the accessibility.
In my view there are no "promises of preservation being anulled."
It's very important to see this overlap in views because it means that your case for the idea that God preserves every word is the same as mine. They have the same exegetical basis (basically). I pointed this out in part 1.
Where we actually truly differ is on the part of TSKT's case that has to do w/the word perfect form and the every generation accessibility to such a form.
As for depravity, I showed in part 2 that it applies to everything we do. Absent a promise from God to overcome it in the case of preservation, it applies to that as well. The real question there is whether God has made such a promise. ... but I've said all this before repeatedly. Part 2 could not possibly be more clear on that point.
But clarity is not the issue here! One does not see what one is determined not to see.
2) God's ability to use men I can't believe you're going back to that again. Please reread the introductory paragraphs in part 3. God's ability is not, and has never been, in question in any of what I've written. But again, this is clear to anyone who gives it a fair reading.
My point on that has been that we need a biblical basis for believing that God uses His ability to maintain an accessible word-perfect text if we're going to claim it as Bible doctrine.
(Failing that, we could look at history and other external evidence and conclude that He has used His ability in that way. But then we really would not have a Bible doctrine, we would have something less.)
But I've said all of this before. There is no way to clarify what people are determined to obfuscate.
Aaron,
You are either trying to give some kind of basis to your side on preservation or you are trying to persuade someone like me. The first part is going to be easy for you. Everyone that already agrees with you will say "atta boy," and you'll feel really good. The second part is where the heavy lifting is. You'll actually have to prove something to people who don't believe like you do. It's obvious that you are not starting as a blank slate. You've got a point of view that you want to defend. That's what I read. That has been obvious.
Let's say for argument sake that the introduction to my post, my second through fourth paragraphs, are essentially worthless because you are doing your best to represent everyone's positions on what scripture says about preservation in those, and I missed it. OK, again for sake of argument, I concede that. Let's move on to the body of what I wrote. I'm making points about your arguments for your position.
OK. You begin to deal with that about 2/3 into your last comment. From reading your further explanation, what it seems that I have to agree upon (or I might be a closed-minded waste of time) is that we should assume that everything is ruined by sin unless God says otherwise, and he hasn't said that inspiration is ruined because we've got passages that are clear on that, but preservation has been ruined because none of the preservation verses do a good enough job of reversing the truth of the ruination of scripture. And your proof for that is that the preservation verses don't rise to a level of proving that scripture hasn't been distorted due to sin's curse on man---essentially an argument from silence. Now scripture itself doesn't say that the preservation of scripture has been ruined by sin, but since it is silent about preservation overcoming sin, then we should assume that word perfect preservation didn't occur. That isn't persuasive, Aaron. It is a reach.
You didn't really deal with anything that I said in answer to your efforts with the preservation texts. You're saying that God has the ability to preserve every word for every generation, but He hasn't said that He would. I'm saying that He has and you are saying that He hasn't. You are saying that your writings have proven that, and someone who believes otherwise is just obfuscating what you have clearly proven.
If we can get past your annoyance with my second to fourth paragraphs, we might get somewhere.
I think where Brother Blumer goes wrong is in affirming that certain promises extend to every letter of every word (in his first article, I believe).
As you note in an earlier article/comment, that's a fairly large concession.
I just added a paragraph that came to my mind after I wrote my latest post, that dealt with one more grammatical issue for the connection between 2 Timothy 3:15 and 16. I write this as a heads up and for information.
Aaron & Kent,
I would like for you both to respond to this. I was trained in the critical text position but now hold the received text position.
As I understand the arguments, the received text position believes that Matthew 5:18-19 and other passages teach that God's people will have every word of His revelation so that there is no debate about what God teaches based upon what the text of Scripture is. Those who hold the received text position believe that revelation has been perfectly preserved in the Masoretic OT & Receved Text NT.
The critical text position believes that every word of Scripture is preserved, but no one knows exactly what those words are. Their position is based upon accepting a general statment by passages like Matthew 5:18-19 but they try to show through history that no one has ever known (past the original copies) what the exact words of the OT & NT are.
Do either or both of you accept this summarization of the textual argument?
My biggest question for the critical text position is, WHAT PASSAGE OR PASSAGES TEACH THE AMBIGUITY OF THE EXACT TEXT OF SCRIPTURE? What passage of Scripure would indicate that the text would ever be unknown?
"You are either trying to give some kind of basis to your side on preservation or you are trying to persuade someone like me."
No, there is a third category. I never expected to persuade you or anyone equally committed to your view.
My aim is to help those who are interesting in studying the question.
"And your proof for that is that the preservation verses don't rise to a level of proving that scripture hasn't been distorted due to sin's curse on man---essentially an argument from silence. Now scripture itself doesn't say that the preservation of scripture has been ruined by sin..."
You're getting closer to accurately summarizing my view. But let me point out that Scripture also doesn't specifically say that my preaching is ruined by sin or my writing is ruined by sin or my worship is ruined by sin. But all of things are included in the everything Scripture teaches is tainted by sin.
"...but since it is silent about preservation overcoming sin, then we should assume that word perfect preservation didn't occur. That isn't persuasive, Aaron. It is a reach."
Not a reach at all for the reasons I've mentioned. The doctrine of depravity is comprehensive. Unless there is biblical warrant for saying some some human activity is excluded from the taint of sin, it is tainted.
As for your responses to my other points, I didn't see much there that I haven't already answered (or that reading the article more carefully doesn't answer) but I'll take another look and post some responses.
Initial arguments
"We" in the 6th paragraph... it's just "we" as in us today. I suppose you could include all believers since they did not have any more than we have.
Kent wrote: "'consistent with' the 'idea' of 'word perfect copies of Scripture.' That sounds good, sounds about right. He is saying that they teach word perfect preservation."
Misreading. "Consistent with" does not mean "teach." Suppose I have a piece of fruit in front of me I want to identify. I have some principles I can use to identify it. "Apples are red and somewhat round." The piece of fruit in front of me is somewhat round and red. It's qualities are "consistent with" the idea that it is an apple. However, it's a tomato. My point is that facts can be "consistent with" multiple conclusions and being consistent w/a particular conclusion does not make that conclusion a necessary inference.
So what I'm saying in that part of the article is that if it were true that God has preserved a perfect text for us today, these verses do not contradict that. They accommodate it, just as well as red and round accommodate both apples tomatos.
They do not, however, prove the conclusions you and the other writers leap to from them.
Kent wrote: "those passages haven't, according to Aaron, shown how God was going to be able to overcome the limitations of man's depravity. That's bad! So man's depravity trumps God's sovereignty as it relates to God's Word."
I can't see how this is anything but obfuscation. It's never been about God's ability to do what He says. It's about whether He has said what TSKT asserts.
Matthew 4:4
Kent reasserts that the perfect tense "teaches the doctrine of [word-]perfect preservation." I explained in the article why it does not. But I'll be talking about the perfect tense issue in more detail in part 4 because TSKT has an entire chapter devoted to it.
As for rhema, my reasoning there is not dependent on that point. Rhema just contributes along w/several other factors, to the understanding that Jesus was talking about God's ongoing commands. We continue to live by every word He continues to "utter" moment by moment.
"Aaron says the present tense of 'proceedeth' means ... based on the future tense 'shall live,' that the verb is talking about continuous action. He doesn't provide any exegetical basis besides merely his own statement."
This is not true... the exegetical basis is the future tense of shall live. I think you'll find in the grammars that a continuous idea is normally part of the Greek present. The future "shall live" connected to it just makes that a bit more clear.
John 17:8 ... Strouse on "receive."
Didn't misrepresent him. Nothing more to say on that. Let readers decide.
No excessive pickiness either. His argument rests in large part on the whole canon being in view there. Again, I would just say to folks, check the book and see what you think.
On 2 Tim.3:15...
"The level of Aaron's exegesis is the guess or speculation that, even though the text says Timothy did know the holy scriptures, this was not likely so."
Misread. Please read it again--more carefully.
I agree there is no "new subject matter" in v.16. This in no way weakens my argument. In reference to the same subject matter v.16 says "all" and v.15 does not.
Are you really going to assert that Tim knew every word of OT? You're welcome to that opinion, I guess! But it's self evident that he did not.
"I don't believe that we can equate the money to buy a hamburger with the Words of God. We must be regulated by what God said, not by what He didn't. And He said that "all Scripture" is the basis for sufficiency."
Actually, He did not say "all Scripture is the basis for." He said "all Scripture is... profitable [sufficient]"
Kent, this is just a matter of thinking clearly. There is no situation in which language is capable of saying "all of x is sufficient for y" and meaning a denial that "some of x is sufficient for y." The denial is simply not there. The result is that you are the one who is making assumptions from what God did not say. You are reading the denial into the passage.
d4v34x wrote "I think where Brother Blumer goes wrong is in affirming that certain promises extend to every letter of every word (in his first article, I believe).
As you note in an earlier article/comment, that's a fairly large concession."
Not a problem. I believe He has preserved every letter of every word. I'm less certain, but still strongly inclined to believe He has preserved every letter of every word here on the earth.
These ideas are evident in Scripture (the first very evident, the second slightly less so).
What is not evident in Scripture is that the words thus preserved are certainly identifiable by us and that we will always be able to assemble them in the form of a perfect text.
People also often fail to notice that that I have never said we don't have a perfect text. For all you know, I might believe we do.
My point has been that Scripture does not teach a "doctrine of preservation" that includes a promise of a word perfect text in our hands.
So a belief that we have such a text must be built on external evidence... and is not biblical doctrine.
First Don,
I believe that preservation means that we have the Words. Not knowing what they are or where they are isn't preservation, I don't think. I don't concede to that.
Second Gary Webb,
I believe you represent the two sides properly. I don't know of a promised ambiguity passage. It seems like a silly question to ask, but I understand why you are asking it. The other side doesn't have a presentation of their view. The only thing close is their LXX position, which is still rather undeveloped. They are trying it out and smoothing out the details of it. If it doesn't work well, they'll look for something else.
Now Aaron,
I'm correcting some tests and have a little time to get started with you. First, there really are only the convinced and the unconvinced. I recognize on the convinced side, all those guys are good listeners who only want the truth (in your mind), and someone like me and Gary Webb are just stubborn, but that is pretty simplistic. By the way, I don't argue any differently than we are, when I argue with my best friends on issues where we disagree. We go at it. You'll have to decide how personal it's going to be with you. If you don't think so, go to Jackhammer and read the debate between Dave Mallinak and I on divorce. Read the debate between Thomas Ross and I on make-up.
OK, you're view is that everything has been tainted by sin, even God's Word. That is not a historic Christian belief. God's Word is God's Word. If it is tainted, it isn't God's Word anymore, because God Himself isn't tainted. Now I anticipate that you'll say, 'well, God's Word is only what is God's Word; the parts tainted aren't God's Word any longer.' But you are saying that God's Word, as a whole, made up of its individual parts, words, is under the curse of sin. That's a unique view. I'm pretty sure that's why no one has heard your view before. They always came to that block in the road when they considered that as an explanation.
I recognize that "consistent with" doesn't mean "teaches," which is why I said "about right." Not "right," but "about right." That's all about whether I rightly read you or not---you're saying I didn't, but I'm saying I did. "Consistent with" does have some parallel with "teaches," but only something that is "about right."
More later.
Aaron B. wrote, "My point has been that Scripture does not teach a "doctrine of preservation" that includes a promise of a word perfect text in our hands."
I agree with you, but one of the reasons I do so is because I do not believe Matt 5:12 teaches that literally every letter will be preserved. (To spare Dr. Webb the time, some would say this is because I cannot hear Christ's words and might be a child of the devil.)
However, your understanding of that passage leaves you in the curious position of believing every word is preserved to no appreciably superior end. Sure we can reconstruct the text as best as possible via criticism, but we may never get every last word in place. To make ironic use of a Don Johnson phrase, "preservation doesn't limp".
To me your preservation limps right alongside the TR only position, which holds as dogma something the historical evidence cannot support (and perhaps refutes, as much as a faith postion can be refuted by alleged history anyway).
I'm not espousing choosing your view based on consequence of belief. That's always dangerous. If your understanding of the passages lead you there, you have your liberty. But I do think you have a flank exposed for disagreement from the the TSKT crowd.
Sorry, that reference in my last post should be Matt, 5:18.
Aaron,
I am hoping that you will not overlook my previous question about "AMBIGUITY". You may have not had time yet, but I really would like a definite answer to this.
Second, Jesus describes the “every word” He has in mind as coming from the “mouth” of God, and uses the Greek rh?ma (????) for “word.” Rh?ma normally indicates spoken rather than written words.
COME NOW—MEN ARE SUPPOSED TO LIVE BY EVERY SPOKEN WORD THAT, I SUPPOSE, IS NOT RECORDED IN SCRIPTURE? IS THAT WHAT THE LORD JESUS IS DOING IN QUOTING THE BIBLE TO SATAN IN MATTHEW 4? IS THAT WHAT MOSES IS COMMANDING IN DEUTERONOMY 8:3? IS THAT WHAT EPHESIANS 6:17 MEANS WHEN IT SAYS THE SWORD OF THE SPIRIT IS THE WORD OF GOD? ISN’T IT OBVIOUS THAT THE MOUTH + PROCEEDING IDEA EXPLAINS WHY RHEMA IS USED? THERE IS NOTHING AT ALL TO THIS ARGUMENT.
Third, “proceeds” is in the present tense. The sense is “every word that is proceeding from the mouth of God.” Though continuation is not always part of the meaning of a present tense verb, the fact that “shall live” is future almost requires that sense here.
GREAT—THEN BELIEVERS MUST LIVE BY WORDS THAT HAVE THE BREATH OF GOD ON THEM, THAT ARE INSPIRED—SO THEY MUST LIVE BY ALL THE WORDS OF THE AUTOGRAPHS, WHICH ARE, THEREFORE, PERFECTLY PRESERVED, AND AVAILABLE TODAY. I HOPE AARON CAN TELL US WHERE THEY ARE.
“Man shall live now and in the future by every word that is proceeding from the mouth of God.”
Finally, the context is also significant. Deuteronomy 8:3, which Jesus quotes here, is a reminder to the children of Israel that they are dependent on God’s decrees for their well being.
DEUTERONOMY 8:3 ISN’T ABOUT LIVING BY SCRIPTURE? CONSIDER 8:1-6:
8:1* ¶ All the commandments which I command thee this day shall ye observe to do, that ye may live, and multiply, and go in and possess the land which the LORD sware unto your fathers.
2* And thou shalt remember all the way which the LORD thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep his commandments, or no.
3* And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.
4* Thy raiment waxed not old upon thee, neither did thy foot swell, these forty years.
5* Thou shalt also consider in thine heart, that, as a man chasteneth his son, so the LORD thy God chasteneth thee.
6* Therefore thou shalt keep the commandments of the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, and to fear him.
IT IS PEREFECTLY OBVIOUS THAT ISRAEL WAS TO “LIVE” BY THE WORDS OF THE PENTATEUCH, GOD’S COMMANDMENTS TO THEM, V. 1, 3, 6, ETC.—AND TO LIVE BY “ALL” THE COMMANDMENTS, V. 1, REQUIRES PERFECT PRESERVATION. THE LORD JESUS WAS RIGHT ON WHEN HE QUOTED DEUTERONOMY 8:3 IN MATTHEW 4:4 AND REQUIRED OBEDIENCE TO EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE WORDS GOD INSPIRED.
And in the immediate context, Jesus is responding to pressure from Satan to turn stones into bread (during a long fast).
These details do not prove that Jesus was referring to unwritten words, but together they do strongly suggest He was speaking of God’s continual commanding of what we need to “live.”
THIS CONCLUSION IS SO BIZZARE, AND SO OBVIOUSLY NOT A LEGITIMATE CONCLUSION OF THE MEANING OF MATTHEW 4:4, THAT I AM AMAZED. I ALSO DON’T THINK AARON CAN REALLY MEAN WHAT HE SAYS HERE, FOR HE IS NOT A QUAKER OR A RADICAL CHARISMATIC WHO BELIEVES UNWRITTEN DIRECT COMMANDS ARE EQUAL IN AUTHORITY TO SCRIPTURE. WHAT A CONTRAST AARON’S CONCLUSION IS TO WHAT THE LORD ACTUALLY DID IN THE CHAPTER—QUOTE SCRIPTURE, OVER AND OVER!
Brethren, I put my off-the-cuff comments on Aaron's article in ALL CAPS below. I put the comments in before I read Pastor Brandenburg's response (though I then did read it). In material below here, most everything not in all caps is Aaron’s article, and all caps material is my response.
Does the Bible teach that God’s people will always be able to point to a particular text1 of the Bible and know that it is the word-perfect, preserved text? . . .
Nearly all involved in the controversy are agreed that God has preserved His Word for us in some sense. Nearly all are agreed as well that Scripture teaches God will preserve forever, somewhere and in some form, every one of the words He inspired and that some believers will always have access to Scripture in some form.
DOES “SCRIPTURE” HERE MEAN ALL THE WORDS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION? IF SO, THIS IS A TREMENDOUS CONCESSION—IF NOT, HE NEEDS TO PROVE THAT CORRUPTIONS THAT GOD DID NOT INSPIRE, AND THAT HE HATES, ARE “SCRIPTURE.”
God’s ability to use imperfect sinners to perfectly preserve His Word is also not in dispute, nor is the fact that we should accept what the Bible reveals to be true regardless of the claims of the “science of textual criticism” or any “high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God” (2 Cor. 10:5, KJV). . . .
Passages handled previously
TSKT has chapters devoted to several of the seven popular preservation texts I examined earlier in this series: Psalm 12:6-7 (TSKT, ch. 1), Matthew 5:17-18 (TSKT, ch. 3), Matthew 24:35 (TSKT, ch. 5) and 1 Peter 1:23-25 (TSKT, ch. 7). These passages clearly affirm a concept of preservation, but do not tell us to expect a word-perfect text to be available to every generation.
FALSE—THEY DO TELL US TO EXPECT THIS. THE AFFIRMATION OF PSALM 12:6-7 IS VERY EXPLICIT, FOR EXAMPLE.
Though all of these passages would be consistent with the idea that we will always be able to access word-perfect copies of Scripture, “consistent with” is not strong evidence that God has chosen to overcome the human fallibility the Bible clearly teaches us to expect. . . .
“Every word that proceedeth”
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. (Matt. 4:4)
Thomas M. Strouse handles this passage in TSKT’s second chapter and concludes the following:
The Lord clearly stated His belief in the availability of Scripture by assuming the accessibility of every Word. The Savior clearly stated His belief in the verbal, plenary preservation of God’s Words since they had been and were still preserved intact in His day. (p. 39)
But Strouse’s case proves to be weak on several grounds. First, the perfect tense of “it is written” (gegraptai), does not indicate anything about the future of what is written, as he asserts (p. 38). Rather, the tense indicates an action that occurred in the past and has produced a state that continues in the writer’s (or, in this case, speaker’s) present. The idea here is simply “it stands written.”
SO THE OT WORDS HAD BEEN PERFECTLY PRESERVED FROM THE DAYS OF MOSES TO THE TIME THE LORD JESUS SAID MATTHEW 4:4—BUT THEN THEY WOULD STOP BEING PEFECTLY PRESERVED?
How would someone be judged differently if Luke 9:3 reads m?te ana duo chit?nas, “not two tunics apiece” (Textus Receptus), rather than simply m?te duo chit?nas, “not two tunics” (Nestle-Aland 27th ed.)?3
I WILL JUST BELIEVE MATTHEW 4:4—IT IS ENOUGH FOR ME. ALSO, PERHAPS AARON WILL TELL US HOW WE CAN KNOW WHICH WORDS TO LIVE BY IN THOSE CASES WHERE HE THINKS IT DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE (SINCE MATTHEW 4:4, HE TELLS US, DOES NOT SHOW THAT IT ALWAYS MAKES A DIFFERENCE).
AARON PICKED THE WRONG VERSE WHEN HE USED LUKE 9:3 TO SHOW CT VARIANTS THAT DO NOT MATTER. THE CT IN THIS PERICOPE IS ERRANT, WHILE THE TR IS INERRANT. NOTE:
Mt 10:10; Mr 6:8; Lu 9:3 (ASV):
no wallet for your journey, neither two coats, nor shoes, NOR STAFF: for the laborer is worthy of his food.
and he charged them that they should take nothing for their journey, SAVE A STAFF ONLY; no bread, no wallet, no money in their purse;
And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, NEITHER STAFF, nor wallet, nor bread, nor money; neither have two coats.
In the CT, there is a plain contradiction in these verses. Matthew 10:10; Lu 9:3 has the Lord forbid taking a staff, while Mark 6:8 allows a staff. The CT is an errant, not an inerrant text. Fundamentalists and evangelicals who hold to the CT are inconsistent—they are affirming that a text with errors has no errors. The TR is inerrant, and is the text for those who believe in Biblical inspiration; the CT is errant, and is the text for theological liberalism.
The KJV says:
Matt. 10:10 Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet STAVES: for the workman is worthy of his meat.
Mark 6:8 And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, SAVE A STAFF ONLY; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse:
Luke 9:3: And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither STAVES, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece.
There is no contradiction in the KJV, or in the Scrivener 1881/1894 Received Text published by the Trinitarian Bible Society; Christ forbids taking more than one staff.
AARON DID NOT DO A GOOD JOB IN PICKING LUKE 9:3 AS AN INSTANCE WHERE CT VARIANTS DON’T MATTER.
What Jesus says in John 17:8 is simply that He has faithfully passed on the words He was given. Turning this into “every single one of the words of Scripture” is reading into the text. Even if we suppose that Jesus meant exactly that, the conclusion that He promises a word-perfect text for every generation does not follow.
AGAIN, ALL THAT MATTERS IS THE CONCLUSION—JOHN 17:8 MUST NOT, CANNOT, PROMISE THAT THE WORDS THE FATHER GAVE THE SON WOULD BE RECEIVED AND AVAILABLE TO ALL BELIEVERS. THIS CONCLUSION MUST BE REACHED EVEN IF IT RENDS THE CANON TO PIECES, INTO PARTS THAT ARE GIVEN BY CHRIST THROUGH THE SPIRIT TO THE SAINTS, AND PARTS THAT ARE NOT GIVEN SO; EVEN IF IT MUST OBLITERATE THE CONTEXT OF JOHN 17:8; WHATEVER IT TAKES, JOHN 17:8 MUST NOT TEACH PRESERVATION.
SO WHICH WORDS OF THE CANON DID THE FATHER NOT GIVE TO THE MEDIATOR TO GIVE TO THE SAINTS? THE OT CANON WAS GIVEN BY CHRIST THROUGH THE SPIRIT:
1Pe 1:11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
IT SEEMS AARON ACCEPTS THAT THE WORDS OF THE GOSPELS WERE GIVEN BY THE FATHER TO CHRIST AS WELL—SO I GUESS THE EPISTLES WERE GIVEN IN A LESSER WAY—AND THE COMFORTER WHO WOULD GUIDE THE SAINTS INTO ALL TRUTH, WHICH INCLUDED THE REST OF THE NT, IN JOHN 14-16, DID NOT RECEIVE THE WORDS OF THE EPISTLES FROM THE FATHER THROUGH THE MEDIATOR TO GIVE TO THE SAINTS.
LET US SAY THAT THIS (RIDICULOUS) CONCLUSION WERE TRUE. IT WOULD STILL REQUIRE THAT ALL THE GENERATIONS OF BELIEVERS, ALL THOSE INCLUDED IN CHRIST’S HIGH PRIESTLY PRAYER, HAD PERFECTLY PRESERVED GOSPELS, OLD TESTAMENT, AND WHATEVER OTHER PARTS OF THE CANON AARON WISHES TO CONCLUDE ARE IN VIEW IN JOHN 17. I HOPE HE CAN TELL US WHAT PARTS THOSE ARE, AND WHERE WE CAN FIND AND HOLD IN OUR HANDS THOSE PARTS OF THE CANON PRAYED ABOUT IN JOHN 17. I HOPE HE, AND HIS FRIENDS ON SI, WILL PUBLISH AN EDITION OF THE UNITED BIBLE SOCIETY’S CRITICAL TEXT SOON THAT HAS THOSE PORTIONS THAT ARE PRAYED FOR IN JOHN 17 IN BOLD PRINT, OR HIGHLIGHTED, OR SOMETHING, SO THAT WE CAN KNOW THAT THOSE PARTS ARE GOD’S WORDS FOR SURE.
Other passages may expand on the content of what men will be judged by, but can we reasonably argue that every word of Scripture must be preserved, recognized and accessible in order for this judging to be just?
YES—SEE MATTHEW 4:4 ABOVE.
He was emphasizing our dependence on the Father as well as the Father’s sovereign control over our lives. In Matthew Henry’s words:
It is true, God in his providence ordinarily maintains men by bread out of the earth (Job 28:5); but he can, if he please, make use of other means to keep men alive; any word proceeding out of the mouth of God, any thing that God shall order and appoint for that end, will be as good a livelihood for man as bread, and will maintain him as well.2
AN APPLICATION MADE BY MATTHEW HENRY OF MATTHEW 4:4—HIS COMMENTARY HAS LOTS AND LOTS OF GREAT APPLICATION—IS SUPPOSED TO ESTABLISH THIS TOTALLY ANTI-CONTEXTUAL VIEW OF MATTHEW 4:4?
Jesus’ statement here does not communicate that He had access to an Old Testament text that contained every word originally inspired. The statement is even further from teaching that every generation of believers will have access to such a text.
AH—HERE IS THE DESIRED CONCLUSION. AS LONG AS THIS CONCLUSION IS REACHED, IT DOES NOT MATTER IF THE EXEGESIS IS AS DRY, BARREN, EMPTY, AND TORTURED AS THE WILDERNESS ISRAEL PASSED THROUGH ON THE WAY TO THE PROMISED LAND.
“They have received them”
For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me. (John 17:8)
In ch. 4, Strouse takes up the case once again, this time emphasizing the concept of a “received Bible.”
This essay will demonstrate that…the Lord Jesus is the Author of the received Bible mindset and expects His followers to be united around the received Bible movement throughout history. (p. 52)
The chapter’s argument is based in part on the view that “the words” Jesus says the Father gave Him are the entire “Bible canon,” and the same as the “all Scripture” of 2 Timothy 3:16—the same words Jesus said would never pass away (Matt. 24:35, p. 53). Furthermore, since all will be judged by these words (John 12:48), all of the “canonical Words” must be written and preserved. To judge men by anything less than “perfectly preserved, inscripturated Words” would be unjust (p.53).
Strouse then cites several references to believers “receiving” the word (pp. 54-55) and, in the process, gives “receive” a special meaning: something along the lines of “to get a hold of a copy of the entire Bible that you know is a word-perfect copy” (my words, not his).
A close look at the text, however, reveals that it does not support the conclusions Strouse draws from it. That Jesus is referring to the entire canon when He says “the words which thou gavest me,” is far from “presumably” true (p. 53), especially since much of the canon had not yet been written at the time. Plus, the words Jesus says His hearers will be judged by (John 12:48) refers most naturally to those He had been speaking to them personally.
Verse 16, however, does specify that “all Scripture” is theopneustos (an adjective rendered “given by inspiration” in the KJV). Paul’s point is that the Scripture Timothy knew was powerful and sufficient because the Scripture that was inspired was powerful and sufficient. He does not say that what Timothy knew included every word originally given.
Third, even if Timothy had had access to a word-perfect copy of the Old Testament, what would this prove about what we have today?
AARON, IT WOULD PROVE MUCH. IT WOULD PROVE THAT THE IMMUTABLE GOD PERFECTLY PRESERVED HIS WORDS UNTIL THE 1ST CENTURY. WHY WOULD HE STOP AS SOON AS 2 TIMOTHY WAS PENNED? IF HE DID, THE MAN OF GOD COULD NO LONGER BE COMPLETELY EQUIPPED TO DO EVERY GOOD WORK, ETC.—THE CONCLUSIONS DRAWN BY NICHOLS WOULD FOLLOW.
The sufficiency argument based on 3:17 remains. Nichol’s reasoning is that if “all Scripture” is sufficient, missing any words would render it insufficient. But the reasoning is faulty. If I say “all of my money is sufficient to buy a hamburger,” I’m not denying that “some of my money is sufficient to buy a hamburger.” Granted, if the “some” is reduced to a small enough subset of “all,” it eventually becomes insufficient. But it is far from obvious that the discrepancies we find in the MSS cross that threshold.
I DON’T KNOW IF I EVEN NEED TO COMMENT ON THIS. DOES NOT THE BELIEVER WHO IS WALKING WITH GOD FEEL REPULSED BY THIS? GOD, AARON WOULD HAVE IT, GAVE THE ENTIRE INSPIRED CANON TO MAKE THE MAN OF GOD PERFECT, COMPLETEY FURNISHED FOR EVERY GOOD WORK—BUT NOW WE ONLY HAVE FRAGMENTS OF THIS CANON LEFT, AARON WANTS TO CONCLUDE, SO HE SAYS THAT THE TATTERED FRAGMENTS—AND HE CANNOT GIVE US CERTAINTY ABOUT ANY SINGLE PORTION THEREOF, SO WE CANNOT BE SURE ABOUT WHICH PARTS WERE INSPIRED AND WHICH ARE CORRUPT—ARE AS GOOD AS THE COMPLETE INSPIRED CANON! THE DILUTED AND CORRUPTED FRAGMENTS CAN STILL MAKE US PERFECT!
I AM SO GLAD I DON’T NEED TO DEFEND AARON’S POSITION FROM SCRIPTURE. PRAISE THE LORD!
. . .
Notes
1 “Text” here means a complete Hebrew and Aramaic OT and complete Greek NT.
2 Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, (Matt. 4:4).
3 Of course, not all manuscript differences are so minor, but a vast quantity of them are. TSKT’s preservation argument here requires that every pronoun and qualifier be preserved in order for God to judge justly.
“Thou hast known the holy scriptures”
In ch. 6, Charles Nichols argues that “inspiration implies preservation,” based on 2 Timothy 3:15-17.
15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Nichols summarizes his claim as follows:
2 Timothy 3:15-17 strongly suggests perfect, available, verbal and plenary preservation of Scripture just as it establishes God’s inerrant, verbal, plenary inspiration. (p. 68)
His argument asserts that “holy” (v.15) indicates “unadulterated, and pure from defilement” (p. 65). He argues further that the primary meaning of grammata (“scriptures” in v.15) is “letters,” therefore, Paul was pointing out to Timothy that Timothy had grown up having access to a letter-perfect Old Testament text (p. 66). On the basis of the relationship between v.15 and v.16, Nichols observes, “what God inspired is perfect. Therefore, the Old Testament was perfectly preserved to Timothy’s day” (p. 66).
Based on the sufficiency of Scripture expressed in 3:17, Nichols concludes that “Sufficiency depends on every writing God breathed” and “the availability of every writing is an obvious ramification of ‘all Scripture is profitable’” (p.67). His conclusion is that “the unadulterated Words, recorded up to or more than a thousand years earlier, were available to Timothy.”
A closer look
Several problems exist with this line of argument as well. First, “holy” (hieros, which Nichols says is synonymous with hagios) does not always mean completely pure. For example, 1 Corinthians 7:14 describes the children of believers as hagios.
CERTAINLY—BUT WHAT DOES IT MEAN HERE? AARON NEEDS TO PROVE THAT THE “HOLY SCRIPTURES” HERE ARE NOT REALLY TRULY HOLY, BUT FILLED WITH ADDITIONS, SUBTRACTIONS, ETC. AND ARE STILL HOLY. CAN HE GIVE OTHER EXAMPLES WHERE CORRUPT SCRIPTURES LIKE THIS ARE CALLED “HOLY” IN THE BIBLE? SHOULDN’T HE CITE VERSES WHERE SCRIPTURES ARE CALLED HOLY BUT ARE CORRUPT, INSTEAD OF A TEXT WHERE CHILDREN ARE SET APART/HOLY? THE OT EVEN USES THE WORD “HOLY” FOR THE CENSERS OF MEN THAT WERE BURNED UP BY FIRE FROM HEAVEN AND WHOSE COMPATRIOTS HAD THE EARTH OPEN UP AND TAKE THEM ALIVE TO HELL—BUT DO PEOPLE REALLY THINK THAT SCRIPTURES ARE “HOLY” BECAUSE THEY ARE DEVOTED TO DESTRUCTION? PERHAPS AARON’S CRITICAL TEXT IS, IN ITS CORRUPT 7%, HOLY IN THE SENSE THAT IT IS DEVOTED TO DESTRUCTION, BUT I DON’T THINK THAT IS WHAT PAUL MEANT, OR TIMOTHY THOUGHT, WHEN HE READ “HOLY SCRIPTURES” IN 2 TIMOTHY 3.
Second, the passage does not say that Timothy “had access to” or “possessed” the “holy scriptures” but that he knew them. Unless we suppose that young Timothy knew every single inspired word of the Old Testament, “holy scriptures” in v.15 cannot have that meaning. Rather, it refers to the subset of the Scriptures Timothy had personally learned.
AN AMAZING THING—TIMOTHY KNEW THEM, BUT HE DIDN’T HAVE ACCESS TO THEM. I WONDER HOW HE DID THAT.
Aaron,
This relates to D4, so D4, tune in here. By all means, if you listen to D4, you can start with history, then move to scripture. He sees a problem with how Mt 5:18 meshes with his view of history, so he chooses history over the clear meaning of Mt 5:18. Do you see where we get the rationalism tag from this? Isn't it earned? By the way, history is what actually happened in the past, so we are still talking about a version of history, because we can only go by historical reports made by men, and, therefore, subject to the depravity of man, something that seems to have bothered historical accounts less for D4, then it actually has for scripture. Of course, in your case Aaron, you believe that depravity has bothered them equally.
I've got to think that when you say we "leap" to conclusions that you are making some kind of Kierkegaardian point there---just letting you know that I caught that.
What you call obfuscation happens to be how I see what you wrote. I do see your 'depraved man can't preserve scripture' view as limiting what God said He would do. You say that God has the ability, He just didn't say He would preserve. So if I say that He did say that, you can see how I believe you are elevating man's depravity above God's sovereignty. No obfuscation happening.
Now you say you weren't making any point about the necessity of "oral words" coming from the use if rhema. That seems to obfuscate yourself. You were making that point. It is true that there was no point to be made, but you made the point.
If you look at Greek grammars, you find that there isn't any continuous action sense to be made out of the present tense usage of 'speaking' or 'saying' verbs. Wallace calls this an instantaneous present, the normal verb for speaking. The act itself is completed at the moment of speaking. So it really is just the opposite of what you are saying. I'm not giving you examples because it is found hundreds of times in the NT (cf. Jn 3:3). The use of the future isn't intended to show anything through contrast. You would need to show me some examples of this supposed contrast in the NT. You give this as an "exegetical basis," and just saying it is not showing any exegetical basis. For instance, I gave you the Eph 6:17 usage of rhema, that you just ignored, as an exegetical basis. That's an example of providing exegetical basis.
It seems that you just ignored the understanding of oida, "hast known" in 2 Tim 3:15. Yes, I believe that Timothy knew the whole Old Testament. He heard all of it read. That is sufficient as regards the word oida. Oida doesn't mean "memorized" or "hast known by heart."
I understand your logic. I've taught first year logic a couple of times. But you aren't setting up the syllogism properly. Only all Scripture is throughly furnishing to every good work. If only all Scripture does that, then it follows that some cannot do that. All is required.
Only all Scripture is throughly furnishing to every good work.
I have only some Scripture.
Therefore, I am not throughly furnished to every good work.
That's how you should understand it.
"He sees a problem with how Mt 5:18 meshes with his view of history."
Wrong. That's not what I said. My comments are appraisal of where the views leave us after arrival.
I don't assert authoritatively that preservation doesn't limp. I used Don's quote to show that both Aaron's (which Don shares, I believe) and Kent's must be viewed as limping by Don's own standard.
If I'm right, it only makes sense that history seems to fall in line. I'm not saying it would be impossible for history to seem to contradict a biblically based belief. In this, I think the evolution analogy Bro B. likes to use is apt. We (including me) accept Biblical authority over scientific "fact" and don't bat an eye.
If I believed the promises say what Kent believes they say, I'd have no problem disbelieving what seems to be established history.
For the record, my quote goes this way: "When the Lord healed the lame man, did he walk with a limp?"
My point in that quote is that if preservation occurred as a supernatural miracle in the same way that inspiration occurred, it would be a miracle of supernatural perfection. The fact that we don't have any identical copies of any manuscripts says to me that the Lord did not choose to preserve his word supernaturally. Instead, he preserved it providentially through a multiplicity of copies produced by men subject to human error and limitations.
The result is a body of manuscripts that all differ to greater or lesser degrees. I don't believe the Lord's promises have failed. I believe he has preserved his Word. But he has done it in such a way that we are required to examine the texts carefully and come to conclusions about which readings are original. The fact that we are fallible in this examination has to do with our limitations, not God's.
FWIW
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don,
I'm guessing you've read some on this issue, but let me critique your comment in a general way, that I think should be problematic to you.
First, one would think that those words would at least be available if God was involved in preservation, and the critical text, those 'oldest manuscripts,' we know were not available to believers for 350 years---1500-1850. Those are quite a few generations. I would think that would be an issue for someone who says he believes in preservation.
Second, the view that textual criticism equals preservation is a new doctrine. BB Warfield in the late 19th century was when that originated as an application to providential preservation, coinciding quite nicely with the critical text. Isn't it interesting how that doctrine and the critical text started at the same time?
Third, I've said that preservation is a miracle, but I call it a miracle of providence, a terminology often used in the history of theology. It's only recently that I hear men seeing providence as something different than a miracle. The bringing together of the canon of 66 books---what would you call that in the realm of the supernatural?
As I bring up these three, I also recognize that Aaron might say that these are extra-scriptural, so something he doesn't want to get into, but I don't think so. These are scriptural issues.
Don Johnson said:
The fact that we don't have any identical copies of any manuscripts says to me that the Lord did not choose to preserve his word supernaturally.
It is not true that we don’t have any identical copies of any manuscripts. We actually have lots of identical manuscripts. Please see:
Is It True That No Two NT Manuscripts Are The Same?
on my website. When someone says that no two NT manuscripts are the same, he has shown that he doesn't know a whole lot about textual criticism.
Perhaps you could provide a link, Thomas?
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Aaron,
I am guessing that you do not want to answer my question or that you do not have an answer. Perhaps someone else could give me a passage that states that the text of Scripture would be ambiguous.
Pastor Webb,
Here is the passage:
Here is another one:
Bro Johnson,
Here is the website address--look in the Bibliology section:
http://sites.google.com/site/thross7
Thomas, thank you for the link.
It is certainly possible that smaller bits of the text could be identical with other bits. I don't think that it is true of the larger portions, but not having the ability to actually test this out for myself it will have to remain a theory. Nonetheless, I think that I'll have to correct the way I state this.
But... it would be nice if you had someone other than a noted KJO making the assertion along with a little more detailed analysis, don't you think? Just because Wilbur Pickering says so, is that enough for you? It isn't enough for me.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don,
Men say this like it's a huge deal, that is, no manuscripts agree. Thomas shows that it isn't the case, so they shouldn't be saying that.
Question for you.
How many complete hand-copied manuscripts of the NT are there? I'm talking manuscripts that contain all 27 books of the NT.
I think the answer to that will give some perspective to people when they consider fragments agreeing with one another.
Well, Kent, it doesn't really matter how many copies of the whole New Testament there are. And it doesn't really matter that some fragments agree with other documents. What matters is that there are many variations even among the majority text manuscripts. The Lord clearly didn't perform a miracle in the copying of them like he did in the inspiring of the originals.
That's all.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Dear Bro Johnson,
Wilbur Pickering isn’t a TR guy at all. He is a Byzantine priority-type guy. And he says that MSS are identical—sometimes over generations of transmission—because he actually collates manuscripts, something that the overwhelming majority of anti-TR/KJV fundamental and evangelical critics have never done--something that Westcott and Hort never did. Pickering also stated that he was shocked to find out how much similarity among MSS there was—his (weak, non-strong fundamental Baptist) education did not tell him anything about such facts.
I agree with you that God did not so move every Greek monk who made copies of the Bible like He did the human writers of Scripture. Now who are the people who believe this?
Gary Webb... "The critical text position believes that every word of Scripture is preserved, but no one knows exactly what those words are. Their position is based upon accepting a general statment by passages like Matthew 5:18-19 but they try to show through history that no one has ever known (past the original copies) what the exact words of the OT & NT are.
Do either or both of you accept this summarization of the textual argument?
My biggest question for the critical text position is, WHAT PASSAGE OR PASSAGES TEACH THE AMBIGUITY OF THE EXACT TEXT OF SCRIPTURE? What passage of Scripure would indicate that the text would ever be unknown?"
Sorry, overlooked this one.
First question Summarization of the textual argument. "but they try to show through history that..."
This may very well be the way many arrive at their conclusion. For me the process different: what does the Bible actually teach? Where it is not specific about form and process, we are forced to either look at external evidence or leave the question open. But we cannot claim it as biblical doctrine.
Second question What passages teach ambiguity? My answer is twofold: (1) What passages teach non-ambibuity? and (2) Belief that there will be errors in reproducing copies and assembling texts is based (as I showed in part 2 of my series) on the doctrine of human depravity and weakness.
I've resummarized that argument many times, but I just thought of a new way to do it so, here goes.
This time I'll put it in form of two syllogisms.
Syllogism one
A1: Scripture teaches that humans err in all they do
B1: Reproducing Scriptures is part of "all they do"
C1: Ergo, humans err in reproducing Scripture
Syllogism two
A2: A Scriptural basis is required for believing God has overcome human error in a particular case
B2: We do not have a Scriptural basis for believing God has overcome human error in the case of text reproduction
C2: Ergo, the Bible does not teach that God overcomes human error in reproducing/constructing Scripture texts
Please note that premise B in the second syllogism is the crux of the biblical doctrine of preservation debate.
Note also that neither of these syllogisms include any premises from history or any external evidence.
And note as well that there is no science or rationalism involved unless you believe, as some do, that reasoning from Scripture is "rationalism" (whenever that reasoning leads to a conclusion they don't like... perfectly OK otherwise!)
Kent: "I do see your 'depraved man can't preserve scripture' view as limiting what God said He would do."
Then you choose to see something other than what I assert and are, therefore, arguing against somebody else's view.
Got anything to say about mine? (That I haven't already answered)
Aaron,
Let's start with man's sinfulness affecting believers in all that they do. You spent very little time attempting to establish that. You may have assumed that everyone would just agree. I tend to think of sin as bothering even believers in a big way. However, in Romans 7:21, Paul says that when I would do good. In other words, sin doesn't ruin everything in a believer. He can do good. Why? Because works in Him to will and do of His good pleasure. We have even greater evidence that He can work in men to preserve His Words, because God said He would. So there is an issue with your believers' sinfulness point of view.
Second, you differentiate what God says He would supersede through inspiration what He said He would do through preservation. The former is perfect but the latter isn't. You say that you do this by means of Scripture. That's what proves it to you. Well, that is a new position historically, that is, that we only have perfection in the autographa and not the apographa.
Third, you isolate perfect preservation as having extra scriptural argumentation. I wrote about this in my "Can You Prove It From Scripture?" post on May 12. That answers that point and maybe you just haven't read it. We believe scriptural things that depend on a second premise truth to come to our conclusion. That's why I keep asking you about your 66 book, 27 NT, 39 OT, Scriptural view. You have refused to comment or answer that as it relates to the point you are making.
Last, you act as though I want to misrepresent you. Did I offer to send you my post for you to check ahead of time or not?
Kent,
About your offer to check with me ahead of time: I have asserted repeatedly in the clearest possible terms that God is able to produce something perfect through human beings any time He chooses and that whenever Scripture teaches He has done so in a particular case, we must believe He has done so. There is nothing I could have said in email that would have been more clear than that.
As for human limitations, you imagine that the fact that we are capable of doing good proves that a) we are capable of doing something as complex as copy/assemble perfect texts over an over again for thousands of years, and b) we have actually done so.
It proves neither.
I'm going to keep going back to the real issue: what's necessary for claiming a biblical doctrine of perfect text preservation is a biblical basis for perfect preserving activity by human beings. This is about applying a proper standard for biblical doctrine.
If we make the case for a perfect text any other way, we may have a strong conviction, etc., but we do not have a Bible doctrine.
You wrote: "you isolate perfect preservation as having extra scriptural argumentation"
When did I do that? I have said that it might be possible to make a case for perfect text pres. from external evidence. I'm not really all that interested in whether that kind of case can be made or not at this point time because I believe in dealing with one question at a time and not obscuring the priorities of the debate.
The first question is: do we have a basis biblical doctrine that a group of believers is able to always identify every word of the correct text?
As for the canonicity question, I'm unlikely to ever go into in much detail. Here's the short version: for me, the belief that the 66 books we have constitute God's inspired word is a priori. It is one of the givens I build all my other doctrine on. Is perfect text preservation an a priori for you?
Aaron,
Thanks for the comments. I'm going to be answering them. It's my oldest daughters 16th tonight---she's not home yet from orchestra practice---and my son is home from West Point for three weeks until Cadet Field Training, but I will be thinking about your comments here.
I've really tried not to bring up things like this:
He's arguing a strawman. When I said it before, it upset you, but here you do it with me, except you use obfuscate, strawman, etc. etc. As you said to me, nobody is trying to argue a strawman. It is akin to saying we're being dishonest. You don't like it from me, but if you don't, then I expect the same from you.
And you called my Inspiration analogy a "paraphrase" of you. I was in no way paraphrasing you. So that is misrepresentation at least, and unless you clear it up at SI, then it's purposeful misrepresentation. Which I don't think you want.
I'll deal with the rest later. I do like you, and if we met maybe you could see things differently.
I'll be answering though. If you want to read something in the meantime, I've written two posts at Jackhammer on Isaiah 59:21 and Rev 22:18-19, two passages not in TSKT. I've linked to them in a recent post here to make it easier.
Post a Comment