Thursday, June 09, 2011

The Connection Between One's World View and the Version Issue

Several days ago I wrote a post about logic and King James Onlyism in answer to a critic at another blog. After writing that, someone a few days later wrote a whole post attacking the one I had written. Very few King James supporters wander over there because of the juvenile nature of the major contributors. But someone emailed me to give me the heads-up about the post, so I knew about it. Several thoughts resulted from my venture over to that site, which is operated by a former teacher in our school who we fired for numbers of reasons (believe me, you would have fired him too if you knew the reasons---he was no martyr), and shortly thereafter (after also departing our church) he decided he believed drastically different on about five major doctrinal categories, a reformation that conveniently moved him into a new realm of fellowship and friendship from those who before knew him and to whom he was accountable. One could easily see what benefits he might think he could derive from attacking and criticizing those in his former life in order to discredit them and elevate himself. His new associates have gone right along for the ride.

Even though the answer to my post does not point out any logical fallacies with the logic I presented, my brief interaction there reminded me of one of the major issues that I see with multi-versionism. At the root of anyone's view of the world is whether he believes there is objective truth, whether he thinks that there is some authority outside of and greater than himself that has revealed the standard by which his life is to operate. Of course, without that authority, nothing is either wrong or right and everyone can live as he wishes without any fear of retribution. In that world, every man is a law unto himself.

In the only consistent world view, there is one God with one truth, one right, and one way, all His, and He will not deny Himself. Within that view of the world, there is one revelation of truth, which is the Bible. There is only one interpretation, God's, and one way to live, also His.

Multi-versionism opens up a theological and philosophical can of worms. The multi-versionist chooses what the words are, and so is responsible for what the standard is. And in a subtle way, he also places himself in authority above the words themselves. Now several views are legitimate. Men can agree to disagree, especially since no one really knows for sure. This puts more emphasis on man, centers more on him and what he wants. If someone can't know what the words are, he also doesn't know what the words mean, since the latter is the lesser to the former, which is the greater.

The person of nuance, of several views, really of doubt, is elevated in the system that logically results from multi-versionism. The great virtue in this view is toleration. Those who believe there are several ways to believe are therefore the most virtuous.

Scripture presents one view. It's God's view. A view which contrasts with God's is to be rejected, not appreciated. In an area in which God has spoken, there is not peace between contrasting points of view.

This corresponds to versionism. The worst enemy of multi-versions is one version. You just can't say there is one Bible---that can't be for the multi-versionist---when there really is only one Bible, like there is one God and one truth.

We live in an era where truth itself is being attacked. The way to combat that is not by allowing for the idea of more than one Bible. Truth depends on one authority, and it is the Bible, the one Bible.

In a pluralistic society, like the United States, two people or two sides can take opposing points of view. We have that freedom. But in a pluralistic society, each side doesn't have to like the other view or to treat it with respect. It's possible as well that civil discourse can occur between the two sides. However, both are not true, and the error often has eternal consequences.


Joshua said...

That comment section was sick :(. It was like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

Erik DiVietro says:
June 5, 2011 at 7:10 am

אַל־תַּעַן כְּסִיל כְּ‍אִוַּלְתּוֹ פֶּן־תִּשְׁוֶה־לּוֹ גַם־אָתָּה׃
עֲנֵה כְסִיל כְּ‍אִוַּלְתּוֹ פֶּן־יִהְיֶה חָכָם בְּעֵינָיו׃

Kent Brandenburg says:
June 5, 2011 at 10:57 am

Erik, who is the fool in his folly?
Erik DiVietro says:
June 5, 2011 at 1:14 pm

I’ll leave that decision up to the observer.

Carl says:
June 5, 2011 at 11:16 am

Kent, take it elsewhere, please. Your rhetoric has grown unChristlike.

That segment summarized everything that went on, and I can't even read Hebrew.

He was caught. He'd called you raca, and he'd used God's word to make the insult. You answered with a simple question, like Christ did when he asked the Pharisee's where John's baptism came from. And like the Pharisee's, he couldn't answer. He certainly wasn't willing to confess sin. So he just gave a non-answer, exactly like the Pharisee's did. Carl's response was the icing on the cake.

There was so much... I don't know how to put it... flesh in that thread? There was absolutely no willingness to admit any sin or back down an inch. There was no mercy nor grace extended to any opposing viewpoint by them. Yet they constantly chastised you for "unChristlikeness".

I agree wholehearted with what you have written above.

Kent Brandenburg said...

Hi Joshua,

I see it the same. I also thought of the raca, the fool. The ambiguity of whom it was directed toward, in the gamesmanship, allowed in his mind, the deniability.

Carl regularly goes back to one thing that I said over at Frank Turk's blog several years ago, and that is his basis for his problem with me, which he brings to the KJV only debate blog. I said that Daniel Wallace doesn't believe in inerrancy, and I qualified it by explaining the historic view of inerrancy. That wasn't enough for him. So now he goes all over the internet simply making derogatory comments toward me. He couldn't clarify what he meant because he was trapped, which is easy to see. He "apologizes" to the moderator, Erik, not me, and that was enough moderation from the other point of view.

I've got the Frank Turk debate linked over on my sidebar. Everyone should read that debate to get an understanding of what the other side has going for it. If I had lost that debate, it would have been announced far and wide on the internet, but you haven't heard crickets about it for obvious reasons.

Kent Brandenburg said...

Here's the way that it has gone with Carl and I. We have never ourselves had a discussion. Never. He's only insulted me at several different online locations. So we have no history. None. He's the mob on the outside throwing in the derogatory comments. The former church member, over at his blog, says that Carl and I have this history. We have no history except for that, and he was allowed, even encouraged, to do the same again there at the KJV only debate blog.

Regarding that church member again, we were very gracious and helpful and merciful to him. That's all we were. We bent over backwards for him. He's questioning whether we've been truthful here. We have been. And everyone in our church knows it. I don't know who those are he says will vouch for him (his wife?), but this is the truth.

Regarding comments of Erik deleted, I don't have a policy of deleting comments, but I do delete comments. I didn't think I deleted comments of Erik, but as I go back to that blog comment section, I did delete two of Erik's because he didn't interact with my post---he just engaged in personal insults, and I wasn't going to give him a forum for that. I don't mind his being tough, but there had to be something of substance in the discussion or it wasn't going to go anywhere. If he had some substance and some ad hominem, I would have posted it, but it was only personal shots. So I moderated those. So there we go. I moderated two of his comments. That is the truth and allow that to correct anything else that I have said regarding deletion. I still have a general policy of not banning and not deleting, even as I have explained it again and again here.

Thank you.

Joshua said...

Hi Kent,

I remember reading the Frank Turk debate a few years back. I dont remember Carl's contributions bit maybe sone things are better left unnoticed.

Something else that may have happened to Erik - I've posted here a few times and the comments just never appeared. I put it down to Blogger as it was all innocent ontopic stuff. Perhaps the same has happened to him and he's assumed the worst.

Anonymous said...

I checked out Erik's "discussion" and his website. What a mess. Seriously, that guy is a very, very confused individual.

Joshua - about Blogger's comment section, one thing I've noticed is that if you're not logged in when you try to post a comment, it will sometimes eat a comment. I think the trick is to just make sure you're logged in first.

Erik D said...

Since I have become the topic of discussion here and I don't save copies of comments I make, I would very much appreciate it if Kent would email the text of these personal insults to me. Since I never received answers to emails I sent requesting a reason comments were not posted, I was not aware that this was the reason they were not posted.

My contact information is readily available on the blog listed below.

Kent Brandenburg said...

Actually Erik,

The only reason I knew that I had deleted them, because I didn't remember, was because under the post that you linked to over at your debate blog, I told you explicitly why I deleted them. Just read there. It explains. And blogger doesn't keep deleted comments. Sorry.

Anonymous said...


I recently visited "that site" and saw the same thing I saw a while back. I was invited to write an article for the other side. I planned on doing it, too. Then I saw the same ugliness toward you and several others. I declined, and even now do not dare to participate on that blog. You were clear in your describing their breaking of their own rules for some.

I am now in a very good Sovereign Grace Baptist Church - independent and true to God's word. Quite frankly, I hardly participate in any blog discussions. I am much satisfied with the Biblical discussions I have with those of my church, and "preaching" the gospel to them that need to hear. For those who claim a kinship with Christ and continue to attempt to deconstruct the faith of other convinced Christians by attacking the word of God as received by the church, I really don't have the time to share.

I suggest that you may considering not playing in their play ground any longer. I really think they - the blog owners(?) are of an unteachable spirit.


Joe V

Kent Brandenburg said...

Thanks Joe V.

Good counsel, I believe.