tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post9216960329510079613..comments2023-12-22T08:29:29.230-08:00Comments on WHAT IS TRUTH: Phil Johnson: Tertiary Doctrines Dovetailing with the King James Version IssueKent Brandenburghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-76270653235148164032008-12-09T21:59:00.000-08:002008-12-09T21:59:00.000-08:00William,I can't accept the position that I'm readi...William,<BR/><BR/>I can't accept the position that I'm reading you present here, because it doesn't fit either history or biblical presuppositions. Not fitting a scriptural model is enough for me to deny it, since I know Scripture is sufficient. I can't say that textual criticism or the books by textual critics are sufficient. And my loyalty is to God.<BR/><BR/>1. It doesn't fit accessibility, which is taught. The critical text wasn't available until the 19th century. That doesn't fit what the Bible says about preservation. Isaiah 59:21; Matthew 4:4; Deuteronomy 30:11-15<BR/>2. Truth is God's Words. The Holy Spirit leads into all truth---those are the Words of God. That assumes a settled text. John 15:26; 16:13<BR/>3. You can't add or take away Words unless there is a settled text---Rev. 22:18-19<BR/>4. The historic position is that inerrancy applies not just to the autographa but to the apographa. I've given quotes about this all over the place, especially here. I haven't gotten quotes to refute it. I have gotten people mouthing off, but that doesn't count as history.<BR/>5. As far as someone on the spot canonizing text, that isn't for someone, some guru to make that decision, as I see described in your second paragraph. They're God's Words and so it should be acceptance by the church. The church obviously rejected the CT---Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, etc.<BR/><BR/>Thanks.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-41330789981246428052008-12-09T18:06:00.000-08:002008-12-09T18:06:00.000-08:00Look, I'm not saying that some of God's words are ...Look, I'm not saying that some of God's words are lost, destroyed or have passed away. I think that they're there in the volume of all the surviving manuscripts. Some are better than others. That is a historical position. <BR/><BR/>I think ongoing texutal criticism is a waste of time at this point, because they're not going to find anything new or improved. The easy to find scribal errors or spelling mistakes have pretty much been discovered and noted. Veriants are still there and someone has to make a judgment call on which one is the right reading. Someone's gotta be right and someone's gotta be wrong in their choice. I don't see why it's such a sin to get both sides and the reason for their choice of the reading. Either way, no new doctrines have been introduced or denied as a result of such texual criticism.<BR/><BR/> We've got so much manuscript evidence that God has preserved His word. There is no other document on earth with as many ancient manuscripts as the Bible.Reforming Baptisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14846318789174330210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-84040517008776222202008-12-02T18:08:00.000-08:002008-12-02T18:08:00.000-08:00William,I'm always happy to get a Bible presentati...William,<BR/><BR/>I'm always happy to get a Bible presentation of preservation from someone, but in every instance, I've gotten a critique or an attack of the position that I present, which happens to be the historic one. People are welcome to disagree. Disagree; that's fine. What does the Bible teach? And if I'm wrong, where am I wrong? And where is your position taught in history as well.<BR/><BR/>I believe the Bible position is proof. The Bible is proof, is knowledge, is science. It is a faith position on preservation, but so is canonicity. To be honest, it's a faith position on the deity of Christ, justification, the resurrection, etc. Textual criticism and eclecticism are not proof.<BR/><BR/>Do you think that ongoing textual criticism is good?Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-78632100422172275652008-12-02T17:12:00.000-08:002008-12-02T17:12:00.000-08:00I don't have time to answer everything, but it see...I don't have time to answer everything, but it seems that if anyone doesn't agree with you, then you seem to think they don't believe in preservation. Look, I agree that the eclectic text has way more varients and disagreements with itself than the TR, so that's why I stick with it.<BR/><BR/>But how can you prove that the TR, which the KJV doesn't come from anyway, is word for word exact replica of the originals? There is no proof of that. There are varients between the surviving Byzantine and other majority manuscripts...you can't find a perfect stream of flawless, exact replicas of Bible copies.Reforming Baptisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14846318789174330210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-73229628533992924632008-11-27T02:32:00.000-08:002008-11-27T02:32:00.000-08:00Great post. The simplicity of the argumment given...Great post. The simplicity of the argumment given by Friel to Johnson, must hit home. I would think the logic of the argument along with God's promises concerning preservation has to get them (non KJVO) thinking. (At least if they are interested in truth.)Terry McGovernhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07785714020219737129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-67023860572754132392008-11-26T16:25:00.000-08:002008-11-26T16:25:00.000-08:00Exactly Jerry. Good.Exactly Jerry. Good.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-15329266712033374542008-11-25T06:09:00.000-08:002008-11-25T06:09:00.000-08:00Interesting post and replies, Bro Kent.Matthew 4:4...Interesting post and replies, Bro Kent.<BR/><BR/>Matthew 4:4 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.<BR/><BR/>If this verse refers to the Scriptures, what God has written and preserved for us, then I can live in a manner pleasing to the Lord.<BR/><BR/>If this verse refers to everything God has ever said (which would be completely ridiculous), then we are all in trouble!<BR/><BR/>Funny how the critics want to explain away the Bible and states that His Word can't possibly be referring to what He has preserved in the KJV and the underlying manuscripts - YET they have no alternate solution that holds any water.Jerry Boueyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11939572388745111915noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-81192743694833646832008-11-23T22:11:00.000-08:002008-11-23T22:11:00.000-08:00Brother William,Thanks for commenting.First, the s...Brother William,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for commenting.<BR/><BR/>First, the sovereignty issue. I would separate over a denial of the sovereignty of God. I don't know of anyone I'm in fellowship with that doesn't believe in sovereign election. You might know better than I what that would mean within IFBdom.<BR/><BR/>Second,<BR/><BR/>I think it is interesting on how God's sovereignty in election should segue very nicely with sovereign preservation. Even though there's plenty of sin to get in between us and salvation, God preserves our soul. For some reason, textual variants are too much for God to keep His Words.<BR/><BR/>Regarding Isaiah 59:21, consider others who write about this verse: John Owen called Isaiah 59:21 "the great charter of the church’s preservation of truth." Edward Young in his classic commentary on Isaiah writes (p. 442): "The gift of the Spirit (cf. John 16:13), who will instruct the Church in all truth and in the comforting, saving words that God has given her, will abide with her seed forever. The Lord is declaring that His eternal truth, revealed to man in words, is the peculiar possession of His people."<BR/><BR/>You say I read manuscript preservation into a text, which I've never ever said and I'm on record all over the place and constantly those I'm talking to make that my position. I think it's a straw man.<BR/><BR/>I believe that in the multitude of preservation passages God promises (1) every one of His Words to be (2) generally accessible to (3) every generation of believer in (4) the language in which He inspired them. The Revelation 22:18-19 warning against adding or taking away from the Words (5) plainly implies there will be a sure, settled, perfect text. We see how this would occur—(6) through the Holy Spirit guiding the churches. These Scriptural presuppositions lead to the TR, leaving churches with a pure and perfect Bible, something expected from Scripture.<BR/><BR/>I don't understand your comments on Matthew 4:4. I've preached through Matthew, Deuteronomy, and the parallel passages on the temptation of Christ, and I have never read until the more recent Critical Text attacks on preservation anything like what you say about Mt. 4:4. It's an absolutely novel look at that passage. The whole point of Jesus using it is that it is more important for Him to obey the Word of God, than it would be for Him to disobey the Father's will in His incarnation by exercising His Divine attributes and turning stone into bread. Words that can be lived must exist and be available, so they must also be written down. His formula, "it is written," which utilizes a perfect passive verb, showing that what God has written stands forever unto every generation. The Lord contrasts what was written in Scripture with Satan’s adding words not written.<BR/><BR/>Matthew 5:18 teaches preservation of every original language letter. "Heaven and earth" are physical things like words and letters. Heaven and earth seem permanent to men, but aren’t. The verb translated "pass" (parerchomai, "pass away") always speaks of something disappearing. What we see as permanent, heaven and earth, will disappear, but Scripture won’t disappear (the "not" is the most emphatic negation existent in any language—a double negative) even to the smallest letters. Matthew emphasizes this by saying "one" twice. He doesn’t say "jots and tittles" idiomatically, but as literal, written entities—"one jot or one tittle." The law will not disappear even to the letter, so that men can live by even the least of His commandments (v. 19). Alfred Edersheim writes: "If all men in the world were gathered together to abolish the least letter in the Law, they would not succeed." God guarantees the preservation of all the written Words of Scripture.<BR/><BR/>Errors in what we have in our hands effects authority absolutely equally to errors being in the originals. It's the errors that are a problem for authority, whenever thy enter in, between when they were originally written until today. Authority relates to what we live. That's why the promises of preservation are there.<BR/><BR/>There are very few variants in the TR editions, William. There are 10,000 between the manuscripts of the critical text. Every other verse has a variant. We trust that God said He would do what He would do.<BR/><BR/>You say the manuscript data doesn't back perfection. What data are you talking about? Do you read Greek? Do you understand that the historic position is perfect preservation? Not only did the saints of the 16th-18th century believe they had every Word in their hands, but they believed this is what Scripture taught. Were they apostatized in their bibliology? Have we come upon a novel position that actually is the truly historic position? There is no theology behind the eclectic text, except unbelief.<BR/><BR/>What exactly is the KJVO bandwagon saying, William? I don't know what you're talking about. I take the same position as Capel, Turretin, Rutherford, Owen, etc. It is the historic position.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-58112894978951820322008-11-23T17:16:00.000-08:002008-11-23T17:16:00.000-08:00Anyway, back to the original post...This is my fav...Anyway, back to the original post...This is my favorite dead horse to beat on. <BR/><BR/>The answer to Friel's questions is that there is no Biblical data that speaks of copies of manuscripts that would be found later on in the 19th century. The Bible doesn't tell us what manuscript family we are supposed to copy from and look for. <BR/><BR/>I'm all for believing that God has promised to preserve His word forever, but only if the right verses are being used to prove it. <BR/><BR/>You mentioned some of these following verses:<BR/>As for Isa. 59:21, you're reading manuscript preservation into the text. - God's covenant with the nation of Israel was that the words of God should not depart out of their mouths nor the mouths of the next generations. That is a requirement that He is putting on these people, not a promise of preserving copies of the law that He gave. He is telling them not to depart from His words and that they better pass them down to their children or else! In their obedience to that, preservation occured. In their disobedience, God still protected His Word when wicked kings tried to destroy it.<BR/><BR/>Matt 4:4 Jesus is resisting the devil with a quote from the Old Testament. Was Jesus refuting satan with KJV Onlyism? (diliberate sarcasim inserted) I don't think so. He was saying that we live by the obedience to the Word of God. Do we have every word that has ever proceeded from the mouth of God? No, give me the dialogues between God and Enoch! Those words proceeded from the mouth of God...where are they? If you are going to take a literal wooden interpretation of these words, then you have to account for every word God has ever spoken EVER and the truth is, He has not preserved all of them. So, your interpretation of that verse is actually self defeating. <BR/><BR/>Matthew 5:17 - Is there any Old Testament law that is lost now, that Jesus failed to fulfill? He fulfilled Passover, Firstfruits, and Pentecost perfectly, and thre are many others He is yet to fulfill at His second coming. That's what He's talking about, not manuscript preservation. <BR/><BR/>Then you said that errors affect authority. Errors in the originals would definately do that because God would have breathed out mistakes. That's not possible, we all agree on that. So, can you show me a perfect replica of the originals? Is it the TR? And if it is, how do you know? You've never seen the originals. Let's just stick with the manuscripts that underly the KJV...are all those different manuscripts 100% in agreement with eachother? Are there any words missing in one manuscript that are picked up in another? Who made the decision as to which words in those variants were God's word? Erasmus did! The unsaved Catholic Humanist textual critic! <BR/><BR/>In closing, I believe we have a perfect Bible, but not in the same sense that the KJVO group claims. The manuscript data doesn't back their claim, so a fictional preservation story has to be made up. I'm not saying that preservation is fiction, but the story that the KJVO ban wagon is telling is.Reforming Baptisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14846318789174330210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-30311067247212678592008-11-23T16:43:00.000-08:002008-11-23T16:43:00.000-08:00So if we are to separate from those who cause divi...So if we are to separate from those who cause division over Rom 9-11, then all those who deny sovereign election are those we should separate from?<BR/><BR/>That would be almost everyone in IFBdomReforming Baptisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14846318789174330210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-72301586587680315272008-11-23T15:45:00.000-08:002008-11-23T15:45:00.000-08:00Thanks Bro. Cardot. Answer to the last question....Thanks Bro. Cardot. Answer to the last question. Paul taught the doctrinal basis for premillennialism in Romans 9-11. Then Paul in Romans 16:17 said to mark and avoid those who cause divisions contrary to the doctrine that he had taught them. He very specifically would be telling them to divide over what he said in Romans 9-11. I recognize that Peter said that some of what Paul said was hard to be understood, but he was likely referring to the doctrine of the rapture, which is a fully NT doctrine. Just because it is hard to be understood doesn't make it non-understandable though.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-35594975418171808452008-11-23T08:33:00.000-08:002008-11-23T08:33:00.000-08:00This is a good post. I love seeing Independent Ba...This is a good post. I love seeing Independent Baptists take the time to address the issues that the "emerging church" or the "evangelicals" are trying to downplay and pervert. We need to stand up for doctrine. <BR/><BR/>As a side note, I know that you are secretly obsessed with Phil Johnson. Just kidding.<BR/><BR/>I do have a question, though. You made this statement:<BR/><BR/>"He says that premillennialism isn't a doctrine that is worth separating over. I believe that the Apostle Paul would say something different."<BR/><BR/>What is your scriptural basis that Paul would separate with someone over this doctrine? Just a question. I'm not being critical. I'm just allowing myself to learn at your feet.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com