Recession in the American Economy and the Greed Cycle

Economists say that right now we are potentially on the verge of entering a national recession. Retail business had low Christmas sales. People are not buying houses, so developers have stopped building them. Corporations are laying off workers.

Defining the Problem

To get started, let's understand a recession. A recession is the financial condition of a country in which it declines in economic growth---that it essentially shrinks instead of expanding. An economy grows when it produces more than it consumes. The national economy is measured every quarter and we see if the gross national product of the country has grown, plateaued, or shrunk. In a technical sense, a recession occurs when a nation declines two quarters in succession. A severe and long recession becomes a depression. Since the Great Depression at the end of the 1920s, the United States hasn't had another one of those.

So what caused this recession? Greed. What caused the Great Depression? Greed.

Why Greed?

After bringing my daughter to orchestra rehearsal on Saturday morning, I hung around and talked to a PhD economics professor who is visiting University of California at Berkeley for this year from Korea. His daughter joined the orchestra three weeks ago and plays cello. I asked him about the recession, and like almost any economist, he mentioned the mortgage bubble. He made the observation, even as I had previously, that this is similar to the dot com bubble that burst in the middle of the 90s.

President Bill Clinton was recently here in Oakland as part of the campaign of his wife, Hillary, and he gave a speech explaining why the mortgage crisis took place. It was vintage Clinton. He essentially depended upon a huge amount of ignorance for political advantage by saying that the mortgage problem was created by the Bush administration in order to cover-up for their lack of creating any new jobs during the present presidential administration. It was sad, but so lame that I laughed out loud---well, also because of the classic, conniving smile of Bill Clinton when he said it. It reminded me of the famous quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln:

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.

This country has an increasingly growing number of people who the Clinton's can fool all of the time.

Anyway, the government does not make jobs. People get government jobs and recently there have been more and more of them because of the expansion of the federal government. However, the government didn't create those out of thin air. They represent, as I'm sure my readers know, redistribution of wealth. Taxpayers produced wealth that was confiscated by the government and then given to a federal employee. You can't sustain a growing economy with government jobs because they don't produce any new prosperity.

But I digress to some degree, because I was talking to the economist from Korea and told him that the problem was greed. He smiled like he hadn't heard of this. I explained, first by describing what took place before the Great Depression.

The industrial revolution resulted in mass production. Marconi's invention, the radio, increased advertising. Consumers began buying on credit. Covetousness. I want the refrigerator in the advertisement. I must have a Model T like my neighbor. The economy exploded in the roaring twenties. The factories were churning out goods to meet the demand. Men began speculating on the stock market, even borrowing money to invest in a rapidly expanding company.

And then the money ran out. People stopped buying things. Now they were just paying on things. Demand for items nearly ceased, inventory mounted, and the factories stopped producing. They laid off workers in debt, who in turn could not pay off their loans for their purchases and their risky investments. When banks started to collapse under the monumental burden of debt, the customers made a run at the banks. Stocks plummeted. Men and their companies were ruined.

The Great Depression started because of greed and the solution was fueled by greed, but that's another topic altogether---Roosevelt versus Hoover. We fastfoward to the twenty-first century. The federal reserve attempted to sustain the American economy after 911, which had taken a hit literally and metaphorically, by lowering the interest rates. Mortgage companies, banks, and brokers saw an opportunity to cash in by becoming overly creative with their loans, offering unheard of interest only loans and microscopically low adjustable rates. Future homeowners saw this as an opportunity, especially in expensive housing markets (like California), to get into the dream house and stop paying rent. Some of them could afford a smaller house, but they went for the gusto fueled by the artificially created optimism of the low interest.

It has all been greed. Greedy home ownership painted like Grant Wood's American Gothic. Greedy mortgage lenders looking for a quick buck. Greedy illegal immigrants who think they're entitled. And then the greedy politicians who overspent in the time of plenty, instead of creating budget surpluses for the time of leanness. Well, now the bubble has popped and it isn't looking very pretty.

The Solution to the Greed Cycle

The typical solution, which is what has happened, and almost instantly, reminds me of Captain Rennault at the end of Casablanca. I'm not endorsing that film, but I think you'll see what I mean when I say it reminds me of the last scene. Rick has killed Strasser and Renault tells his men to "round up the usual suspects." That's how we'll deal with this crisis---round up the usual suspects. Who are those? An economic stimulus package. It's mainly symbolic---the Korean economist suggested this and I nodded "yes." And then a massive 3/4 point interest cut. Mr. Bernanke doing his part. There we go. All solved. Right?

My Korean economist laughed and enjoyed my economic term for all this---the greed cycle. He agreed, and he is concerned. His afraid for what will happen in the future. The mortgage bubble isn't like the dot com bubble popping. People live in their homes. This affects everyday life. This is a deep rooted problem.

But of course, it's very deep rooted. It's sin. Man is depraved and greed is part of it. He is willing to sell his birthright for a mess of pottage. He wants to spend now the portion of his inheritance. Who cares if he ends up in the hog trough tomorrow? What's the solution? I told the Korean economist. It is change in the most inward way---transformation of the soul. That alone will end the greed cycle. And we all know that it will never really end until we see Christ.

The Lord Jesus will lead a perfect kingdom that anyone can have a part who will turn to Him alone for salvation. But for now, too many people are willing to give up the kingdom then for the kingdom now, one often "paid" for with a very "low" mortgage rate. That bubble will surely pop. What man needs is to end cyclical living and turn to something totally stable---a life of contentment, a life peace and fulfillment that is much better than whatever this world has to offer, and it can arrive when he receives Jesus Christ.

Corban: Rearing Its Ugly Head Again in Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism

Over and over again today I hear Mark 7:7 from evangelicals and fundamentalists.

Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

I love Mark 7:7. It's in the Bible. It's Jesus speaking. I agree that this verse is violated. Personally, I think that it is far less violated than these evangelicals and fundamentalists claim, and especially as it is related to their favorite targets. It applies nicely to Roman Catholics; you know, to penance and confessing sins to a priest, things like that. However, they like to apply it to any standard that the Bible doesn't mention explicitly.

If someone says anything is wrong with rap music, out comes Mark 7:7. Dancing. Mark 7:7. Movie theater. Mark 7:7. Crack pipe. "Well, that's wrong, so no Mark 7:7 on that." Why? "It just is. You've got to be kidding them if you say it isn't." So Mark 7:7 seems like a verse convenient to use to protect the activities of one's own desires.

For a moment, let's leave Mark 7:7 in play for removing the standards often a part of the requirements of personal separation. The Lord Jesus didn't stop at Mark 7:7 in His instruction. A little further in the chapter and you get to verse 13:

Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Jesus gives an example of how they "ma[de] the word of God of none effect" in the previous verses, between Mark 7:7 and 7:12. The religious leaders made loopholes for themselves, so that they wouldn't have to obey what God said. For instance, they didn't want to have to use their money and possessions to take care of their own parents, so they found a loophole for that, which they called "Corban." The Lord said concerning this in vv. 10, 11:

For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.

"Corban" was a religious tradition. The Pharisees believed that if someone said "Corban" over all his money and possessions that they instantly all belonged to God. Since they were now God's possessions, a person could not rightfully give them away. Those monies and possessions were no longer one's own, so he could not give them away even to his own parents. This validated his greediness and stinginess as a kind of superior, albeit fake, spiritual state. He wasn't abstaining from supporting his parents, but instead "honoring God." God, of course, wasn't pleased, but in the religious man's own self-delusion, he had a sufficient theological reason for refusing to obey Scripture.

Scripture often guides men by means of its principles. Historical record shows that those principles have been applied indentically for centuries to Christians lives. God doesn't always give commands, but that doesn't mean that the principles of the Bible are any less authoritative than them.

What is the modern equivalent of "Corban?" One is the use of "God looks on the heart" to assume that God doesn't look on the outward appearance. Another is quoting Matthew 7:1 ("Judge not. . . .") so that people won't judge you. However, the one I most commonly hear today is the notion that if you have any interpretation of a passage or any external source to back your view, then you must be granted certification as having a valid position that can no longer be questioned, especially for the sake of unity. If you can find one remote lexicon that gives you an alternative meaning, then you should be tolerated.

After you apply the biblical principle to this last example of Corbanites, they will often say things like:

You can't say that I'm wrong. You can say only that we've got two different positions.

You shouldn't say I'm disobedient. You should say that I've sincerely searched this out just like you, but have honestly come to a different viewpoint as you.

You shouldn't be so dogmatic about teachings that have more than one position.

When there are so many interpretations to a passage, we can't really be certain enough about its meaning to say that someone is wrong.

Do you understand how that this loophole is "Corban" reincarnated, and that it really is a man-made creation "making the word of God of none effect"? And I see these Corbanites all over among evangelicals and fundamentalists. So I say to them......Mark 7:13.

WHY I KEEP TALKING ABOUT THE TEXT/PRESERVATION ISSUE

I should be doing more evangelism. I can't disagree there. I need psychoanalysis because I'm obsessing about the text/preservation issue. That's not true, although some would say it. Am I feeling left out of the conversation because of what I believe about perfect preservation, so I'm burrowing my way in? This wouldn't be the way to become "in," and I don't need to say, "Believe me." You already know that.

This isn't a one string banjo with me. I like talking about it, because I think it's important, but anyone who is a member of our church knows that I preach on Isaiah Sunday mornings, just starting Luke on Wednesday evenings, and Old Testament historical books on Sunday night. I'm not a pet-peeve preacher. This isn't one. I believe, however, that it is crucial and I want to explain exactly why. I care about all the right doctrine---the gospel, Jesus Christ, sanctification, the church, prophecy---but this one is foundational to all other doctrines. Why? It relates to the authority of Scripture.

John Feinberg, quoted in Norman Geisler's book, Inerrancy, writes:

I have never been able to understand how one can be justified in claiming absolute authority for the Scriptures and at the same time deny their inerrancy. This seems to be the height of epistemological nonsense and confusion. Let me try to illustrate the point. Suppose that I have an Amtrak railroad schedule. In describing its use to you, I tell you that it is filled with numerous errors but that it is absolutely authoritative and trustworthy. I think you would be extremely dubious. At least the schedule would have one thing going for it; it declares itself to be subject to change without notice.

I give you that quote, because he explains well the importance of inerrancy to the authority of Scripture. This is why Richard Capel, one of the Westminster divines, wrote this in 1658:

And to the like purpose is that observation, That the two Tables written immediately by Moses and the Prophets, and the Greek Copies immediately penned by the Apostles, and Apostolical men are all lost, or not to be made use of, except by a very few. And that we have none in Hebrew or Greek, but what are transcribed. Now transcribers are ordinary men, subject to mistake, may faile, having no unerring spirit to hold their hands in writing.

Speaking of these types of statements, Capel immediately writes:

These be terrible blasts, and do little else when they meet with a weak head and heart, but open the doore to Atheisme and quite to fling off the bridle, which onely can hold them and us in the wayes of truth and piety: this is to fill the conceits of men with evil thoughts against the Purity of the Originals: And if the Fountains run not clear, the Translation cannot be clean.

Do you see what Richard Capel is saying in 1658? This teaching that we do not have a supernaturally preserved text leads to atheism. He says also that without the Divine authority of a perfect, preserved edition of Scripture, the bridle of God's Word is thrown off, so that men will not live in truth and in piety. He is says that if the original text isn't pure, then the translation certainly is not. If you take the Feinberg quote above and you apply it to the original manuscripts alone, you still have a major problem with Biblical authority.

So Does What Capel Said Really Happen?

The Capel warning is fleshed out years later in the testimony of Bart Ehrman. He professes that this is the exact reason why he pushed the eject button on Christianity. He talks of the tell-tale moment in the introduction to his book, Misquoting Jesus:

This was a compelling problem. It was the words of scripture themselves that God had inspired. Surely we have to know what those words were if we want to know how he had communicated to us. . . . I kept reverting to my basic question: how does it help us to say that the Bible is the inerrant word of God if in fact we don't have the words that God inerrantly inspired, but only the words copied by scribes---sometimes correctly but sometimes (many times!) incorrectly? What good is it to say that the autographs (i.e., the originals) were inspired? We don't have the originals! . . . This became a problem for my view of inspiration, for I came to realize that it would have been no more difficult for God to preserve the words of scripture than it would have been for him to inspire them in the first place.

Benjamin Warfield Knew Too, As Does Daniel Wallace

Benjamin Warfield understood the trajectory that textual criticism would take on the authority of Scripture and, therefore, the faith of men, so he reinvented the doctrine of preservation and became the first publically to tie inerrancy to the original manuscripts only. He attempted to remove the doctrine of inerrancy from the Bible that we actually have and use.

Now men like Daniel Wallace, professor at Dallas Theological Seminary and author of an advanced Greek grammar that is used all over the country, deny that Scripture teaches its own preservation and move inerrancy to a secondary or tertiary doctrine. Wallace explains in a recent interview at Evangelical Textual Criticism:

For example, I am not convinced that the Bible speaks of its own preservation. That doctrine was first introduced in the Westminster Confession, but it is not something that can be found in scripture. But with the rise of postmodern approaches to biblical studies, where all views are created equal, it seems that theology is having a role in the discussion. . . . What I tell my students every year is that it is imperative that they pursue truth rather than protect their presuppositions. And they need to have a doctrinal taxonomy that distinguishes core beliefs from peripheral beliefs. When they place more peripheral doctrines such as inerrancy and verbal inspiration at the core, then when belief in these doctrines start to erode, it creates a domino effect: One falls down, they all fall down. It strikes me that something like this may be what happened to Bart Ehrman . . . . [I]f inerrancy goes, everything else begins to erode. I would say that if inerrancy is elevated to the status of a prime doctrine, that’s when one gets on a slippery slope. But if a student views doctrines as concentric circles, with the cardinal doctrines occupying the center, then if the more peripheral doctrines are challenged, this does not have an effect on the core.

Do you see how that inerrancy has moved to the back seat with Daniel Wallace? He is trying to coordinate his theology with his textual criticism and it fails. Rather than believe in a perfect text, instead he unloads first the doctrine of preservation of Scripture and then he downscales his doctrine of inerrancy.

Wallace smacks of something totally different than what we read of Samuel Rutherford, in A Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience, in 1649:

Though the Letter of of the Scripture be not the Word alone, yet the Letter with the true sense and meaning of it, is the Word . . . . So if ye destroy the Letter of the Scripture, you do destroy the Scripture; and if you do deny the Letter, how is it possible that you should attain to the true sense thereof, when the Sense lies wrapped up in the Letters, and the words thereof?

So New Defintions and a Fake History Are Invented

One of the new ways that the MVO men are explaining themselves into some kind of inerrancy for our modern Bibles is by redefining error. You can see that Rutherford tied error into the letters of Scripture, of course, in fitting with the "jot" and "tittle" of Jesus in Matthew 5:18. That is the historic view.

The authors of God's Word in Our Hands, The Mind of God to the Mind of Man, The King James Only Sect, The King James Version Debate, Only One Bible?, and God's Word Preserved would all want you to believe that God's "Word" is preserved. The emphasis is on the singular "Word." They say that we have authority in Scripture because we have Truth in the Words, essentially taking a conceptual preservation of Scripture, where the message and the doctrines are what is really important, separating the teaching of Scripture from the actual Words. Do you see where all of this heads? Well, it's not all.

Some of them in fitting with this new view of preservation also have developed some novel interpretations of the harmony of the gospel statements of the Lord Jesus Christ. They teach an ipsissima vox position that says that we are not reading the Lord Jesus, but actually a paraphrase of Him. You see, they say, the very Words don't matter, as long as we get the message. They will defend this position and use it to defend only the "Truth" being preserved. Before long, just like with Wallace, the inerrancy of the originals won't matter either. All of Scripture is inspired, but not verbally. The authority of Scripture is gone.

I can't judge the MVO reasoning, but they want you to believe that their position is historical. Of the modern, "fundamental," MVO books, most of them have a huge chunk dedicated to telling a history of their position, which by their own admission is a little over 100 years old. They quote essentially modern fundamentalists stretching back to the late 19th century to show that they have a historical view. Then they spend an equal amount of space to make the position you read above in Capel and Rutherford to look like its something brand new that originated in the 20th century. All of this is either purposeful deception or ignorance. They argue adamantly that they have an old position. To use the words of Mike Harding, "It is laughable if it were not so serious in its consequences."

And So What Else Happens?

Some have already taken these modern "fundamental" and "evangelical" beliefs to their next logical conclusion. They don't think we can be so certain about the teachings of Scripture, so what really matters is that we have a "conversation" about the Bible itself. This is the mantra of the "emerging church."

Conservative evangelicals (like Phil Johnson and John MacArthur) argue almost ad infinitum in blogs and books against the emergents, while their own beliefs about the trustworthiness of the words of our modern text are at the foundation of this very denial. It's a tough admission, because I think that they are sincere about "truth" and really don't want to separate from Words, but once we admit we have a percentage of error in the Words of Scripture, pop goes the authority.

This should give you a taste as to why it is that I am so concerned about all this. This strikes right at Christian living and loyalty to Jesus Christ. And this is not all of it. They twist Scripture to keep their textual criticism intact. They give new meanings to the words of Scripture. And then it doesn't matter so much any more what you do. After all, how can anyone be sure? Well, don't believe it. Instead, believe what God has said about the perfect preservation of His Word. It's the truth, after all.

The Way of Approval

Second Part in a Series (the first---The War against Certainty)

Where we look for approval will decide what we believe and practice. We see this through Hebrews 11. Faith is how we get a "good report" from God. Faith pleases God (Heb. 11:6). But we have to make that choice: do we want to please God or man (man's institutions)? Hebrews 11 lays it out like a choice. Abel chose pleasing God with his sacrifice. That sacrifice didn't make sense to Cain, so he chose fruits and vegetables. In a world of men-pleasers, Enoch pleased God. Noah could have received favor from the world, but He chose to build an ark and kept in good standing with God. Abraham could have stayed with family and friends, but he chose to go with God. Moses refused to be called the son of Pharoah's daughter. Approval in the court of Pharoah might have been bigger than anything in the world at the time, but Moses shunned it by faith. He made pleasing God His career choice.

In each of these choices, physical evidence often wasn't and isn't plenteous. "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God" (Heb. 11:3a). We make a judgment about things with no physical evidence (Heb. 11:3b), except faith. This pleases God. But first we must want His approval. We must see His unseen, promised reward to be greater than anything man and his institutions can offer us.

Some have decided to take approval from God over men. Romans 16:10 says that Apelles was "approved in Christ." Moses looked to God for approval instead of the Egyptian government. Based on appearances, Moses was giving up prominence, popularity, and financial security. All of these tie into public approval. In the world's eyes, he would have been a big fish in a big pond. When Paul described his ministry at Thessalonica, he wrote in 1 Thessalonians 2:4:

But as we were allowed of God to be put in trust with the gospel, even so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God, which trieth our hearts.

Without approval from God, we essentially give ourselves a good report. As 2 Corinthians 10:18 reads, "For not he that commendeth himself is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth." Someone may get commendation from the world, but in the end, 1 Corinthians 3:13 says that it won't last like God's will.

Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

God will examine our works as to whether they were pleasing to Him. Some works might please men, but God rewards only those He approves.

The text issue presents two choices. One searches Scripture and finds God's instruction about the preservation of Scripture. He studies to show "himself approved unto God" (2 Timothy 2:15). Proper study of Scripture concerns itself more with God's approval than man or his institutions. God approves of study that disregards man's opinions, questions, philosophies, and speculations.

Isaac was the seed of promise and Ishmael of human effort. Hagar was doubt and works, and Sarai was faith and trust. The just live by faith. The baby Isaac came by a miracle of God's providence, the Lord working out the details based upon faith in Him. In this Abraham and Sarah found approval from God. Textual criticism stands in man's efforts. Man will give his approval (schools, circles, camps, human scholarship, etc.). Receiving the text handed down through the churches stands by faith in the grace of God.

God's Word says that God will preserve His Word, every and all (Psalm 12:6, 7; Isaiah 40:8; 1 Peter 1:23-25; Matthew 5:18; 24:35). I believe God would preserve every One of His Words.

Scripture says that God would make His Words available to every generation of believer (Isaiah 59:21; Matthew 4:4). I believe God would make His Words generally accessible to every generation of saints.

The Bible says that God's Word is perfect and pure (Psalm 12:6, 7; Proverbs 30:4, 5). I believe that God's Word is perfect and pure.

God's Word says that the Bible will be settled to the extent that someone could not add or take away from His Words (Revelation 22:18, 19; Deuteronomy 12:32). I believe that God's Word would be settled.

The Bible says that God would lead His saints into all truth, that the Word, all of His Words, are truth (John 16:13; 17:8, 17). I believe that God would lead His children to every one of His Words.

When we see what God has taught about His Words and the preservation of them, we choose to believe what He said, despite tangible evidence. Individual hand-copies had errors. God said that men would change the Words of Scripture. He warned of it. We see that this is the strategy of Satan, to amend the Words of God. However, God promised and so we believe that He overcame the work of Satan and preserved His Words so that we would have a settled text that is perfect in fulfillment of His promises. The textus receptus of the NT and the Hebrew Masoretic of the OT are the only texts that could have been preserved and available. They are the only texts that believers will claim perfection.

I wasn't there when God created the world. I believe it anyway. I wasn't there when God inspired His Word. I believe it anyway. I wasn't there when Jesus died on the cross. I believe it anyway. I wasn't there when God preserved His Words. I believe it anyway. God will be pleased with your reception of the Words He preserved. You will receive a good report for your faith in His promises. Will you be approved by God or by men?

Answers to Questions about the Doctrine of Preservation of Scripture

I'm asked questions about the text/preservation issue all the time. Most of the time those asking are attempting to trip me up, to find holes in the argument. I've found that they mostly don't answer questions themselves and are testy when they do. I don't think they like their own position. They don't like giving the answers. When I answer their questions, I know they sometimes don't like the answers. They want the answers to be something that is easy for them to sink. Unlike the MVO (multiple version only) guys, I start with Scripture for my position. A couple of verses that describe perfectly the differences between them and me is Romans 4:20-21:

He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.

Abraham couldn't see everything that God had promised, but he believed God anyway. I can't prove everything that I believe historically and with tangible evidence. I can give enough historical and tangible proof to satisfy someone who is willing to believe Scripture. I believe that what we are doing when we show the historical aspects is to do what Luke was doing with Theophilus, as he describes in Luke 1:4:

That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

I've been asked some questions over at Jackhammer and at this blog that I'm going to answer and be open to some discussion. I have also included comments from Thomas Ross on this. I'm not going to give very long answers. Sometimes men will say that KJVO guys won't answer questions. I do. I have. What I have found all across the board is that the MVO guys will not answer questions and they get by with that. It's very sad in my opinion.

In no particular order, here are some of the questions (the questions in italic and color; answers in normal font).

No, there is not one single manuscript which is THE preserved, perfect text. We agree. But, if no manuscript is EXACTLY the same, how is it that, despite the differences between the earliest known MS and the received text, it is the received text which is the correct one?

We know that copies were not made of the earliest known manuscripts, which is why they are in the minority.

Thomas Ross adds: Actually, there has been, as far as I am aware, no actual objective dating method for aleph and b. It is simply internal evidence that is used to say that they are the oldest—so maybe they aren't even the oldest. Furthermore, codex w has the received text in large portions of the gospels, and it is, according to unbelieving textual critics, equal in age to aleph and b. Furthermore, the oldest papyri have received text readings in them (see Forever Settled by Jack Moorman, which is on the web).

Furthermore, the reason there aren't any perfect copies is because when one copies something by hand, it will never be exactly the same. The printed text under the KJV is perfect. Before that time, copies were available and the words were available, but they were not all in one location. Today, if the words under the KJV are not the right ones, we cannot have certainty, but God promises certainty (Matthew 4:4; Rev 22:18-19; Prov 30:5-6; etc.).

I continue: Believers have rejected the minority manuscripts. God has promised availability (Isaiah 59:21; Matthew 4:4; etc.), and the minority were not generally accessible. The churches agreed on the TR. The Holy Spirit is guiding believers (John 16:13). God has promised preservation. We look at what God did and we see it was the TR. We trust God. This is not an "academic" approach based upon "scientific" principles, but based upon biblical ones. That's how we walk by faith, that is, by obeying God's Word.

Thomas Ross adds: I don't have a problem calling this method scientific. I think it is scientific and academic, in the true sense of the words. It is not unbelieving science, etc.

And yet, the TR is not monolithic--it is a compilation of (fewer) MSS which, if the claim is correct, do not agree with one another in every aspect. Though they may be similar (from one MS family), they are not exact. How is it that the New Testament, assembled as it was by various scholars over many years, fell into a form (which we call the TR) not exactly identifiable prior to the 1500s, and yet is the perfectly preserved word of God?

The TR was what was available when the printing press was invented. There is not a basis of saying that men used just a few manuscripts to consolidate the words into one printed edition. Richard Capel, the puritan, expresses the historic (and my) position, when he writes (Capel's Remains, London, 1658, pp. 19-43):

[W]e have the Copies in both languages [Hebrew and Greek], which Copies vary not from Primitive writings in any matter which may stumble any. This concernes onely the learned, and they know that by consent of all parties, the most learned on all sides among Christians do shake hands in this, that God by his providence hath preserved them uncorrupt. . . . As God committed the Hebrew text of the Old Testament to the Jewes, and did and doth move their hearts to keep it untainted to this day: So I dare lay it on the same God, that he in his providence is so with the Church of the Gentiles, that they have and do preserve the Greek Text uncorrupt, and clear: As for some scrapes by Transcribers, that comes to no more, than to censure a book to be corrupt, because of some scrapes in the printing, and 'tis certain, that what mistake is in one print, is corrected in another.

Thomas Ross adds: Erasmus had access to a good number of mss--including the readings of Vaticanus, it appears, but he rejected them. This does not deal with editors after that time. The received medieval manuscript bible became the printed TR bible. Actually, the KJV/TR (Scrivener's) is the "majority" in a certain way, because it is the TR that is in print. If God has promised us certainty, then we have no basis for receiving a reading that was in Erasmus' 2nd edition and then never reappeared again, versus a reading that is in every TR that is in print, practically, in Scrivener's TR. There is no other TR that churches have agreed is perfect than that which is under the KJV. Therefore that is it, John 17:8; Matthew 28:18-20; etc. I would hate to preach through revelation in light of the curse of Revelation 22:18-19 and have to wonder if I had the correct reading or not.

And if they do not agree perfectly, then how can God be said to have perfectly preserved the actual words of the autographs?

The words were available even as they were consolidated into a printed edition. You can't prove otherwise, so why not go the direction of faith and not doubt, perfection and not errors. Our position is that God promised to preserve the very Words and Letters of the original manuscripts. He didn't promise to preserve ink and paper. God knows what the Words are so He made sure that we had them. He performed a miracle to do so.

Thomas Ross adds: I don't see why the God who works all things after the counsel of His own will could not have sovereignly made it happen without the kind of direct intervention in history that was the same as the kind that makes blind men see, Christ rise from the dead, etc.

I continue: I can explain the miracle, but I can't fully understand it because it is a miracle. The alternative is not believing God and having errors in Scripture, which is acceptable to textual critics and many modern MVO people.

Thomas Ross adds: I would like to hear the MVO people explain the certainty verses.

My initial response is to know how you understand the words "perfectly preserve" and what constitutes something being "not perfect." Is the addition or omission of a word sufficient, or the interpolation of a verse or phrase enough to make something "not perfect?" If what God gave was perfect, down to words and letters, then a different letter or word is no longer perfect.And since the churches (and I'm not sure how you are defining this term) settled on the TR for about 400 years, do we then say that the Vulgate preserved the word of God perfectly when the churches settled on it (and I am not referring here to the Catholic Church, which is not the true church)?

I don't believe that true churches settled on the Vulgate. As well, the Vulgate is not Greek and Hebrew. Scripture presents original language preservation.

Thomas Ross adds: The medieval Baptists used the received text--but because printing wasn't invented yet, when they copied it there were errors in copies. However, all the words were still available. In the ancient church period, as long as the autographs were around, all the words were obviously preserved and available (and the autographs were around a while, as far as we can tell, as I demonstrated in my essay on the subject on my website). Once the autographs were gone, the true words were available and preserved by the true churches. True churches did not agree on Jerome's Latin Vulgate--the Waldenses, for example, continued to use a version of the old Latin instead of the Catholic Vulgate. By the way, the Greek TR was called the "Greek Vulgate," and it was, through God's sovereignty, copied by the Greek Catholic Church, so believers in that area didn't even need to fight with the Catholics over the Bible, since the unconverted monks were copying the truth that they did not know.

Do you ascribe to the following statement made by Francis Turretin: "Although we give to the Scriptures absolute integrity, we do not therefore think that the copyists and printers were inspired (theopneustos), but only that the providence of God watched over the copying of the sacred books, so that although many errors might have crept in, it has not so happened (or they have not so crept into the manuscripts) but that they can be easily corrected by a collation of others (or with the Scriptures themselves). Therefore the foundation of the purity and integrity of the sources is not to be placed in the freedom from fault.of men, but in the providence of God, which (however men employed in transcribing the sacred books might possibly mingle various errors) always diligently took care to correct them, or that they might be corrected easily either from a comparison with Scripture itself or from more approved manuscripts. It was not necessary therefore to render all the scribes infallible, but only so to direct them that the true reading may always be found out. This book far surpasses all others in purity."

Yes.

In what substantial way does the textual criticism behind the KJV differ from the tc behind the newer translations?

Those men didn't apply modern evolutionary principles of textual criticism. They also believed in a perfect Bible and in perfect, Divine preservation of Scripture. What they did is not the equivalent to 19th century textual criticism, when the words "textual criticism" actually came into existence. I understand the point that CT and eclectic people want conceded, but it can't be conceded historically or definitionally, and they should admit that themselves. They won't because they want "providential preservation" to mean "textual criticism." Those two are not the same. Look at Capel's quote above and I can give many others like that to show that this was not their attitude.

How do you defend Erasmus' choice to include the very questionable rendering in 1 John 5:7-8 in spite of the textual evidence in the Byzantine manuscripts which argues vehemently against this?

Much good defense is written for the preservation of 1 John 5:7.

Thomas Ross add: On my website I link an excellent defense of 1 john 5:7 on evidential principles. Also, the CT people are not very consistent when they pull their hair out over receiving 1 john 5:7--which was also in the medieval baptist bible, and was received unanimously by baptist confessions for hundreds of years--when there are many, many places in the ubs/ct where they follow only one manuscript and don't even footnote it!

I continue: Consider what Gill says about 1 John 5:7:

That is, that Jesus is the Son of God. The genuineness of this text has been called in question by some, because it is wanting in the Syriac version, as it also is in the Arabic and Ethiopic versions; and because the old Latin interpreter has it not; and it is not to be found in many Greek manuscripts; nor cited by many of the ancient fathers, even by such who wrote against the Arians, when it might have been of great service to them: to all which it may be replied, that as to the Syriac version, which is the most ancient, and of the greatest consequence, it is but a version, and a defective one. The history of the adulterous woman in the eighth of John, the second epistle of Peter, the second and third epistles of John, the epistle of Jude, and the book of the Revelations, were formerly wanting in it, till restored from Bishop Usher's copy by De Dieu and Dr. Pocock, and who also, from an eastern copy, has supplied this version with this text. As to the old Latin interpreter, it is certain it is to be seen in many Latin manuscripts of an early date, and stands in the Vulgate Latin edition of the London Polyglot Bible: and the Latin translation, which bears the name of Jerom, has it, and who, in an epistle of his to Eustochium, prefixed to his translation of these canonical epistles, complains of the omission of it by unfaithful interpreters. And as to its being wanting in some Greek manuscripts, as the Alexandrian, and others, it need only be said, that it is to be found in many others; it is in an old British copy, and in the Complutensian edition, the compilers of which made use of various copies; and out of sixteen ancient copies of Robert Stephens's, nine of them had it: and as to its not being cited by some of the ancient fathers, this can be no sufficient proof of the spuriousness of it, since it might be in the original copy, though not in the copies used by them, through the carelessness or unfaithfulness of transcribers; or it might be in their copies, and yet not cited by them, they having Scriptures enough without it, to defend the doctrine of the Trinity, and the divinity of Christ: and yet, after all, certain it is, that it is cited by many of them; by Fulgentius (z), in the beginning of the "sixth" century, against the Arians, without any scruple or hesitation; and Jerom, as before observed, has it in his translation made in the latter end of the "fourth" century; and it is cited by Athanasius (a) about the year 350; and before him by Cyprian (b), in the middle, of the "third" century, about the year 250; and is referred to by Tertullian (c) about, the year 200; and which was within a "hundred" years, or little more, of the writing of the epistle; which may be enough to satisfy anyone of the genuineness of this passage; and besides, there never was any dispute about it till Erasmus left it out in the, first edition of his translation of the New Testament; and yet he himself, upon the credit of the old British copy before mentioned, put it into another edition of his translation.

How can you say that the Gospel writers were 'quoting' Jesus when their Gospels don't agree word-for-word when 'quoting' Him in almost every instance. Furthermore, how do you handle the differences in vocabulary in Mt. 19:7-8 and Mk. 10:3-6 which I alluded to?

Ipsissima verba is clearly taught in Scripture. It is affirmed every time the NT states Christ "said" something. God means what He says, and if the declaration that the Lord said certain Words does not mean that He actually said them, language no longer has meaning. When the Bible declares, "these words spake Jesus" (John 8:20,30; cf. 8:31,37,43,47), who dares conclude He did not say those Words, but some "vox" paraphrase of them? The retort that the Words of the gospels are the Holy Spirit’s Words, so they are authoritative although Christ did not speak them, neglects the fact that He is the Spirit of truth, so He would not inspire a "Jesus said . . .," which Jesus did not say. Indeed, ipsissima verba is essential to spiritual growth, for the saints cannot live by His Words if they don’t have them (Mt. 4:4). God’s people must hear the Words of the Son (John 12:47), receive His Words (John 12:48; 17:8), keep His Words (John 14:23), have His Words abiding in them (John 15:7) and remember His Words as from the Father (John 14:10). Furthermore, were Christ’s Words not in the gospels, the declaration of Matthew 24:35 (and Mk. 13:31 & Lk 21:33) would be false. The penalty for being ashamed of Christ’s Words (Mk 8:38) would be irrelevant to today if only His "voice" was preserved. How horrible to say that the wonderful prayer of John 17, which begins, "These words spake Jesus . . ." (v. 1) is really only the words of John the apostle, who paraphrased to give the "genuine voice" of the Great High Priest! Of course, were this the case, the fact that the Savior, in that prayer, said, "I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them . . ." (John 17:8) would be irrelevant, since it would only be John’s paraphrase of something else Christ actually spoke, which is now irrecoverably gone. Peter asked, "Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life" (John 6:68). A vox position means that those invaluable Words of eternal life are gone, replaced by whatever the human writers of Scripture apparently thought better met the needs of their community than the actual Words of the Christ of God. Peter’s recorded recollections of Christ’s Words are verbatim (Mt. 26:34,75; Acts 1:5; 11:16). John 21:15-17 provides an indisputable example of Christ repeating teaching several times with different Words. If He can do it here, why can He not have actually spoken the same teaching on either the same or different occasions? Christ promised that the Spirit would bring to the minds of the writers of Scripture "whatsoever I have said unto you" (John 14:26).

While it is important to seek reconciliation of the gospel accounts for exegetical and apologetical purposes, to argue for a vox position because it makes reconciliation of the synoptics simpler is to come at the issue from an improper perspective. The saint must first see what Scripture teaches, and evaluate everything else from the presupposition of the absolute truthfulness of everything found in the Bible; to take the "evidence" first and try to accommodate Scripture to it is to live by sight, not by faith (Hab. 2:4), and to suppose that "facts" can exist and be evaluated independently from the truth of the God of Scripture—essentially an unstated presupposition of atheism. Furthermore, traditional non-redactive methods of harmonization are able to solve problems in Scripture without compromise on Biblical statements on inspiration. Scripture records clear instances where Christ repeated Himself in different words within individual gospels on what can hardly be viewed as amalgamations of different sources (cf. Mk. 10:23,24; Jn. 21:15-17); why cannot verbal differences among the synoptics be instances of the same sort of repetition, so that the gospels at times record different sets what are with equal truth the Words of Christ?

A good article that will answer this question is at: www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj12d.pdf

How can you hold to the theory that Jesus was merely translating from the Hebrew behind the MT tradition when there are times when His quotations differ significantly enough from the Hebrew Text so as to make it such that a literal translation of the Hebrew would not have made His point? Specifically, I would ask you to deal with the passage I reference above - Matthew 13:14-15.

You could translate the Hebrew text of Isaiah 6:9 in the imperative or in the future. The Old Testament text renders them in the imperative and the New Testament quotation, an accurate one renders them in the future. Since the words may be understood the way they were used in Matthew 13:14, this vindicates this citation of them. Many Jewish commentators actually render the OT text in the future just like the NT text does in Mt. 13. This is an English translation of a Greek text rendering of a Hebrew text. We shouldn't be surprised when they are not exactly the same.

Thomas Ross adds: Why not just say that the NT is "targumming" or paraphrasing, rather than intending to give a direct, word for word translation? We do this all the time: "the bible says that if you don't get saved you will be eternally lost," etc. "The Bible says to obey the pastor, Hebrews 13:17." Why can't the gospels do this as well?

I continue: By the way, when I satisfy the demands of a question, does that mean a person is now willing to believe instead of continuing questioning? At what point should I require faith in God's promises of preservation and availability, Scriptural presuppositions, before we continue?

How do you defend a very literal reading of Mt. 5:18 that not one jot or tittle will pass from God's Word in light of the fact that prior to Erasmus (the vast majority of the church age) there was no agreement as to any 'preserved text' to the degree of 'jots and tittles' having been preserved?

I don't have evidence there wasn't agreement. Have you ever seen evidence besides reading Metzger and Ehrman? My Capel quote above states the positions that God's people have taken.

Thomas Ross adds: Actually, you don't have Baptist churches questioning what the words were before the Reformation era. There was agreement on the words. The words in the mss that the churches had became the printed TR. Notice that the NT never, ever says something like "manuscripts of the OT have been corrupted here" or something like that. The received OT was perfect, in that all the words were available and God's people could know where they were to live by them. And, based on Scripture, the received NT was also always perfectly available.

In what way had God preserved 'jots and tittles' in the NT manuscripts prior to Erasmus and the Textus Receptus?

My assumption, based upon my presuppositions, is that the Words were available. I haven't said that they were all available in one place at one time. I can't prove they were or they weren't. We don't possess the exact physical copies that were available to them at that time, and we never will. What we might find today doesn't represent what they had. I believe all the Words were generally accessible. I believe God's Word is perfect. I believe God promised preservation of every one of them.

Thomas Ross adds: We aren't responsible to know how a Waldensian church in the 1100's knew where the Words of God were. We are responsible to know where they are today. Scripture says we can know, so we can know. We don't even know how the Waldenses managed to not all get killed, but they did somehow--we can see that they were still around in the 1600s.

Did He preserve a little in this text and a little in that text prior to Erasmus putting them together in one? If so, in what sense is this a preserved text at all?

I would answer this the same way as I did the previous question.

Some are not satisfied with these answers, I'm sure. I am. They are answers based on Scriptural presuppositions. I won't stagger in unbelief at the promises of God.

Here are some questions for anyone else:
How can you add or take away from something that isn’t settled? In other words, what difference does Revelation 22:18, 19 make?
How is the Bible considered perfect if there are errors in it? If the errors aren’t related to the words, then what difference does verbal inspiration make? What is the Scriptural basis for errors in the Bible?
Where does the Bible say there would be sixty-six books? If it doesn’t say, then how do we know there are not more or less?

What is the pre-19th century historic basis for the doctrine of the errancy of Scripture, that is, the history of assuming that we don't know what the Words are or that there are errors in Scripture?

What is the historic position on the preservation of Scripture?

What is your developed Scriptural position on the doctrine of preservation that you have believed and believed before you began examining textual criticism?

What was Paul telling Timothy in 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 that was profitable for doctrine, correction, etc.? If every Word and all of them was necessary for thoroughly furnishing us to every good work, then how could we do that without all of them?

When Jesus told us that man shall live by every Word in Matthew 4:4, should we assume that He meant that we would not have every Word?

When something passes away like heaven and earth will pass away, does that mean that it will disappear? If God's Words are not going to pass away or jots and tittles are not going to pass away, does that mean that we are still going to possess them?

Was the Critical Text available for believers from c. 1525-1825?

Does Scripture teach anywhere that man was responsible for restoring a lost text?

Can you show me physical, tangible evidence that the Ben Chayyim Hebrew Masoretic and the Scrivener TR are not the same words as the original manuscripts?

What is the tangible, physical evidence that we have for continued preservation of our salvation by God even though we sin many times after we have been justified? If there is no physical, tangible evidence, then why should we believe that God preserves our salvation despite our errors?

Where does Scripture say that a miracle is a greater and more thorough act of God than providence? Is something that God does providentially less God than it is when God does something miraculously?

In light of the following quote by E. D. Morris, expert on the Westminster divines, who contributed to Philip Schaff's History of the Christian Church, do you believe that the one-Bible-belief started in the 1970s or the mid-twentieth century?

As a Professor in a Theological Seminary, it has been my duty to make a special study of the Westminster Confession of Faith, as have I done for twenty years; and I venture to affirm that no one who is qualified to give an opinion on the subject, would dare to risk his reputation on the statement that the Westminster divines ever thought the original manuscripts of the Bible were distinct from the copies in their possession.

I'll be looking forward to those answers!! And then I will have more questions! Seeing that our position, according to MVO men, is intellectually bankrupt, laughable, and an embarrassment, these should be easy to answer for them!! Please do!!

The War against Certainty

Benjamin Franklin is given credit for saying: "In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes." Influential nineteenth-century, liberal, British thinker John Stuart Mill wrote: "There is no such thing as absolute certainty, but there is assurance sufficient for the purposes of human life." I don't believe either of those guys lined up with God in this matter of certainty. I'm certain that God not only wants us to be certain, but He provided all the evidence we needed to be certain.

In his two volume, fifty-two chapter history of the life of Christ and the first thirty years of the church, containing more words than all of Paul's epistles, the physician Luke said in his prologue to both those books (Luke 1:4) that his purpose was certainty:

That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Notice that Luke didn't say, "That thou mightest know the high probability of those things." He wanted the Roman government official, Theophilus, and therefore us, to be sure about Christianity. Luke used the word "certain" to describe his purpose in writing. Before he does so, he establishes the reliability of what he wrote. It could be corroborated by the best of sources, including many, various eyewitnesses and the apostles ("ministers of the word," Lk. 1:1, 2).

Wikipedia says about "certainty":

Certainty is the state of being without doubt. It is total security from error. Certainty is the continuity and validity of all foundational inquiry. Something is certain only if no skepticism can occur. Philosophy (at least historically) seeks this state. Epistemology is the study of knowledge, certainty, and truth. Contemporary views of knowledge, both in philosophy and in general, do not demand certainty. It is widely held that certainty is a failed historical enterprise. A common alternative is "justified true belief."

According to modern philosophy, certainty has gone extinct. Now all we can expect, according to contemporary thinking, is a satisfactory level of probability. However, this is to say in my thinking that the Bible cannot be trusted.

Why is it that we cannot be certain any longer on matters of faith and practice, and, therefore, philosophy? Where is it that uncertainty comes from? The uncertainty and doubt all relates to the highest authority, God Himself, and His Word. To understand the answer to these questions, I believe we should recognize that there are essentially three general positions regarding the certainty of the Word of God. Only the first of these are Scriptural and historical. Going from most certain to least certain, they are:
1. Every Word of God Was Inspired and Has Been Preserved and Is Available
2. Every Word of God Was Inspired, but We're Not Sure that Every Word Has Been Preserved or Is Available
3. We Don't Have God's Word Today, and We May Never Have Had It

Views number 1 and 3 have been rampant for most of time. The second position became popular in the nineteenth century.

I'm a number one guy. Adherents of both one and two basically believe this: everyone will stand before God. For a moment, perhaps we can propel ourselves to that time right now by faith and consider ourselves as we face the Almighty. Do you believe that God will be angry with proponents of number one? How will He judge those holding to the second position? And then the third? Without faith it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6). Three is faithless. What is two?

What does uncertainty look like? I know. It looks like weakness. It is weak. People who aren't fully sure about something can't approach obedience to God with the same kind of courage and passion as those who are certain. Uncertainty leads to capitulation. If we can't be sure, then why should we practice as strongly ourselves or why should we expect others to do the same?

Satan deals in doubt. He cultivates doubt by attacking the certainty of God's Word. "Hath God said?" he asks. Satan likes this answer from men: "He may have." Or, "I think so." God wants, "I know" or "I'm certain." Parts of professing Christianity that are hanging by a thread in the number two category don't believe that we can be certain about the interpretations of God's Word. If God couldn't preserve every Word for us to have and live by, how could we really know what He meant by what He said? But has God given enough evidence for us to be certain?

The second group above finds it too tough to be sure about the perfection of what we presently call "the Word of God." They don't think anyone could sufficiently prove a position that says that we know what all those Words are. They think we have all the doctrines, but we're just guessing in an educated way about what some of the Words are. The great barrier that they can't surmount is that God would consolidate all of the Words from various and differing hand made copies into one perfect, printed edition. That would take a miracle, one that is difficult to explain. All miracles are not easy to comprehend, but this one they find incomprehensible. It is hard to believe because God didn't announce which edition was the perfect one. He didn't put out His heavenly neon arrow pointing at the volume with all the right Words. And all of academia and scholarship says that there is no way that anything like that happened. If a miracle of preservation was going to happen, they think it is would just look different than what it all looks---cleaner and more obvious---maybe something angelic or astronomical.

But isn't inspiration itself is something highly disagreed upon. Was it dictation? Did men swoon and begin unconsciously penning like string puppets? Did they write some good stuff that God later approved? Did they take down eyewitness testimony and collate documents that they amalgamated into one book? Did they cobble together a decent account from multiple sources of oral communication? What settles inspiration for us is the explanation we get in Scripture. We weren't there when it happened. We didn't see it. We weren't the ones God used in inspiration. We go ahead and take what God said at face value. When we see apparent contradictions, we harmonize them out of respect for Divine authorship. We defend the faith.

I believe that a miracle of preservation, what we might also call providential preservation, occurred in the silent fashion that God so often works. That's also how He inspired. He used common men of little renown. He expects men to see His hand in history. God regularly calls on this kind of trust throughout Scripture. A lot of what He does is beyond some of our capacity to comprehend. It isn't something that is easy to explain, but God wants us to believe it anyway. He has given us enough evidence in His promises, in a tall stack of manuscripts, and in the validation of a remnant of believers that we should assume that we have the exact Words. This is a belief that men have had in the past, despite slips of the pen and scribal emendations.

The Greek word translated in the English as "certainty" is a compound word that essentially means, "not tripping." When God sent Abram to the Promised Land, Abram couldn't see it, but he went. Romans 4 says that he staggered not in unbelief. Abram wasn't tripped up by things he couldn't see.

God wants us to continue to take steady steps of faith in His promises of preservation and to speak with certainty about His one Bible, His perfect Book. We dishonor God when we don't. We don't please Him. And in so doing, we encourage and then tolerate various levels of disobedience to God. We're tripped up, but we also become a block that causes others to stumble.


This is the first in a series.

Is KJVO a Great Danger to Historic Fundamentalism? part three

Mike Harding is a well-known pastor in the midwest, who is on many various fundamental boards, including the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship. He is also one of the authors of God's Word in our Hands, a contribution from the fundamentalist electic text crowd to their view of the text issue. Mike Harding has written recently that using the KJV only (which I've explained in the other two posts) is:
1. A Great Danger
2. The Greatest Embarassment to Historic Fundamentalism
3. Intellectually Bankrupt
4. Dishonest
5. Laughable
6. Serious in Its Consequences
7. A New Sect

I've been analyzing his claim, essentially showing how that it is just the opposite. It will be up to you to decide. Obviously, God is our final judge and He is the One we should all be concerned about. I hope we all keep that in mind, that is, that we want to take the biblical position, the one that honors the Almighty.

So far I've covered #1-4, and now we continue.

5. Laughable

I can honestly say that I've never been able to laugh at false doctrine. Even if KJVO were false doctrine, how is it something to laugh at? I've thought about how funny I think the critical text and eclectic guys are with their positions, and I can't scrape up one chuckle out of their positions. I get only sorrow or anger. I can't even feel ambivalent about their position, let alone laugh at it. Don't get me wrong; I'm not against laughing. It has crossed my mind to ridicule them. It's just that some things aren't funny---false doctrine is one of those.

But Mike Harding finds KJVO to be laughable. I have to say that I find this often to be the case with fundamentalists of Harding's stripe. It is completely mean-spirited, not in fitting with a scriptural Christian testimony. I'm not saying he's not saved; I'm saying that laughing about these kinds of things doesn't fit with what the Bible describes as Christian character. It's one thing to laugh, but another thing to report it as if he is proud of laughing.

To these guys, "laughable" stands as some sort of argument. You should all know that it doesn't work as an argument to anyone except to one influenced by such carnal weaponry as being laughed at. We see this type of strategy with the unbelievers in 2 Peter 3. They laugh (scoff) at the doctrine of the second coming. It's laughable to them. Why? Because they can't see Christ. He hasn't shown up, even though He promised He would come. They laugh to intimidate. I can't be happy about this kind of laughter.

I guess that "laughable" would be to say that the perfect preservation of Scripture position is stupid. In Scripture, doubting God is stupid. In the end it is God Who will laugh at those who don't trust Him. "He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision" (Psalm 2:4).

6. Serious In Its Consequences

This one is very much like "a great danger," mentioned earlier. What are the consequences of believing that there is only one Bible? Harding says they are serious. In my opinion, they are only seriously good, so in that way, I agree with him. The consequences of KJVO are seriously good. However, I do think that believing that we have options when it comes to the Bible has very serious, bad consequences. People often stop trusting Scripture. When I go door-to-door in evangelism, many times I hear inviduals tell me that there are "so many Bibles out there." That's reason enough for them not to believe the Bible. How can they know "which Bible is true?" This has been created by the many versions of the Bible that all have different words. And they do. And this is Harding's position, the one that causes this kind of doubt.

And then there is the matter of inerrancy. The MVO (Multiple Version Only) people go all over the place with this, and everything has become extremely convoluted. They tell people that there are up to 7% differences between texts, and yet the Bible is inerrant. And then when you look at the Critical Text, you see actual errors and contradictions in the text. And they say that it doesn't matter, because all the doctrines of the Bible are still in there. They say that not all the errors were purposeful, only some of them. And they say that we don't know what the original words were, but we do know that those words were perfect. And how can we trust that? How can we trust that the Words were perfect in the originals? They say that God could keep men from putting errors in the original, but that He hasn't been able to do that or hasn't chosen to (even though He promised He would) with the copies that we still have.

And has this made a difference? Of course it has. People often believe the Bible is without error and then these MVO men get their teeth into these professing believers. Man after man has turned from the faith because they once thought the Bible was perfect. Do they really want to give up the world and the pleasures of sin for something that doesn't sound like it is so sure? And these MVO guys say that it is sure enough. But is it perfect?

Cults and false religions have a field day with "mistakes" in the Bible, constantly quoting MVO men to make their point. They feel justified in taking a stand against Scripture because of the teaching from the MVO that there are errors in the Bible.

Do you see where the really serious consequences are? They are not with the people that believe there is only one Bible.

7. A New Sect

There are really two parts to this charge from Harding and James Price. Are those of the belief that there is only one Bible a sect? And is this belief new? We should understand what a "sect" is first. Wikipedia says:

In the sociology of religion a sect is generally a small religious or political group that has broken off from a larger group, for example from a large, well-established religious group, like a denomination, usually due to a dispute about doctrinal matters. In its historical usage in Christendom the term has a pejorative connotation and refers to a movement committed to heretical beliefs and that often deviated from orthodox practices.

Notice that Wikipedia recognizes that the word "sect" is a pejorative term. That's what Price and then Harding are doing. What is a pejorative, by the way? Wikipedia says:

A word is a term of derision, or a phrase is pejorative, if it implies contempt or disapproval. The adjective pejorative is synonymous with derogatory, derisive, and dyslogistic. When used as an adjective, pejorative has two meanings: (1) tending to make or become worse, and (2) tending to disparage or belittle. When used as a noun, pejorative means "a belittling or disparaging word or expression."

So Price and Harding are being purposefully derisive with their term "sect," in an attempt to belittle KJVO men. It accomplishes very little to deride someone, but that's what the MVO people choose to do. It's how they are. They are name-callers. Name calling is the MVO modus operandi. How intelligent do you believe that this kind of mud-slinging is? Just asking. Because it does remind me of the ancient Chinest proverb:

He who throws mud loses ground.

Of course, if it is new, then maybe KJVO is a sect. But is it? Or is it possible that the new belief is the MVO belief? The truth is that the MVO position is the new position, rising up in the same era as the Jehovah Witnesses, the Campbellites, and the Mormons. Calling a position of 'only one Bible' something new is sheer revisionism. However, it is important to the MVO people to create their fake history. They must make the Scriptural belief in preservation look brand new.

How do they make the position of one Bible look new? When you read God's Word in our Hands and Sproul's God's Word Preserved, they spend a big chunk of their books attempting to invent their history. Go ahead and read them yourselves. They go back into the 17th century with a few quotes, including the preface of the KJV by the translators, to show that men were not against improving a translation. That is a non-point, a totally moot issue. It doesn't make any difference at all regarding one Bible. Then they go into the 18th and 19th century doing the same thing, that is, giving quotes that show that men didn't mind changing the words of the translation to give the sense of their meaning. Again, these quotes don't show at all that these men didn't believe in one Bible. Around the end of the 19th century and into the 20th century, you start reading quotes of men who thought it was fine to tweak the words in the actual text of Scripture. Of course, this was after the rise of Biblical criticism and then the work of Westcott and Hort, the Revised Edition of 1881, and then especially Benjamin Warfield's brand new interpretation of the Westminster Confession of Faith. Warfield loosely constructed the WCF, reading textual criticism into "providentially preserved," and giving the MVO guys the history that they didn't have. Now the MVO's choose to believe that they have an ancient history. It is definitely the ostrich with the head in the sand. This is a common twist of "scholarship," that is, to invent a history when there is none. And they talk of "dishonest." This is dishonesty to the fullest degree. If they have any honesty and intelligence, they would do away with this tactic, which is all it is, a strategy.

And now the MVO books spend page after page stating the new history. On top of that, they invent a history for one Bible people with the whole Wilkinson (the 7th Day Adventist) and David Otis Fuller history. Believe me; God's people have believed in one Bible and that God preserved all His Words perfectly. That's what history shows. I have no doubt that Wilkinson and Fuller believed the same, but they did not start the belief in one Bible. I've written enough on this before, so I'm going to provide links to other things I have written to show the true history of the only one Bible belief (here, here, here, and here; also look at some of Bro. Tom Ross's writing here).

Mike Harding and others are hanging on to a belief with great tenacity that is bereft of Scriptural presuppositions. You should judge for yourself and not be intimidated by their ridicule and bullying tactics. God's Word is perfect. Every Word is preserved and accessible to God's people.

Is KJVO a Great Danger to Historic Fundamentalism? part two

The multiple version only crowd (MVO) claims scholarship. They talk about themselves like they're the intellectual branch of fundamentalism. They also claim to exegete. And then when you engage them in discussion on almost any issue, they back up the dump truck full of name-calling and propaganda techniques. The entire title to a new book, written by James Price, does this very thing. He couldn't help himself from calling the book: King James Onlyism: A New Sect. In light of his comments that KJVO is intellectually bankrupt, laughable, and dishonest, it would be no wonder that this is the book that Mike Harding presently really recommends. I haven't read Price's book and maybe I will. It is rather expensive ($35). Calling KJVO a "sect" doesn't seem like a way to change anyone's mind. It seems like a book that might find some interest among the rabid anti-KJV crowd, as if they could become any more cemented in their position.

Is it true, what Mike Harding says, that KJVO, the use of the King James Version only as an English translation (I do use Green's interlinear, JFYI, and of course the received Greek and Hebrew texts), is:
1. A Great Danger?
2. The Greatest Embarassment to Historic Fundamentalism?

3. Intellectually Bankrupt?

4. Dishonest?

5. Laughable?

6. Serious in Its Consequences?

I'm going to add one more.

7. A New Sect?

I dealt with two of these in part one. Of course, I say "no," and that actually it is just the opposite of what Harding says. Let's continue.

3. Intellectually Bankrupt

What really is intellectual? Fundamentalists have long been known by new evangelicals as anti-intellectual. Some of them don't like it. They want to be considered at least as scholarly as their evangelical counterparts and they think that the KJVOers make fundamentalism look stupid. Again, it all depends on what is intellectual. Is the "wisdom of this world" intellectual? Are the "traditions of men" intellectual? Or is it "wisdom that is from above?" Wisdom from above would be the Bible. We don't think it is smart to deny Scripture (which they do). We think God is smarter than anyone and we think it's dumb to contradict what He said, even if it doesn't fit into our own reasoning or supposed evidence. Unfortunately, "intelligent" on this issue means: what do Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman say? Bart Ehrman is an unbelieving agnostic and Bruce Metzger was his mentor and someone willing to collaborate with Ehrman. And yet a huge chunk of God's Word in Our Hands (GWIOH, to which Harding contributed) is actually direct quote from or recycled Bruce Metzger. Bruce Metzger is also the major source of Daniel B. Wallace's attack on preservation.

One of the commonly heard statements of the MVO "intellectuals" is found on pp. 171, 172 of One Bible Only, the Bauder and Beacham book on this issue. They write:

Many scholars, however, have devoted their entire lives to comparing the manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. None of them has ever been able to demonstrate that any two Greek manuscripts are identical. We may conclude that, like snowflakes and fingerprints, every manuscript differs from any other manuscript in some respects.

I hear a nearly identical refrain in almost every article I read supporting MVO. How many that make this quotation do you think have looked at every manuscript? How many? Really. How many of the men who commonly use this statement to support their position, a major statement, have seen every manuscript of the New Testament. Where are all those manuscripts? How does one look at every single one of them?

The statement above is not footnoted. That means that they know what they are saying personally (the same undocumented statement is said here, here, here, here, and here). They are not quoting someone that they "know" has looked. I don't know if anyone has actually validated this claim by looking himself. And yet it is regularly stated as a significant reason to back their view. If they don't know themselves personally, aren't they relying on what someone is saying, what a man is saying. In other words, they are placing their faith in a man. Is that intelligent? I wonder if Mike Harding or James D. Price has looked at every manuscript. I don't think so. Media experts claim that, when a statement is repeated enough times, no matter how inaccurate, the public will eventually believe it. Does that make it intelligent? Talk about a leap in the dark. They've taken the leap.

Even if this mantra of the MVO were true, which I have not yet seen documented by someone who has actually seen every manuscript, it doesn't change what we KJVO believe about the preservation of Scripture. The above oft-repeated statement doesn't even deal with our position (making it either a strawman or a red herring). We believe that God has preserved every letter and every Word of God in the language in which they were written and made them generally accessible to believers of every generation. We haven't said that Scripture advocates the preservation of one perfect physical copy for all times. Scripture doesn't teach that. And yet, they're the intelligent ones. Maybe you don't get it. Neither do I.

4. Dishonest

This one I don't get. I haven't been dishonest about anything. I've made some typos and grammatical errors at times, but I haven't been dishonest. I'll wait for someone to show us how we were dishonest with Thou Shalt Keep Them (presently on sale at a very good price--$14 [one], $12 [two], $10 [3 or more]).

I do know that the other side has been dishonest. I know they have. They even claim their own dishonesty, unapologetically. But who cares? They're indifferent to it. The major thesis of their whole book (GWIOH), that God preserved every Word in the multiplicity of the original language copies, they deny in their footnotes.

Michael Sproul in his book, God's Word Preserved, lies about me. He never gave me the heads-up on the information he placed in the book. When I have attempted to contact him several times, he doesn't care that he lied about me in the book. He had already printed numerous copies, and admitting he lied would take away credibility. I wish that some of his buddies would take him to task for the lies, but they haven't. Let me enumerate the lies:

1. He lies in saying that I sent emails unsolicited to members of his church (p. 149). I sent emails to everyone on the public email list at my alma mater. I didn't single out anyone in any local church. None of those graduates had to have their email public. By having it public, they were soliciting mail from other graduates. That was the purpose of the list. I sent my emails to graduates of the same college, not to Sproul church members. If they happened to be in his church, that was no consequence.

2. He lies in saying that I wrote that on this issue what anyone else ever taught is unimportant (p. 149). I've never said anything like that. I've said that what is most important is what does God's Word say about it, and I said that in the introduction to Thou Shalt Keep Them.

3. He lies in saying that I try to attach myself to B. Myron Cedarholm in an ad for the book (p. 149). I didn't have to try to attach myself to him. I was attached to him. My position is his position. I first learned it from him when I was in high school.

I can go over several other lies that I've heard from the other side, but this is enough for now. Presently, Douglas Kutilek quotes me on an article from one of this websites that isn't a book that I have written. I had nothing to do with that book and he quotes me as having written in it. I've written him twice telling him to remove it, but he leaves it up. Is that dishonest? I don't mind, by the way, if the other side would be willing to clear these up. I'd be glad to let you all know, if that were the case.

[I'll finish this in one more article, hopefully. While you are waiting, here's an article that will indicate the danger of the MVO position.]