Recently I've taken up the cause of the preservation of Scripture, mainly in view of an edition of Frontline magazine, which has an article by David Shumate, entitled: "The Doctrine of Preservation: The Need of the Hour in the Bible Version Debate." John Vaughn referenced this same statement, "the doctrine of preservation is 'the need of the hour in the Bible-version debate.'" He refers to our book, Thou Shalt Keep Them, in his article.
In so many posts through the years, I've repeated the point that this doctrine of perfect preservation that we teach is the biblical and historical doctrine. I've mentioned that Dan Wallace agreed with this. I've mentioned that presentation of renowned historian, Richard A. Muller, and his Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 2: Holy Scripture : The Cognitive Foundation of Theology. The position we take is the one found in John Owen and Francis Turretin and the Westminster Confession of Faith and the London Baptist Confession of Faith, and more. Nothing else was taught as a position. There was not a debate on this fact.
Men know that it wasn't until we get Benjamin Warfield, reading a new position into the WCF, that we get the modern position. It's brand new. Warfield had his reasons for inventing it. It should be admitted that he did this. Admit it.
Of course, I know why men don't admit it. Dan Wallace does though. And again, we're talking about the doctrinal position on preservation. This is what Christians believe. Was there a total apostasy on the correct doctrine? This really needs to be established if we're going to go with a new doctrine and it should be developed by the theologians. Where are the developed doctrinal statements with the new position? And if not, why not?
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
Sunday, November 16, 2014
MacArthur and Piper and Driscoll: Case Study on God Wanting Ecclesiastical Separation and That It Should Matter
Sometimes you hear evangelicals say that fundamentalists define themselves by the doctrine of separation, when they should be delineating themselves by the gospel. Again, the reference for this that I most often hear is 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, which starts, "For I delivered unto you first of all," which the New American Standard Version (NASV) translates, "For I delivered to you as of first importance," a translation that they use to buttress their point.
Later in the same chapter in verse 33, Paul writes, "Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners," which NASV translates, "Do not be deceived: Bad company corrupts good morals." The reason Paul gives for the doctrine of the bodily resurrection, so foundational to the gospel, being corrupted, was because of evil communications or bad company. You have to separate from people for the gospel to be preserved. If you love true doctrine, you have to do something about false doctrine and those who teach it. If you don't do anything more than talk about the false doctrine, you are not loving the true doctrine. You have to separate from it.
If separation really was popular, there sure isn't very much of it. I don't see it in evangelicalism. They don't write about it, except to mock it. Most of the attention is paid to what evangelicals call "unity," which isn't biblical unity, so it isn't unity. It's the kind of unity you see at a family reunion, where everyone agrees to keep the conversation on a few non-offensive subjects. There is far more talk about unity and emphasis on unity, very little to none on separation. So I talk about separation again, a word that you rarely hear in evangelicalism, except to ridicule.
In one very important sense, the gospel is separation. Jesus separates you from sin, and that is not just at the moment of justification, but in the ongoing sanctification that proceeds from justification. Noah and his family were saved by separating them. The wheat and the tares will be separated. 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1 say that those who are not separate are not God the Father's sons and daughters. In the end, salvation is separation of the spiritually dead into Hell and the alive into Heaven. The church is a place of separation, and that is the community of the gospel. The Bible separates error from truth, darkness from light, wrong from right, and the profane or common from the holy. You don't have a gospel that doesn't include separation in it or with it. Since God separates, we will separate. You will know that you are saved, because you will do that.
In a recent communication, John Piper, prominent evangelical was asked, "Do You Regret Partnering with Mark Driscoll?" You can read that Piper wrote, "John Piper has no regret for befriending Mark Driscoll," which is not answering the question. It is not a good statement, but Piper is not a separatist. He's being expected by conservative evangelicals to what? To separate? Where would he get instruction for doing that or how to do that? Evangelicals don't separate. They don't talk about separating. I think we should assume that "partnering" is "fellowshiping." If you were to "regret partnering" with another church in ministry, how would you avoid that regret? By separating. And for what reason? Where is this line of separation to be drawn?
At the Strange Fire Conference this year, a panel including John MacArthur and Phil Johnson were asked to comment on statements John Piper made about speaking in tongues. John MacArhur said (from 46:15 to 48:54):
This is in answer to Piper's position on speaking tongues, as seen in this statement (found in a clip played here beginning at 42:22 and ending at 43:44).
I'm only going to comment on this one situation, because I believe it so illustrative. In other words, this isn't a full fledged analysis, just a break down of this single instance as an example.
Piper does not separate over strange fire. Does Piper practice strange fire? From the content of the Strange Fire conference, yes, he does. Is strange fire a separating issue? It was and is to God. It should be to us. In an analysis of Piper's comments, he's seeking after a sign. He's allowing for it and encouraging it. He's praying for tongues, asking God to give them to him. And then he talks about God speaking to him, saying, "The Lord has always said to me." The Lord "said" that to Piper.
MacArthur doesn't separate from Piper. Why? He explains. (1) It's an "anomaly." (2) He's not propagating the false position. (3) Direct quote: "if we start shutting everybody down who has got one thing they are not clear on or . . . you know, we’re going to really find ourselves alone and uh, that’s going too far." (4) Piper does not deny what is essential to the Christian faith. And, (5) Love embraces faithful men. In a sense, this is the MacArthur code on separation and unity. Earlier, Phil Johnson argues for fellowship with Piper with the example of Samson -- Samson was in Hebrews 11 -- and he leaves the conclusion up to you on what you are supposed to do with that.
Piper right now is being pummeled directly for not having separated from Driscoll (here and here). Again, how are evangelicals to know how to separate from other evangelicals? They never talk about what separation is. They usually mock and attack separation by making it look like separatists mainly are doing 3rd and 4th degree separation and then separating from someone for wearing wire rim glasses and pleated pants. That's how they frame it.
Piper is not repentant of the false doctrine. He doesn't separate from strange fire. Should we ask John MacArthur and Phil Johnson, "Do you regret partnering with John Piper?" Should that question be asked?
Read the MacArthur code on separation above. Is any of that scriptural? Any of it? Where does he glean those five points from the Bible? To decide what to do, what scripture is he relying on? I contend that all five of them are horribly wrong. It is not an anomaly with John Piper. Then, he does propagate the position --- that's what he was doing with Driscoll and in the interview where he talked about wanting to speak in tongues, except God talked to him. And then, would MacArthur really be alone if he practiced biblical separation? Is being alone really going too far? MacArthur says it is. What verse do we have for "being alone," "going too far?" Jeremiah and Noah were alone. Jesus was often alone. Paul was sometimes alone. You don't determine the truth by how many people are supporting it. And then fifth, it isn't love that MacArthur is describing, but mere sentimentalism. His sentimentalism is what causes him to embrace this person.
What these men should consider is, "What does God say about separation?" And, "what does God want from me as to separation?" God wants it, so it does matter. Not wanting to be alone, is akin to Baruch in Jeremiah 45. He didn't want to be alone. But God told him to stop seeking great things for himself. Being alone is a form of suffering. God has called us to go outside the camp. That's what it means to be a Christian. MacArthur confuses that, and it does matter.
I'm happy too where these men embrace the truth, but that doesn't mean that we should partner with them and their churches. More than the essentials matter to God, and He wants to separate over more than them. Neither does he just want us talking about them, instructing about them, warning about them, but also actually separating from them. You have a conference about something really bad and then keep fellowshiping with it -- that isn't what God would do.
For more on separation, order and read A Pure Church.
Later in the same chapter in verse 33, Paul writes, "Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners," which NASV translates, "Do not be deceived: Bad company corrupts good morals." The reason Paul gives for the doctrine of the bodily resurrection, so foundational to the gospel, being corrupted, was because of evil communications or bad company. You have to separate from people for the gospel to be preserved. If you love true doctrine, you have to do something about false doctrine and those who teach it. If you don't do anything more than talk about the false doctrine, you are not loving the true doctrine. You have to separate from it.
If separation really was popular, there sure isn't very much of it. I don't see it in evangelicalism. They don't write about it, except to mock it. Most of the attention is paid to what evangelicals call "unity," which isn't biblical unity, so it isn't unity. It's the kind of unity you see at a family reunion, where everyone agrees to keep the conversation on a few non-offensive subjects. There is far more talk about unity and emphasis on unity, very little to none on separation. So I talk about separation again, a word that you rarely hear in evangelicalism, except to ridicule.
In one very important sense, the gospel is separation. Jesus separates you from sin, and that is not just at the moment of justification, but in the ongoing sanctification that proceeds from justification. Noah and his family were saved by separating them. The wheat and the tares will be separated. 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1 say that those who are not separate are not God the Father's sons and daughters. In the end, salvation is separation of the spiritually dead into Hell and the alive into Heaven. The church is a place of separation, and that is the community of the gospel. The Bible separates error from truth, darkness from light, wrong from right, and the profane or common from the holy. You don't have a gospel that doesn't include separation in it or with it. Since God separates, we will separate. You will know that you are saved, because you will do that.
In a recent communication, John Piper, prominent evangelical was asked, "Do You Regret Partnering with Mark Driscoll?" You can read that Piper wrote, "John Piper has no regret for befriending Mark Driscoll," which is not answering the question. It is not a good statement, but Piper is not a separatist. He's being expected by conservative evangelicals to what? To separate? Where would he get instruction for doing that or how to do that? Evangelicals don't separate. They don't talk about separating. I think we should assume that "partnering" is "fellowshiping." If you were to "regret partnering" with another church in ministry, how would you avoid that regret? By separating. And for what reason? Where is this line of separation to be drawn?
At the Strange Fire Conference this year, a panel including John MacArthur and Phil Johnson were asked to comment on statements John Piper made about speaking in tongues. John MacArhur said (from 46:15 to 48:54):
With someone like John Piper, that is a complete anomaly. That is just so . . . off everything else about him. . . . It’s not that he speaks in tongues, it’s not that he prophesies, he’s admitted that. It’s just that there is this anomaly in his mind that is open to that. That’s the way he’s always stated that, that he’s open to that, he’s open to that. He’s even made statements like, ‘I don’t know, I’m not sure, I don’t know exactly what to think about all of this.’ That’s a far cry from the propagation side of it and so I look at this with him and even with Wayne Grudem who has made such immense contributions in so many ways, as an anomaly, and I don’t know, and I don’t need to know, where the impulse for this comes from, where the influence comes from. Sometimes it comes from family, sometimes it comes from a spouse, you know we see that, we understand that, I don’t know where these influences come from. But I do know the great body of work that John Piper has done is true to the faith. And John is a friend whom I not only admire but whom I love. And I don’t know why on this front he has that open idea but it is . . . it is not an advocacy position for the movement and he would and he would join us in decrying the excesses of that movement for sure and even the theology of it. So I think if we start shutting everybody down who has got one thing they are not clear on or . . . you know, we’re going to really find ourselves alone and uh, that’s going too far. I have no fear that John would ever tamper with anything that is essential to the Christian faith, starting from theology proper all the way through to the return of the Lord Jesus Christ, he’s going to be faithful to the word of God as he understands it in a historical sense. Uh, how to explain anomalies like this. . . . I think at this point this is where love comes in to embrace faithful men . . . .
This is in answer to Piper's position on speaking tongues, as seen in this statement (found in a clip played here beginning at 42:22 and ending at 43:44).
But I thought of tongues, and I said I haven’t asked for tongues for a long time. I just paused, I’m walking back and forth in my living room, Tala is up in her room, Noel is at the gym. And I said, “Lord, I’m still eager to speak in tongues. Would You give me that gift?” Now at that point you can try to say banana backwards if you want to. I used to sit in the car outside church, singing in tongues. But I knew I wasn’t. I was just making it up. And I said this isn’t it. I know this isn’t it. But this is what they try to get you to do if you’re in that certain group. And I just…I did everything to try to open myself to this and the Lord has always said to me, without words, “No.” No. But He never just said no, He always said, “John Piper, I have given you a gift, I’ve given you the gift of teaching, of preaching, of shepherding. You shepherd the prophets. You shepherd the tongue speakers. I’m not going to give it to you.”
But I don’t assume that’s His last word, and so every now and then I’m just going to go back to him like a child and say, “A lot of my brothers and sisters have this toy…this gift, can I have it, too?”
I'm only going to comment on this one situation, because I believe it so illustrative. In other words, this isn't a full fledged analysis, just a break down of this single instance as an example.
Piper does not separate over strange fire. Does Piper practice strange fire? From the content of the Strange Fire conference, yes, he does. Is strange fire a separating issue? It was and is to God. It should be to us. In an analysis of Piper's comments, he's seeking after a sign. He's allowing for it and encouraging it. He's praying for tongues, asking God to give them to him. And then he talks about God speaking to him, saying, "The Lord has always said to me." The Lord "said" that to Piper.
MacArthur doesn't separate from Piper. Why? He explains. (1) It's an "anomaly." (2) He's not propagating the false position. (3) Direct quote: "if we start shutting everybody down who has got one thing they are not clear on or . . . you know, we’re going to really find ourselves alone and uh, that’s going too far." (4) Piper does not deny what is essential to the Christian faith. And, (5) Love embraces faithful men. In a sense, this is the MacArthur code on separation and unity. Earlier, Phil Johnson argues for fellowship with Piper with the example of Samson -- Samson was in Hebrews 11 -- and he leaves the conclusion up to you on what you are supposed to do with that.
Piper right now is being pummeled directly for not having separated from Driscoll (here and here). Again, how are evangelicals to know how to separate from other evangelicals? They never talk about what separation is. They usually mock and attack separation by making it look like separatists mainly are doing 3rd and 4th degree separation and then separating from someone for wearing wire rim glasses and pleated pants. That's how they frame it.
Piper is not repentant of the false doctrine. He doesn't separate from strange fire. Should we ask John MacArthur and Phil Johnson, "Do you regret partnering with John Piper?" Should that question be asked?
Read the MacArthur code on separation above. Is any of that scriptural? Any of it? Where does he glean those five points from the Bible? To decide what to do, what scripture is he relying on? I contend that all five of them are horribly wrong. It is not an anomaly with John Piper. Then, he does propagate the position --- that's what he was doing with Driscoll and in the interview where he talked about wanting to speak in tongues, except God talked to him. And then, would MacArthur really be alone if he practiced biblical separation? Is being alone really going too far? MacArthur says it is. What verse do we have for "being alone," "going too far?" Jeremiah and Noah were alone. Jesus was often alone. Paul was sometimes alone. You don't determine the truth by how many people are supporting it. And then fifth, it isn't love that MacArthur is describing, but mere sentimentalism. His sentimentalism is what causes him to embrace this person.
What these men should consider is, "What does God say about separation?" And, "what does God want from me as to separation?" God wants it, so it does matter. Not wanting to be alone, is akin to Baruch in Jeremiah 45. He didn't want to be alone. But God told him to stop seeking great things for himself. Being alone is a form of suffering. God has called us to go outside the camp. That's what it means to be a Christian. MacArthur confuses that, and it does matter.
I'm happy too where these men embrace the truth, but that doesn't mean that we should partner with them and their churches. More than the essentials matter to God, and He wants to separate over more than them. Neither does he just want us talking about them, instructing about them, warning about them, but also actually separating from them. You have a conference about something really bad and then keep fellowshiping with it -- that isn't what God would do.
For more on separation, order and read A Pure Church.
Friday, November 14, 2014
14 Reasons not to Ask Jesus into your Heart, part 1 of 3
Since the terminology of asking Christ into one's heart in order to be saved became popular in the 1950s, many millions of people have asked Jesus into their hearts and thought that they were saved because they did so. Since the clear truth of the gospel of Christ is that sinners become the children of God by repentant faith alone (Gal 3:26; Jn 3:16, 18, 36; 6:47; Rom 3:28; 4:5; 5:1), the overall teaching of Scripture makes it clear that you do not need to ask Jesus to come into your heart in order to be saved. However, there are many further reasons why salvation is not based on whether you pray such a prayer. We are going to cover 14 reasons in three posts; the first five reasons are below:
1.) The Bible never commands anyone to ask Jesus to come into his heart.
Despite the widespread use of this phrase in modern times, God’s Word never commands any lost sinner to ask Jesus to come into his heart. The Old Testament sacrifical system set forth the gospel in picture and pointed forward to Christ’s work on the cross. God gave Israel many extremely detailed instructions concerning the sacrificial animals and ritual so that the Lord Jesus Christ and His saving work would be properly pictured. Never once was there a command or a suggestion that any Jew was to ask into his heart the sacrifical animal or the coming Messiah the animal pictured. Furthermore, there are no examples in the New Testament of Christ telling people to ask Him into their hearts. Nor are there any examples of the Apostles telling anyone to ask Jesus into his heart. Someone who simply read the Bible would never conclude that asking Jesus into his heart is the way the lost are forgiven of their sin.
2.) Asking Jesus into your heart is not the way to be saved.
When a lost man asked the Apostle Paul, “What must I do to be saved?” the Apostle did not say, “Pray, ask Jesus into your heart, and you will be saved.” Paul said: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved” (Ac 16:30-31). Likewise, the Apostle Peter taught: “he that believeth on [Christ] shall not be confounded” (1 Pet 2:6). The Lord Jesus Himself regularly preached to the lost: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life” (Jn 6:47; 3:16, 18; 5:24; 6:35, 40; 11:25-26, etc.). According to Christ and the Apostles, the lost must believe on Christ to be saved, not ask Him into their heart.
3.) You can ask Jesus to come into your heart without repenting and without believing on Christ.
Scripture commands the lost, “Repent . . . that your sins may be blotted out” (Ac 3:19), and warns that “except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish” (Lu 13:3, 5). However, someone can ask Jesus to come into his heart without understanding his need to repent, without knowing what repentance is, without any desire to repent, and without ever repenting. If you ask Jesus into your heart ten thousand times, but never repent, you will perish. If you repent, but never ask Jesus into your heart, your sins will be blotted out. Likewise the Bible affirms: “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him” (Jn 3:36). Someone who asks Christ into his heart but never believes is still under the wrath of God, while someone who believes on Christ but never asks Him into his heart has everlasting life. Nor should you assume that you believed on the Lord Jesus because you asked Him into your heart. A lost man can ask Jesus into his heart without understanding or assenting mentally to the facts of the gospel. He can also assent mentally to the gospel and ask Christ into his heart without ever “believ[ing]” and “trust[ing] in Christ” (Eph 1:12-14). Saving faith involves understanding the gospel, assent to it, and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ (Heb 11:13), but asking Jesus into your heart does not require any of these three things.[1]
4.) Real salvation involves a miraculous work of the Holy Spirit, but no such work is required to ask Jesus into your heart.
All lost people are “dead in trespasses and sins” (Eph 2:1-3). Since sin has corrupted every part of their fallen nature (Jer 17:9), they have blinded eyes, hardened hearts, and minds unable to submit to God (Jn 12:40; Rom 8:7; 3:11). They are so utterly enslaved to sin (Rom 6:17) and Satan (2 Tim 2:26) that they are unable to repent or believe (Jn 12:40) apart from God in His grace miraculously drawing them to Himself. God must supernaturally give the lost the repentance (2 Tim 2:25) and faith (Phil 1:29) that they will never produce in themselves (Jn 3:6)—they will only believe “if God permit” (Heb 6:3). The Lord Jesus explained: “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him” (Jn 6:44). The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit must inwardly “teach” and “draw” the lost (Jn 6:44-45; 12:32; 16:8-11); the Son must supernaturally reveal the Father to them (Mt 11:27), and the Holy Spirit must “renew” them (Heb 6:6) and produce faith in them through the Word of God (Rom 10:17). Just as God took a world in darkness and miraculously and creatively spoke light into existence (Gen 1:3), so believers can say, “God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Cor 4:6). At the same moment a sinner is enabled to believe by God’s mighty grace, he is born again (Jn 3:5) and made a new creature (2 Cor 5:17). God miraculously shines His gracious light into his dark heart, renews him and makes him willing to come to Christ, gives him repentance and faith, draws him to embrace Christ, and raises him from spiritual death to spiritual life in a miracle as real as the physical resurrection of the Lord Jesus’ body from His tomb (Eph 2:1-6). A lost sinner coming to Christ in repentant faith is an astonishing display of Divine power that brings the new Christian into living fellowship with God (Jn 17:3; 1 Jn 1:3), removes his fundamental bent towards sin and creates a new bent toward holiness (Eze 36:26-27), and leaves him radically and permanently changed. On the other hand, nothing miraculous or supernatural must take place for someone to ask Jesus into his heart. A winsome personality, emotional music, manipulative salesmanship, psychological techniques, and many other merely human and natural traits have been sufficient to lead millions to ask Jesus to come into their hearts without any work of the the Holy Spirit whatsoever.
5.) Asking Jesus into your heart directs you away from what Christ has done to what you are doing.
The gospel is the good news that “Christ died for our sins . . . was buried, and . . . rose again the third day” (1 Cor 15:3-4). A lost sinner must not look to himself, his religious actions, or anything he has done, is doing, or will do for salvation. He must look away from and outside of himself to trust in what the Son of God accomplished in history when He paid the penalty for his sins on the cross and rose victoriously from the grave. The gospel call is: “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (Jn 1:29). The Savior declares: “Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth” (Is 45:21-22). The “preach[ing] of the gospel” is the “preaching of the cross”; when “Jesus Christ is evidently set forth [as] crucified,” then one is “preach[ing] the gospel” (1 Cor 1:17-18; Gal 3:1). On the other hand, the sinner who asks Jesus into his heart is very likely to look away from Christ to his own heart and to the fervency, sincerity, and attitude in which he made his prayer. He is likely to rely on the non-biblical promise, perhaps made to him by some zealous but misguided convert-maker, that if he will ask Jesus to come in he will be saved, instead of relying on the many Biblical promises made by God that all who believe on Christ will be saved. The best prayers, the greatest fervency, and the most complete sincerity ever found in a fallen man are but as filthy rags before God (Is 64:6)—there is no hope in them. The gospel is not that a sinner must pray, ask to be saved, and have faith that God will answer his prayer. The gospel is that Christ died in the place of sinful men, was buried, and rose again, and those that entrust themselves to Him are given eternal life (1 Cor 15:1-4). The lost must turn from every false hope—including the false hope that salvation is received by faith and prayer, rather than by faith alone in Christ alone—and place their confidence in what alone is a sure ground for their souls—the substitutionary death and shed blood of the Son of God.
These 14 reasons are a portion of a larger study which will not be reproduced on this blog at this time. The larger study can be accessed here.
[1] See “Bible Study #5: How Do I Receive the Gospel?” at http://faithsaves.net/Bible-studies/ for more on the nature of true repentance and saving faith.
Monday, November 10, 2014
Various Editions of the "Which TR?" Question in a Debate about the Preservation of Scripture
We have new youtube presentations of the 2014 Word of Truth Conference. Look here for all of them. And if you want to go straight to mine on Sentimentalism Versus Love and Doubt Versus Certainty, go to here 1, here 2, here 3, and here 4.
I got a Jews for Jesus mailing last week and it had their Christmas catalog. They sold several different mezuzahs, the piece to be placed on the doorpost with the shema inscribed. Shema is the first word of Deuteronomy 6:4, "Hear," in "Hear, O Israel." And then, "The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." Since there is only one Lord, He should be loved with all your heart, soul, and might. That love should not be divided with other gods or with yourself, but sanctified unto Him.
One Lord. Proceeding from Him is one Word. Not two. And yet, through many various unscriptural arguments, multiple version or critical or eclectic text supporters expect you to accept two, not one. From one Lord comes one Word. You can't accept two Lords. You can't accept two Words. You can't ever accept two Words, either in inspiration or preservation. And that is the biblical and historical position.
I move to the "Which TR?' question, which exists to argue for two Words.
From my observation and experience, which is opinion, but fairly scientific at this point in my life, the main arguments for "preservation" from the eclectic text, critical text, or various iterations of the multiple version position are really just attacks of the scriptural and historical position on preservation of scripture. They are motivated to write a book that could include a section on preservation in order to prove that we should keep restoring the text of scripture that is still not restored and will never be. That isn't preservation. Perhaps it is preservation, but only in the same sense that the cottage cheese is being preserved under the kitchen sink in that wastebasket. Sure, it's still there, but it has deteriorated from its original state. A sane person shouldn't swallow a non-restored-text view as preservation, even if told that we must do so to preserve unity among Christians.
I've read a lot of the criticism from the yet-to-be-restored-text people, and as I see it, their main argument is that if there is one word that could be different, then we have an opening for an eclectic text. Where does that stop? I don't know. There is no standard that I have read to guide on how much variation or error can be acceptable to those willing to accept any. Kevin Bauder writes in Only One Bible?
But Scripture teaches every Word preservation of itself. That is the doctrine we should accept, because it is what the Bible teaches. Every doctrine about scripture requires belief in biblical teaching -- inspiration, canonicity, authority, sufficiency, and preservation. Bauder would say that we also must prove that every Word we have is also in the original manuscripts, or else a position of perfect preservation is falsified. Really? The position of perfect preservation comes out of God's Word, so it must be true. God's Word is true.
If you take a biblical position on preservation of scripture, it will be verbal plenary preservation. But men like Bauder add something to the Bible, as though it is not sufficient on preservation, unlike all the other doctrines of bibliology. In addition to what the Bible says, they add that you also have to prove with empirical evidence that we have every Word. And "since we can't,' it is as he writes, "a debate over percentages." Is that what we should expect from reading the Bible? No one ever answers that. Imagine preaching that position to a church: "we're talking about what percentage of the Bible we have, not that we do have it, so be assured, brethren."
An additional red herring of the eclectic text and multiple version side, the opponents of preservation (which could only be perfect preservation), is that if there is one word that is brought into question, then, as Bauder has written, "Our discussion should turn from theologizing to the doing of textual criticism." Why? Why are Bauder and others sure about this binary choice, the existence of only two alternatives?
Our theologizing should give us one choice: what the Bible says. That's what we believe. Then I look at how the churches applied it. The position of Bauder and others is a recent one and in the tradition of modernism. It bifurcates truth into two stories: the top story, subjective and questionable, and then bottom story, objective and sure. The identity of the text is subjective and questionable, like theology. You should rely on science for the text, because science is objective and factual. This position is an apostatizing of bibliology. It's not how Christians have believed.
The attack on the one biblical position often takes shape with the question, "Which TR?" The editions of the received text of the New Testament are not identical. According to Bauder, this would mean we're now "debat[ing] over percentages" as well as "turn[ing] . . . to the doing of textual criticism." Understand that there is no biblical basis for this conclusion. It is the conclusion of the lower story that separates theology from science. But how do perfect preservationists answer the "Which TR?" question? This was recently asked in the blog comment section, "Where was the generally available perfectly verbally preserved text in AD 1829?" I'm going to answer "Which TR" in that form of the question.
I don't think there is anything significant to the year 1829. That's just random, but for the sake of the answer, I'm going to deal with only before 1829. I would think that the point of the question was to deal with verbal preservation before Scrivener 1881, the so-called "reconstructed Greek text behind the King James Version." I often say, "They translated from something." And Edward F. Hills, the summa cum laude graduate of Yale and PhD from Harvard in textual criticism, wrote that "the King James Version ought to be regarded not merely as a translation of the Textus Receptus but also as an independent variety of the Textus Receptus." Were the Words translated into the King James Version in the printed editions of the TR? Yes. Preachers who used the King James were studying from a Greek text. In 1815, Frederick Nolan had published An Inquiry Into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, Or Received Text of the New Testament. If the received text didn't exist, then how could there be a book written about its integrity? I add to this all the exegetical commentaries before 1829 from the received text and using the King James Version. How could they exegete from a text that did not exist? If we do write a second edition of Thou Shalt Keep Them, which deals with the history, I want to look into the quotations of exegetical commentaries from 1550 or so to 1881 to show that they were referring to those Words.
The biblical position on preservation says that all the Words were available to every generation of churches. If there are differences between the TR editions, they were minimal, so small in number relatively not to be considered to be different. But they are different. They vary. And this then brings us to the single word challenge of Bauder and others, where they say that one word of difference opens the door to the science of textual criticism and an ongoing and never ending "restoration" of the original text. No. Believers settled on the words. And this is where the doctrine of canonicity is applied to the Words -- the unity of the Spirit, the Spirit guiding believers. A settled text is required for "adding" and "taking away" to mean anything. It should be assumed.
From here, perfect preservation opponents engage in a game of "gotcha." They try to find places where the KJV misses on Scrivener or misses on Beza, looking for that one word of difference to send everyone in the direction that Bauder described, willy-nilly assuming a binary choice without regard of a scriptural and historical doctrine of preservation. This is an assumption against preservation. For sure, the Bible doesn't teach the need of restoration of the text. It does not. That should never be accepted. Just like with canonicity of 66 books, believers should be willing to live with the possible minor tensions of the arguments over those few words. This is what Hills called "the logic of faith." He wrote:
The one word for which opponents of verbal plenary or perfect preservation are seeking or desiring does not contradict the logic of faith. It does not veto the theology, the doctrine. That all stands. The "gotcha game" does not work.
Let God be true and every man a liar.
**************************
I got a Jews for Jesus mailing last week and it had their Christmas catalog. They sold several different mezuzahs, the piece to be placed on the doorpost with the shema inscribed. Shema is the first word of Deuteronomy 6:4, "Hear," in "Hear, O Israel." And then, "The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." Since there is only one Lord, He should be loved with all your heart, soul, and might. That love should not be divided with other gods or with yourself, but sanctified unto Him.
One Lord. Proceeding from Him is one Word. Not two. And yet, through many various unscriptural arguments, multiple version or critical or eclectic text supporters expect you to accept two, not one. From one Lord comes one Word. You can't accept two Lords. You can't accept two Words. You can't ever accept two Words, either in inspiration or preservation. And that is the biblical and historical position.
I move to the "Which TR?' question, which exists to argue for two Words.
From my observation and experience, which is opinion, but fairly scientific at this point in my life, the main arguments for "preservation" from the eclectic text, critical text, or various iterations of the multiple version position are really just attacks of the scriptural and historical position on preservation of scripture. They are motivated to write a book that could include a section on preservation in order to prove that we should keep restoring the text of scripture that is still not restored and will never be. That isn't preservation. Perhaps it is preservation, but only in the same sense that the cottage cheese is being preserved under the kitchen sink in that wastebasket. Sure, it's still there, but it has deteriorated from its original state. A sane person shouldn't swallow a non-restored-text view as preservation, even if told that we must do so to preserve unity among Christians.
I've read a lot of the criticism from the yet-to-be-restored-text people, and as I see it, their main argument is that if there is one word that could be different, then we have an opening for an eclectic text. Where does that stop? I don't know. There is no standard that I have read to guide on how much variation or error can be acceptable to those willing to accept any. Kevin Bauder writes in Only One Bible?
If they are willing to accept a manuscript or a text that might omit any words (even a single word) from the originals, or that might add any words (even a single word) to the originals, then their whole position is falsified. . . . If preservation does not really have to include every word, then the whole controversy is no more than a debate over percentages.
But Scripture teaches every Word preservation of itself. That is the doctrine we should accept, because it is what the Bible teaches. Every doctrine about scripture requires belief in biblical teaching -- inspiration, canonicity, authority, sufficiency, and preservation. Bauder would say that we also must prove that every Word we have is also in the original manuscripts, or else a position of perfect preservation is falsified. Really? The position of perfect preservation comes out of God's Word, so it must be true. God's Word is true.
If you take a biblical position on preservation of scripture, it will be verbal plenary preservation. But men like Bauder add something to the Bible, as though it is not sufficient on preservation, unlike all the other doctrines of bibliology. In addition to what the Bible says, they add that you also have to prove with empirical evidence that we have every Word. And "since we can't,' it is as he writes, "a debate over percentages." Is that what we should expect from reading the Bible? No one ever answers that. Imagine preaching that position to a church: "we're talking about what percentage of the Bible we have, not that we do have it, so be assured, brethren."
An additional red herring of the eclectic text and multiple version side, the opponents of preservation (which could only be perfect preservation), is that if there is one word that is brought into question, then, as Bauder has written, "Our discussion should turn from theologizing to the doing of textual criticism." Why? Why are Bauder and others sure about this binary choice, the existence of only two alternatives?
Our theologizing should give us one choice: what the Bible says. That's what we believe. Then I look at how the churches applied it. The position of Bauder and others is a recent one and in the tradition of modernism. It bifurcates truth into two stories: the top story, subjective and questionable, and then bottom story, objective and sure. The identity of the text is subjective and questionable, like theology. You should rely on science for the text, because science is objective and factual. This position is an apostatizing of bibliology. It's not how Christians have believed.
The attack on the one biblical position often takes shape with the question, "Which TR?" The editions of the received text of the New Testament are not identical. According to Bauder, this would mean we're now "debat[ing] over percentages" as well as "turn[ing] . . . to the doing of textual criticism." Understand that there is no biblical basis for this conclusion. It is the conclusion of the lower story that separates theology from science. But how do perfect preservationists answer the "Which TR?" question? This was recently asked in the blog comment section, "Where was the generally available perfectly verbally preserved text in AD 1829?" I'm going to answer "Which TR" in that form of the question.
I don't think there is anything significant to the year 1829. That's just random, but for the sake of the answer, I'm going to deal with only before 1829. I would think that the point of the question was to deal with verbal preservation before Scrivener 1881, the so-called "reconstructed Greek text behind the King James Version." I often say, "They translated from something." And Edward F. Hills, the summa cum laude graduate of Yale and PhD from Harvard in textual criticism, wrote that "the King James Version ought to be regarded not merely as a translation of the Textus Receptus but also as an independent variety of the Textus Receptus." Were the Words translated into the King James Version in the printed editions of the TR? Yes. Preachers who used the King James were studying from a Greek text. In 1815, Frederick Nolan had published An Inquiry Into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, Or Received Text of the New Testament. If the received text didn't exist, then how could there be a book written about its integrity? I add to this all the exegetical commentaries before 1829 from the received text and using the King James Version. How could they exegete from a text that did not exist? If we do write a second edition of Thou Shalt Keep Them, which deals with the history, I want to look into the quotations of exegetical commentaries from 1550 or so to 1881 to show that they were referring to those Words.
The biblical position on preservation says that all the Words were available to every generation of churches. If there are differences between the TR editions, they were minimal, so small in number relatively not to be considered to be different. But they are different. They vary. And this then brings us to the single word challenge of Bauder and others, where they say that one word of difference opens the door to the science of textual criticism and an ongoing and never ending "restoration" of the original text. No. Believers settled on the words. And this is where the doctrine of canonicity is applied to the Words -- the unity of the Spirit, the Spirit guiding believers. A settled text is required for "adding" and "taking away" to mean anything. It should be assumed.
From here, perfect preservation opponents engage in a game of "gotcha." They try to find places where the KJV misses on Scrivener or misses on Beza, looking for that one word of difference to send everyone in the direction that Bauder described, willy-nilly assuming a binary choice without regard of a scriptural and historical doctrine of preservation. This is an assumption against preservation. For sure, the Bible doesn't teach the need of restoration of the text. It does not. That should never be accepted. Just like with canonicity of 66 books, believers should be willing to live with the possible minor tensions of the arguments over those few words. This is what Hills called "the logic of faith." He wrote:
If we are Christians, then we must begin our thinking not with the assertions of unbelieving scholars and their naturalistic human logic, but with Christ and the logic of faith. For example, how do we know that the Textus Receptus is the true New Testament text? We know this through the logic of faith. . . . In biblical studies, in philosophy, in science, and in every other learned field we must begin with Christ and then work out our basic principles according to the logic of faith. . . . The defense of the Textus Receptus . . . is entailed by the logic of faith, the basic steps of which are as follows: First, the Old Testament text was preserved by the Old Testament priesthood and the scribes and scholars that grouped themselves around that priesthood (Deut. 31:24-26). Second, the New Testament text has been preserved by the universal priesthood of believers by faithful Christians in every walk of life (1 Peter 2:9). Third, the Traditional Text, found in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts, is the True Text because it represents the God-guided usage of this universal priesthood of believers. Fourth, The first printed text of the Greek New Testament was not a blunder or a set-back but a forward step in the providential preservation of the New Testament. . . . When we believe in Christ, the logic of faith leads us first, to a belief in the infallible inspiration of the original Scriptures, second, to a belief in the providential preservation of this original text down through the ages and third, to a belief in the Bible text current among believers as the providentially preserved original text. . . . In short, unless we follow the logic of faith, we can be certain of nothing concerning the Bible and its text.
The one word for which opponents of verbal plenary or perfect preservation are seeking or desiring does not contradict the logic of faith. It does not veto the theology, the doctrine. That all stands. The "gotcha game" does not work.
Let God be true and every man a liar.
Friday, November 07, 2014
Psalm 12:6–7 and Gender Discordance: the anti-KJV and anti-preservation argument debunked (again)
Psalm
12:6–7 states:
The
words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of
earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve
them from this generation for ever.
Opponents
of the perfect preservation of Scripture often claim that Psalm 12:6–7 cannot
refer to the preservation of the words of God because the two pronouns
"them" in verse seven are masculine in Hebrew, while in verse six
"words" is feminine. Therefore, opponents of preservation argue that
verse seven is not about the preservation of words, but refers to the persons
mentioned in verse five.
However,
such an argument does not take into account the facts of Hebrew grammar and
syntax. In the words of the standard reference work A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, Jouon & Muraoka, page 516:
The suffixed pronoun quite often takes the
masculine instead of the feminine, especially in the second person plural and
(mainly) in the third person plural. . . .
Examples include nominal suffixes (with noun and preposition): Gn 31.9 MRkyIbSa but vss. 5, 6 NRkyIbSa; Ru 1.9a MRkDl, but 9b NRhDl; 1.8 MRkD;mIo; Ex 2.17 MÃŽnOax, but 16 NRhyIbSa; even in a single verse (Nu 27.7), Nhl Nhyba .. Mhyba .. Mhl; likewise when talking about animals Gn 32.16
MRhy´n◊;b; 1Sm 6.7 MRhyElSo; or about things Gn 41.23 MRhyérSjAa. Examples of the sg.: Ex 11.6 ..
x◊oDqDh g◊dOlDh aCr k;DmOhw… la
nhyth a great cry
.. the like of which has never been;
Jdg 11.34 …wZ…nR;mIm wøl Nya .. h∂dyIj◊y ayh she was an only child .. he had none except for her.
Verbal suffixes: the suffix of the 2nd pers. fem. pl. is wanting in all the
verbal forms; and the suffix of the 3rd pers. fem. pl. is wanting in most (cf.
Paradigm 3): Jdg 16.3 MEoD;sˆ¥yÃ…w (referring to the doors twøtDl√;d); Pr 6.21 Mér◊vDq; 1Sm 6.10 M…wr◊sAaÃ…¥yÃ…w.
Note that the Hebrew reference
grammar indicates that the third person feminine plural suffix is not even
found in most verbal forms – yet this is the form that opponents of
preservation allege must be present if Psalm 12:7 is to refer to the
preservation of the words of verse six.
The statements of the
grammar are confirmed by the evidence. In fact, a comprehensive search of the
Old Testament reveals that the type of verb found in Psalm 12:7 for “keep” and
“preserve”—a qal imperfect second masculine singular—never, I repeat, never
even once has a third person feminine plural suffix in the entire Old
Testament. By way of contrast, qal imperfect second masculine singular verbs have
third person masculine plural suffixes in numerous passages, such as, in the
Psalter, Psa 2:9; 12:8; 21:10, 13; 31:21; 45:17; 59:12; 83:16; 144:6. For that
matter, there are only 19 examples in the entire Old Testament of third person
feminine plural suffixes on verbs of any kind (Gen 30:38; Ex 2:17; 2 Sam 20:3;
2 Kings 19:26; Is 34:16; 37:27; 48:7; Jer 8:7; Ezek 1:9, 12, 17; 42:12; Hab
2:17; Zech 11:5; Job 39:2; Ruth 1:19), while there are 1,403 masculine plural
suffixes. Note that not even a single solitary third person feminine plural suffix is found in the entire book of Psalms.
It
is very clear that the argument that Psalm 12:7 cannot refer to the words of
God because of gender discordance, as argued by many opponents of perfect
preservation, is an exceedingly poor argument which should be abandoned once
and for all. Those who reproduce it evidence either a lack of solid
understanding of the Hebrew language or a lack of careful study.
Note the article here for more on Psalm 12:6-7 and preservation.
Note the article here for more on Psalm 12:6-7 and preservation.
Sunday, November 02, 2014
Sola Scriptura: Tests
Leaders in the reformed circle like to sola scriptura. I've seen the Latin on the front of auditoriums, on the sign, and prominently on the printed material. If you see sola scriptura like that, does that mean the church is sola scriptura? Not usually. There is sola scriptura, which is the historic statement, making the connection with the reformation, and then there is sola scriptura, actually having the Bible as your only infallible authority. The latter is what God cares about.
God gave Israel and then the church His Words to live by. The Words are there to believe and to live, to obey completely. Those Words are the means by which people can believe and then can do what God says. They are as good as God saying it. If you then don't believe them, you are not believing God. That's very serious. Even if someone says it is a non-essential, you have still not either believed or done what God said, when you don't believe or do His Words.
Let's say that sola scriptura is important, the Bible as our only infallible authority for faith and practice. How do you test whether someone is sola scriptura? Someone may say it, put it on the front of their auditorium on a wall or on a medieval-looking banner or on the letterhead or on the blog mast, but is that the test? No. Stay with me here. The test of sola scriptura is whether you do in fact believe and practice what the Bible says. But how do you know that?
The best way to find out whether someone is sola scriptura or not, and I'm talking actually having the Bible as your only infallible authority, is a scriptural challenge. You present a biblical teaching that is straight from the Bible, accurate exegesis framed within a biblical theology, and see whether someone submits to it. Let's say that you do that, you show a sola scriptura man a biblical teaching, and he either ignores it or rejects it, for whatever various reason. It could be that he might conform to the world less if he believes and practices it or he loses some friends or he looks bad, because his heroes would not approve. At that point, when the Bible is not his only infallible authority, he is not sola scriptura, even if he says that he is.
At the point of the above test, a man might look to other sola scriptura men to get their approbration, and they give him a thumbs up because he is in cahoots with them and within their system of Protestantism. In the end, we're not going to sit before an ecclesiastical council or the leaders of the sacral society. We're going to stand before God. He's going to judge and He judges by His Words (John 12:48).
If the test really is whether someone believes and obeys scripture, how can we tell who that is? You can bring to them scripture, and to start, they should care. They should answer the text, the biblical argument. Their arguments should come out of scripture. I understand that someone can make a biblical argument and not be saying what the Bible says. People use the Bible, who don't believe and practice it. I know that. However, a sola scriptura person should care to make biblical arguments and answer biblical arguments with biblical arguments. They do not and will not ignore them, just because of politics or because of a societal norm or because of sheer numbers or personal success. The popularity of them or their books does not make them right. The number of hits on their website does not determine that they are sola scriptura.
I'm directing this post to reformed types, but this is really for anyone. I recently wrote an expose of David Cloud's false ecclesiology. I made biblical arguments, dealt with the text of scripture, and he didn't answer that. He had four wrong reactions that I saw: one, he didn't care, two, he ignored, three, he posed like he was being attacked personally, and, four, he name-called (Baptist brider, etc.). He talks like his arguments deserve to be respected just because of who he is, because of his years and his audience. That doesn't cut it at all. If Paul writes (Eph 2;19), "Ye are the household of God," and (Eph 2:22) "ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit," he is excluding himself, so this is not some kind of "universal church." We have to make our arguments from the text. This was a test that I'm offering as an example of what I'm talking about. I don't know why he doesn't depend on scripture for his position, but he doesn't.
Recently I have written about the preservation of scripture, what the Bible says about it, what God is telling about the preservation of His own written Words. If men are sola scriptura, they should follow what God said. They don't. That is a test. They go to other "authorities," because they are not sola scriptura. They say they are. They might even hang the banner, but they are not. They might ignore or name-call or act like it isn't a big issue, but on this subject, which is an important subject, they are not sola scriptura. The issues where there is a test are where sola scriptura matters the most. Where a potential separation or loss will occur is where you find out what someone really believes on the Bible as his only infallible authority.
Something Thomas Ross last posted on Friday got my attention about this, because it relates directly to what I'm writing about here. It was this sentence:
Dr. Orr “was unconcerned to defend a literal interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis, and . . . took the view that an insistence on biblical inerrancy was actually ‘suicidal.’”
James Orr would not insist on biblical inerrancy because of what he saw as contradicting extra-scriptural evidence. If men kept believing that position of inerrancy, he thought they would destroy Christianity. Kevin Bauder recently wrote about either the same or a similar issue, speaking of the damage that the view of theistic evolution proposed by Tim Keller does to the doctrine of inerrancy of scripture. He writes:
Keller contradicts sola scriptura, if you agree with Bauder, which I do. So does everyone who accommodates the text of the Bible to naturalism or scientific theories impugn inerrancy? I ask this, because the new views of preservation of scripture accommodate the text of the Bible to naturalism or scientific theories. Bauder himself defends and approves of this. This is another test of sola scriptura.
For the non-sola scriptura on this, inerrancy itself must submit to a hypothetical text to spare scientific theories. Men don't expect perfection from the Bible. To them, the Bible might be wrong in a couple of places, but as long as that doctrine is corrected in some other place, then scripture teaches inerrant doctrine -- not in every passage, but in the Bible as a whole. They think you can still get error from the Bible, because it wasn't preserved, even though the Bible teaches it. So this is done, not because God says it in His Word, but because this is the favored strategy to ward off mass apostasy. Even the strategy itself is not sola scriptura.
Paul Ferguson touches on sola scriptura and its relations to preservation of scripture:
To sum this up, not all "sola scriptura" is sola scriptura. Apply tests, to see if these things be so.
Again, the question is not whether Keller has erred. His interpretation does not arise from the text. No one ever came to any belief except special creation and a young earth by simply reading the text. Theories of progressive creationism and theistic evolution are always proposed by people who are trying to accommodate the text of Genesis to alternative cosmogonies, and those accommodations are only attempted by people who have already ceded disproportionate authority to non-biblical speculations.
Keller contradicts sola scriptura, if you agree with Bauder, which I do. So does everyone who accommodates the text of the Bible to naturalism or scientific theories impugn inerrancy? I ask this, because the new views of preservation of scripture accommodate the text of the Bible to naturalism or scientific theories. Bauder himself defends and approves of this. This is another test of sola scriptura.
For the non-sola scriptura on this, inerrancy itself must submit to a hypothetical text to spare scientific theories. Men don't expect perfection from the Bible. To them, the Bible might be wrong in a couple of places, but as long as that doctrine is corrected in some other place, then scripture teaches inerrant doctrine -- not in every passage, but in the Bible as a whole. They think you can still get error from the Bible, because it wasn't preserved, even though the Bible teaches it. So this is done, not because God says it in His Word, but because this is the favored strategy to ward off mass apostasy. Even the strategy itself is not sola scriptura.
Paul Ferguson touches on sola scriptura and its relations to preservation of scripture:
Martin Luther sparked the Reformation on three pillars: faith, grace and Scripture. The final pillar of Sola Scriptura predicated the Bible as the only objective Protestant source of all authority available and was to be regarded as God’s last Words to mankind. It effectively dethroned the pope and enthroned the Bible. The Reformers were cognisant that the reason for the darkness of the Medieval Period was a result of the Roman Church losing sight of the true text in the original languages. They were also equally clear that the dissemination of the Received Text through the printed editions had sparked the Reformation and not the rise of nationalism, corruption in the Roman Church, or even the Renaissance. Since the autographs were not available, the Reformers knew that we must have a reliable tradition or bridge of some sort which connects us to the original autographs. This bridge must be undergirded with faith in a God who controls the flow of all historical events through the true Church and not apostate autonomous textual critics. The Reformers looked to ecclesiastical consensus in textual issues in the same manner they had in Canonical, Trinitarian and Christological issues.
The leading Reformers rejected Rome’s tradition and its corrupted texts, and held fast to the Received Text readings, which they knew evoked the wrath of Satan and had triggered the great Protestant Reformation during which tens of thousands of true believers perished by flame, famine and torture. Rome had used a handful of copies in which numerous variants existed in an attempt to refute the principle of Sola Scriptura. The Reformers were well aware of the corruptions of the texts of Alexandria and regarded the variant readings in the minority texts as either intentional or inadvertent corruptions.
To sum this up, not all "sola scriptura" is sola scriptura. Apply tests, to see if these things be so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)