Part One
The purpose of Thou Shalt Keep Them (TSKT) was to exegete passages on preservation of scripture, like one would exegete passages on salvation for a book on salvation or passages on the Trinity for a book on the Trinity. That's what we did. The main criticism of the book has been about the lacking manuscript evidence. I plead, can we please consider first if the Bible teaches its own preservation? What does the Bible say about its own preservation? When that doesn't seem to matter or just doesn't matter to people, even those who call themselves professing Christians, I wonder about their approach to anything.
Excerpts of TSKT were posted twice at SharperIron (here and here), and I assessed 18 comments out of what were 39 and now 45. This will cover the rest. In general, those commenting didn't interact with the actual posts written, didn't show how that a passage wasn't saying what I wrote that it did. They didn't address the actual post in the comment section (until the last few comments, someone finally did).
Dave Barnhart commented again, and said that his big problem with my argument was that he needed to know what the Bible was before he could believe what it said. There wasn't this kind of doubt in the first century. Saints received scripture as the Word of God. This continued to be true until textual criticism proceeded from unbelieving doubt about the Bible. Nevertheless, none of the preservation passages were affected by textual variants. When it comes to the Genesis account, would Barnhart say, "I'm not sure I have Genesis, so I don't know if I can believe the account, until I know that it is Genesis?" Unlikely. This is the same.
J. Ng uses the LXX argument, which says that Jesus quoted from a corrupted Septuagint, an argument that has arisen for the critical text in defense of no scriptural bibliology. I've written extensively here on this subject (here, here, and here), and take the same position as John Owen did, who wrote about it in his biblical theology. The conclusion, if you agree with Ng, is that the individual words didn't matter to Jesus, just the overall message. This flies in the face of what the Bible (and Jesus) says about itself.
For Aaron Blumer's next comment, a question that arises from reading what the Bible teaches on its own preservation is, should we expect word-for-word preservation? What percentage of exactness would we expect based on biblical promises? Once we are settled on what the Bible teaches, we adjust our view to that. Blumer seems to be saying that we adjust what the Bible says to our observations of the history of textual transmission.
JBL says he hasn't heard a credible rebuttal to the lack of evidence there ever has been a word-for-word preservation in church history. Actually, we've had to answer that again and again here and have written whole posts on the history of the doctrine. Saints believed that the words of the text they possessed were identical to the originals. Where errors were made in one copy, they were corrected in another.
Tyler speaks to the LXX argument again (which I addressed above to J Ng) and gives a partial answer to himself. The LXX is corrupt and Jesus wouldn't have treated it like it was trustworthy.
Contrary to Bob Hayton, the TSKT position in the book or otherwise, is not buttressed by our local only ecclesiology, which again is why Reformed and Presbyterians take the same position with a different ecclesiology. What he's saying is false, but that doesn't matter at SI. It goes unrefuted, except I write here. John Owen didn't have the same ecclesiology and we take his position on this. It seems par for the course though. Regarding his unrelated issue of the inspiration of the Hebrew vowel points, read Thomas Ross's article.
What seems to be crucial in an attack (from Bob in his comment) on the scriptural doctrine of preservation is the criticism of Erasmus's TR edition, whether there is manuscript evidence for wording in a few passages. This does not proceed from a study of the Bible on preservation. As well, the "which TR" question doesn't change what scripture says about its own preservation. That's got to be dealt with first. We shouldn't invent a new way to deal with biblical doctrine that starts outside of the Bible, just because of so-called manuscript evidence.
Aaron comes in to support Bob Hayton by saying that TSKT relies on history instead of scripture, but he doesn't give a scintilla of proof for that. I can only assume that he means that in looking for a fulfillment of what the Bible teaches, the authors accept what had been preserved and was available as preserved and available. When Daniel's prophecies were fulfilled, it wasn't relying on history in saying that Daniel's prophecies were fulfilled. Promises of God are fulfilled in real time outside of scripture, but they are dependent on scripture, not history. His comment ended the commentary on the first post.
Starting comments on the second post, Josh P says that I'm saying that Christians should believe God preserved His Words in my preferred text. He says I'm snide because of that. Men jumped to my defense, because of name-calling. Not. No foul called. Just the opposite, presuppositions based upon scriptural exegesis lead me to my position. Whatever doesn't fit the biblical presupposition, I reject. I do the same thing with my Christology. Are people who do that with other doctrines, snide too?
Bert Perry says that I want words of scripture to be preserved so I look for that in the passages on preservation to guide what they mean. He uses Matthew 5:18 as an example even though the post was on Matthew 24:35, typical of the comment section. When Jesus said, "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled," I think that teaches preservation of jots and tittles because I want it to say that. He then says, lost in that, is the real debate, which is the meaning of logos. Is logos the actual words or the message? That is the real debate lost in this jot and tittle meaning. I'm struggling taking Bert's comment seriously.
Mr. Bean says that the reason we wrote the book was because it provided another reason to separate. That too was left unrefuted. Mr. Bean is a nice man. He's very funny too. He should do stand-up for critical text fundamentalists or evangelicals, whichever he is, because he would pack it out with his material.
Tyler engages Bert's comment about logos, and says it is a legitimate comment, because the meaning of logos depends on the context. Context would mean, however, that you are looking at scripture for your position, wouldn't it? In Matthew 24:35, the yet to be addressed theme of the post, it is plural, "words." When it says, "words" (logoi), is that "the message"? It's easy to see in 1 Peter 1:23-25 that logos and rhema are used interchangeably. That is a point worth noting too. In the end, what does it matter if I'm assuming the meaning based on my desire for word perfect preservation, what Bert says is my real motive and manner of operation?
T Howard chimes in, "Not so fast!" He writes, "The text in context only teaches the authority and validity of Jesus's words as being God's words." We should applaud that T Howard is the first man to comment on the post. However, not so fast, what about the words passing away? Are words passing away or not? Words not passing away means that they can't lose their authority and validity? That seems to be what T Howard is writing. I need a little more information, and I'm saying that very slowly.
Skipping Jim Peet's link to my post, Thomas Overmiller provides links to Aaron's series on TSKT. Look at the sidebar, because I answered Aaron Blumer's series then too. You can find those posts there. Regarding his public apology, he doesn't actually say that he does anything wrong. Look for yourself. He hadn't read the book by his own admission and he misrepresents the book. It is a classic non-apology apology. I apologize if I did anything wrong (which you all know that I didn't, because it's just a disagreement). The one thing he doesn't do is interact with the posts or Matthew 24:35. He writes a lot of words saying he disagrees conscientiously, because he doesn't believe the passages teach what I'm saying they do. What do they teach? Overmiller silence. Not helpful.
Jay doesn't talk about the post either. He can't remember, but he thinks Kent used a Psalm passage to say that God preserved the KJV, a passage that only the KJV interprets that way, and it's humorous. First, I don't believe in English preservation, so maybe it wasn't me. I don't teach that God preserved the KJV. Second, the teaching that "them" are God's Words in Psalm 12:7 (read here), which he doesn't mention, goes back very far (read here). Other translations say the same thing, including the Jewish Tanak. Webster's translation in 1833 is identical.
Thomas Overmiller links to and then pastes part of an article by Fred Butler in which Butler depends on a Douglas Kutilek article. The article is an attack on me. Butler quotes articles and commentaries, but he doesn't deal with the crucial component that is missed by the men he quotes. Their chief argument is that "words" cannot be the antecedent to "them" because of gender discordance. That is thoroughly debunked by the fact that all over the Old Testament the masculine pronoun refers to feminine "words." This is also found in multiple Hebrew grammars. Butler quotes John Gill and Gill himself missed that point, so his commentary is wrong. Overmiller makes no mention of that point. Kutilek's article totally depends on the falsehood that Hebrew pronouns must agree with their antecedents. It's false. Overmiller just throws the Butler post out there for whatever reason, as if Butler dealt with what I actually wrote.
Jay refers to a Fred Butler statement pasted in Overmiller's comment and then uses it to mock people. I won't counter the typical scorn coming from Jay, except to say that TSKT isn't intended as a defense of a single translation. Most of the exegesis comes from the original languages, not the KJV. Josh P then defends Jay by saying that "the whole matter" is that I want an exegetical response, when there is no relationship between the TSKT exegesis and my position. The TSKT position actually does come from its exegesis and Josh P doesn't show how it doesn't. That's not a necessary burden for him or the others who comment at SI. Tyler, however, in the next comment tries to get someone to comment on Matthew 24:35.
I'll ignore Bert Perry's comment, where he says that people such as myself are authoritarian leaders, Jim Peet's announcement that he's buying TSKT, and Jay's statement about heresy. JBL says some truth about Matthew 24:35, someone who finally interacts with the actual post. Bob Hayton gives a plug for a booklet that is essentially a hatchet job on our book. It is called the Doctrine of Scripture, but you will find that it is not. It takes some of what we wrote in TSKT and attacks it, in an unconvincing way. Bob links to a post I wrote about it, since the book said that we believe that someone can only be saved through the KJV, which we refute in TSKT. In other words, it's a purposeful lie, a smear. The book is not any kind of organized presentation on preservation or bibliology period. It's not what myself or anyone wants from the critical text side, that is, laid out the scriptural presuppositions for their position. It doesn't do that at all, contrary to what Bob says.
In answer to Bert Perry's comment, the part about my not knowing logic. I took it in college and have taught it three different times, so I have an interest in logic. I like thinking about the logic of the conclusion that people are not saved who heard the gospel from the critical text. To be saved, that person is receiving God's Words. Most of the critical text is God's Words (at least 93% of the NT). A person is not saved through a rejection of God's Words, like we see in Acts 2:41. All over scripture, rejection of God's Words is not characteristic of a saved people. Deuteronomy does make that point. When Jesus is Lord, you don't pick and choose what you'll do and not do. I'm not going to go through all the Bible to show that, but that is not the same thing as saying that you are saved only through the King James Version, like the book is smearing, and Bert Perry wishes to latch on to.
I want to say that I feel sorry for what Bert Perry has experienced in what he describes at his church in the next comment. I do. What we said was that Pickering did do collation of manuscripts and he saw that some of them were identical to each other and he mentions which ones. We said that debunked the legend that not one manuscript was identical to another. I happen to like Pickering's position better than a critical text one, for numerous reasons, and his work is helpful. That Pickering prefers a majority text position to the TR doesn't debunk anything we wrote (I'm skipping Tyler's next comment). There is some missing logic there coming from Bert, to refer back to his reference to logic before.
To address Bert's next comment, first, Pickering gives evidence of identical manuscripts, which we referenced only in refutation of the assertion that no manuscript was identical. That shouldn't be said, or it should be retracted, because it's not true. I understand people not retracting. They would be admitting they are wrong, and that just can't happen.
TSKT, contrary to T Howard's next comment, doesn't assert that the Bible teaches that God preserves His Words in a particular text family. No one has said that, so it is a falsehood or a strawman. As to words not passing away just meaning authority and validity, quoting Constable is not sufficient basis for believing that. How does that relate to heaven and earth passing away? Do heaven and earth have less authority and validity?
Even though Jay is on the right track in his next comment, he descends to the falsehood or strawman that we see Jesus promising the preservation of a text family. That is inserting language of textual criticism. If it is a promise that His Words would be available, like heaven and earth is presently available, then we would ask, what has been available and received by God's people? The trajectory starts from the teaching of the passage and works out, not the reverse.
I have to applaud Andy Efting's actual interaction with Matthew 24:35. However, his conclusion does not proceed from the text, unlike where JBL earlier was taking it. He says, "not pass away" means, "dependable." Scripture is more dependable because it won't pass away. However, He says, "my words shall not pass away." You don't want to take from Jesus promise less than what He says. He is saying more than they are dependable.
Differing from JBL's next comment, accessibility is more than an inference. It is stated by Jesus. It is explicit.
Josh P refers to an article on preservation not by Compton, but by Combs at DBTS journal. I'm not going to critique Combs article, so this, my friends, is where I stop assessing comments.
I appreciate those who chose to interact at least a little with the article. I didn't like the name calling and scorn, but I've found it usually will occur. I don't think anyone got into the depth necessary to overturn the exegetical work of my chapter on Matthew 24:35.
Wednesday, June 14, 2017
Monday, June 12, 2017
Assessing Comments on Thou Shalt Keep Them
SharperIron (SI, Tyler Robbins there) twice published excerpts (here and here) from Thou Shalt Keep Them (TSKT), a book our church published in 2006, a biblical theology of the perfect preservation of scripture. Many opposed, essentially took pot shots, in the comment section. I want to assess those comments (39 comments as of right now) in this post.
Almost none of the comments interact with TSKT. They anticipate perhaps another book and speculate on a conclusion, but they don't disprove any of the biblical exegesis of TSKT, which means the teaching of TSKT stands. Much of what is written are falsehoods, lies, or misrepresentations. I can't decipher the first comment, but Bert Perry represents a contrast with TSKT by adapting his understanding of Matthew 5:18 to variations in manuscripts. The meaning of Matthew 5:18 didn't change upon the production of a critical text. The meaning of verses should be judged based on exegesis. The meaning of Matthew 5:18 (that chapter written by Gary Webb) isn't based on a "hypothesis" either. Perry also writes the third comment and from both, you can see that he doesn't know what TSKT is even about. No other commenter disabuses him of his ignorance.
Dave Barnhart takes the same point of view on preservation passages. They can't mean what they are saying, because of "textual evidence." The trajectory of understanding preservation passages in this hermeneutic is, first consider manuscript evidence and then apply that knowledge to the understanding of scripture, rather than first understand scripture and then apply that to so-called "manuscript evidence." He admitted he couldn't take the view of the book because of what he had heard, not because of the exegesis, but because of material outside of scripture. This is the same as Perry.
If scripture is not preserved, then it is in need of restoration. "Josh P" says this is a "strawman" about textual criticism. In actuality, he says, textual criticism is locating the preserved word. It's out there preserved, but just needs to be found. TSKT actually deals with this contemporary view of so-called preservation. Preservation assumes we have the words in our possession, that is, they are available. I call Joshu P's view the "buried text view." It isn't preservation and it isn't a view taught anywhere in the Bible, so it's no wonder TSKT wouldn't take the view. No one in the world thought that something was preserved that nobody possessed until this recent strange view.
I think Tyler Robbins is attempting to help in the next comment at SI, where he writes what he says he thinks that TSKT is saying. He is off some. God said He would preserve every one of His Words and that they would all be accessible in general to every generation of believer. We don't conclude availability from other arguments. We show how scripture actually promises availability. No one on the critical text side believes we have have all the words in our possession. They don't base that on a scriptural presupposition. Tyler posits the "restoration" situation that Josh P earlier said was a strawman. He should call Tyler on the strawman.
Aaron Blumer comments next, pointing out a series he wrote about TSKT a few years ago, and he says he didn't especially get one question answered. However, the point of TSKT wasn't to answer that question. His comment fundamentally misses the point of the book with his mention of KJV translation because TSKT says that the Bible teaches that preservation is original language. The Bible wasn't written in English.
Thomas Overmiller says that the basis of the TSKT position is ecclesiological, namely that true Baptist churches are the agents of word-perfect and available preservation. That particular point doesn't appear in TSKT at all. It doesn't seem like he has either read the book or knows what it is about (he told me in an email he hasn't read TSKT), but that doesn't stop him from writing and writing and writing like he an expert on it. If someone can only come to this position with "true Baptist churches," then why do many, many Presbyterians, Free Presbyterians, and Reformed take the same position? Ecclesiology doesn't buttress the position. D. A. Waite is a Baptist of a very different kind than I, a contrasting ecclesiology, and he believes word perfect preservation and availability. Overmiller doesn't know what he's talking about on this.
Based on his speculated premise, which isn't our premise, Overmiller says Scrivener's text becomes the default perfect Greek text. It's fascinating to read someone tell the world what my (our) position is, who doesn't have a clue. He says that I believe that since true Baptist churches use the King James today, that is what God kept through the centuries. He says that 1 Timothy 3:15 is crucial for us, a passage that was not a chapter in TSKT (strange for something so crucial), and then he says TSKT tied that to Matthew 4:4. He offers zero proof that this horrible argument, he asserts, is our argument. Nothing. At the end of this giant misstatement (as good as a giant lie), he tags the disclaimer, "Perhaps I'm mistaken somehow." Yes, you are "mistaken." If you think you are mistaken, however, then you clear that up first, before writing to the world. If someone believes in word perfect preservation and general accessibility, which is what the Bible teaches, his view of the church isn't going to be what makes or breaks that position.
Next Tyler comments again, saying that I wouldn't accept the MEV because it wasn't a project of true churches, sort of acceding to Overmiller's speculation. I went back and read those posts, and I didn't make that statement. I believe that agreement of churches would be a slow down on the glut of translations, which causes more confusion. The impetus for translation should start with churches, not publishers, and 1 Timothy 3:15 does buttress that thought, something wholly different than Overmiller's speculation. The church is God's container for truth, and we can see through scripture that the church took responsibility just like the congregation of Israel in the Old Testament. This is regulating practice by scripture, which is how Christians ought to live.
I'm skipping the next two comments at SI, because they are so off the wall. Tyler seems to try to get things back on track in the next comment. The question arises of the basis for knowing the words. What the churches received was very homogeneous as it was. If you look at the back of Scrivener's annotated Greek text, he has the differences between the TR editions, and they are very small, negligible, especially next to the massive differences between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, which were unavailable, again presumably because they were rejected texts. The presupposition of a settled text presumes God's people will know. That assumption should reign rather than doubt. It is a doctrinal position that has practical ramifications.
Perry comes next with the urban legend that no two manuscripts were alike, a claim debunked by Wilbur Pickering's, The Identity of the New Testament Text, where he actually observes identical manuscripts and identifies them by name. I'll take someone who saw it and proved it over Perry.
Overmiller, someone who confesses he hasn't read TSKT, doubles down with absolute confidence, that 1 Timothy 3:15 is the basis of the argument, period. He asserts that TSKT is not based on manuscript evidence. TSKT is an exegesis of biblical passages on preservation. In one section, it does deal with textual variants, showing how that doctrine does change with variants, against a statement that the differences don't change doctrine.
Don Johnson makes one comment, and he says that the Josiah story is a basis for rejecting preservation for every generation. I admire that he attempts to make an actual scriptural argument. I have written about that story and I believe that it doesn't help Don's position of non-availability. If the Bible was in the temple, then it was being preserved. The people just didn't care until Josiah came along, and that agrees with our position that it is available to those who want it. That supports our position. I see that as an argument for providential preservation.
Overmiller touts his own graciousness in the next comment, assuming the non-graciousness of men who don't believe like him. I don't get his point except to put other people down who are more narrow than he, which isn't in fact gracious. I reject his personal assessment of himself. It is a faulty understanding of graciousness. If I tell a Roman Catholic that "works salvation" will send him to Hell, that isn't ungracious. I don't agree to disagree. Accepting false doctrine isn't more gracious. We live in a pluralistic society. Men can take different views. If we oppose one vehemently, that doesn't mean we are less gracious.
Next Overmiller comments again, first obviously insulting me for writing so much on biblical preservation on this blog, emphasizing "a lot" in italics. For about the fourth time, he says that our entire view rests on 1 Timothy 3:15, which is, he says, is debunked by the majority of churches being critical text today. That shows that he truly doesn't understand what we say on this. Churches would always have God's Words. They didn't have the critical text for at least 400 years, so those words couldn't be God's Words. The critical text doesn't even accept a doctrine of preservation and doesn't even believe it possesses all the Words. TSKT is based upon biblical presuppositions that he does not interact with at all. None. Instead he quadruples down (we caught it the first time, Thomas) on something we never wrote.
I ignore the next comment to arrive again at another Overmiller comment. He's writing a lot of comments. TSKT is a biblical theology, so it isn't going to look at manuscript evidence. We do examine the variants in TSKT though, as seen in two chapters comparing the doctrinal differences in both the Hebrew OT and the Greek NT, two different words that cannot mean the same thing. The application of what the Bible says would look at what manuscripts were actually available and received by the churches. Overmiller writes the following as his last little paragraph, "If you accept this reasoning, then you will like his explanation. If you do not accept this reasoning, then you will be scratching your head over his preservation arguments for a long, long time." That scratching your head for a long time would be an example of the Overmiller graciousness.
I appreciate that Aaron Blumer's next comment does deal with a biblical argument in TSKT, which serves to elevate him in the comment section. I don't want that to go unnoticed. He mentions the canonicity argument that is made in TSKT, that is, scripture teaches a canonicity of words, not books. He, however, conflates canonicity with textual criticism, something I've never read elsewhere, so it seems brand new to me. Has anyone anywhere ever taken the position that textual criticism is a form of canonicity? Canonicity would be a settled judgment, not an ongoing, never ending process. That would clash with actual canonicity. The "whole point" of TSKT, as Aaron calls it, is not that TC is bad. The whole point is what the Bible teaches on the doctrine of preservation of scripture, which is that all of God's Words were available for every generation of believer.
To Be Continued (leaving about 18 comments from the two posts, out of the 39)
Almost none of the comments interact with TSKT. They anticipate perhaps another book and speculate on a conclusion, but they don't disprove any of the biblical exegesis of TSKT, which means the teaching of TSKT stands. Much of what is written are falsehoods, lies, or misrepresentations. I can't decipher the first comment, but Bert Perry represents a contrast with TSKT by adapting his understanding of Matthew 5:18 to variations in manuscripts. The meaning of Matthew 5:18 didn't change upon the production of a critical text. The meaning of verses should be judged based on exegesis. The meaning of Matthew 5:18 (that chapter written by Gary Webb) isn't based on a "hypothesis" either. Perry also writes the third comment and from both, you can see that he doesn't know what TSKT is even about. No other commenter disabuses him of his ignorance.
Dave Barnhart takes the same point of view on preservation passages. They can't mean what they are saying, because of "textual evidence." The trajectory of understanding preservation passages in this hermeneutic is, first consider manuscript evidence and then apply that knowledge to the understanding of scripture, rather than first understand scripture and then apply that to so-called "manuscript evidence." He admitted he couldn't take the view of the book because of what he had heard, not because of the exegesis, but because of material outside of scripture. This is the same as Perry.
If scripture is not preserved, then it is in need of restoration. "Josh P" says this is a "strawman" about textual criticism. In actuality, he says, textual criticism is locating the preserved word. It's out there preserved, but just needs to be found. TSKT actually deals with this contemporary view of so-called preservation. Preservation assumes we have the words in our possession, that is, they are available. I call Joshu P's view the "buried text view." It isn't preservation and it isn't a view taught anywhere in the Bible, so it's no wonder TSKT wouldn't take the view. No one in the world thought that something was preserved that nobody possessed until this recent strange view.
I think Tyler Robbins is attempting to help in the next comment at SI, where he writes what he says he thinks that TSKT is saying. He is off some. God said He would preserve every one of His Words and that they would all be accessible in general to every generation of believer. We don't conclude availability from other arguments. We show how scripture actually promises availability. No one on the critical text side believes we have have all the words in our possession. They don't base that on a scriptural presupposition. Tyler posits the "restoration" situation that Josh P earlier said was a strawman. He should call Tyler on the strawman.
Aaron Blumer comments next, pointing out a series he wrote about TSKT a few years ago, and he says he didn't especially get one question answered. However, the point of TSKT wasn't to answer that question. His comment fundamentally misses the point of the book with his mention of KJV translation because TSKT says that the Bible teaches that preservation is original language. The Bible wasn't written in English.
Thomas Overmiller says that the basis of the TSKT position is ecclesiological, namely that true Baptist churches are the agents of word-perfect and available preservation. That particular point doesn't appear in TSKT at all. It doesn't seem like he has either read the book or knows what it is about (he told me in an email he hasn't read TSKT), but that doesn't stop him from writing and writing and writing like he an expert on it. If someone can only come to this position with "true Baptist churches," then why do many, many Presbyterians, Free Presbyterians, and Reformed take the same position? Ecclesiology doesn't buttress the position. D. A. Waite is a Baptist of a very different kind than I, a contrasting ecclesiology, and he believes word perfect preservation and availability. Overmiller doesn't know what he's talking about on this.
Based on his speculated premise, which isn't our premise, Overmiller says Scrivener's text becomes the default perfect Greek text. It's fascinating to read someone tell the world what my (our) position is, who doesn't have a clue. He says that I believe that since true Baptist churches use the King James today, that is what God kept through the centuries. He says that 1 Timothy 3:15 is crucial for us, a passage that was not a chapter in TSKT (strange for something so crucial), and then he says TSKT tied that to Matthew 4:4. He offers zero proof that this horrible argument, he asserts, is our argument. Nothing. At the end of this giant misstatement (as good as a giant lie), he tags the disclaimer, "Perhaps I'm mistaken somehow." Yes, you are "mistaken." If you think you are mistaken, however, then you clear that up first, before writing to the world. If someone believes in word perfect preservation and general accessibility, which is what the Bible teaches, his view of the church isn't going to be what makes or breaks that position.
Next Tyler comments again, saying that I wouldn't accept the MEV because it wasn't a project of true churches, sort of acceding to Overmiller's speculation. I went back and read those posts, and I didn't make that statement. I believe that agreement of churches would be a slow down on the glut of translations, which causes more confusion. The impetus for translation should start with churches, not publishers, and 1 Timothy 3:15 does buttress that thought, something wholly different than Overmiller's speculation. The church is God's container for truth, and we can see through scripture that the church took responsibility just like the congregation of Israel in the Old Testament. This is regulating practice by scripture, which is how Christians ought to live.
I'm skipping the next two comments at SI, because they are so off the wall. Tyler seems to try to get things back on track in the next comment. The question arises of the basis for knowing the words. What the churches received was very homogeneous as it was. If you look at the back of Scrivener's annotated Greek text, he has the differences between the TR editions, and they are very small, negligible, especially next to the massive differences between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, which were unavailable, again presumably because they were rejected texts. The presupposition of a settled text presumes God's people will know. That assumption should reign rather than doubt. It is a doctrinal position that has practical ramifications.
Perry comes next with the urban legend that no two manuscripts were alike, a claim debunked by Wilbur Pickering's, The Identity of the New Testament Text, where he actually observes identical manuscripts and identifies them by name. I'll take someone who saw it and proved it over Perry.
Overmiller, someone who confesses he hasn't read TSKT, doubles down with absolute confidence, that 1 Timothy 3:15 is the basis of the argument, period. He asserts that TSKT is not based on manuscript evidence. TSKT is an exegesis of biblical passages on preservation. In one section, it does deal with textual variants, showing how that doctrine does change with variants, against a statement that the differences don't change doctrine.
Don Johnson makes one comment, and he says that the Josiah story is a basis for rejecting preservation for every generation. I admire that he attempts to make an actual scriptural argument. I have written about that story and I believe that it doesn't help Don's position of non-availability. If the Bible was in the temple, then it was being preserved. The people just didn't care until Josiah came along, and that agrees with our position that it is available to those who want it. That supports our position. I see that as an argument for providential preservation.
Overmiller touts his own graciousness in the next comment, assuming the non-graciousness of men who don't believe like him. I don't get his point except to put other people down who are more narrow than he, which isn't in fact gracious. I reject his personal assessment of himself. It is a faulty understanding of graciousness. If I tell a Roman Catholic that "works salvation" will send him to Hell, that isn't ungracious. I don't agree to disagree. Accepting false doctrine isn't more gracious. We live in a pluralistic society. Men can take different views. If we oppose one vehemently, that doesn't mean we are less gracious.
Next Overmiller comments again, first obviously insulting me for writing so much on biblical preservation on this blog, emphasizing "a lot" in italics. For about the fourth time, he says that our entire view rests on 1 Timothy 3:15, which is, he says, is debunked by the majority of churches being critical text today. That shows that he truly doesn't understand what we say on this. Churches would always have God's Words. They didn't have the critical text for at least 400 years, so those words couldn't be God's Words. The critical text doesn't even accept a doctrine of preservation and doesn't even believe it possesses all the Words. TSKT is based upon biblical presuppositions that he does not interact with at all. None. Instead he quadruples down (we caught it the first time, Thomas) on something we never wrote.
I ignore the next comment to arrive again at another Overmiller comment. He's writing a lot of comments. TSKT is a biblical theology, so it isn't going to look at manuscript evidence. We do examine the variants in TSKT though, as seen in two chapters comparing the doctrinal differences in both the Hebrew OT and the Greek NT, two different words that cannot mean the same thing. The application of what the Bible says would look at what manuscripts were actually available and received by the churches. Overmiller writes the following as his last little paragraph, "If you accept this reasoning, then you will like his explanation. If you do not accept this reasoning, then you will be scratching your head over his preservation arguments for a long, long time." That scratching your head for a long time would be an example of the Overmiller graciousness.
I appreciate that Aaron Blumer's next comment does deal with a biblical argument in TSKT, which serves to elevate him in the comment section. I don't want that to go unnoticed. He mentions the canonicity argument that is made in TSKT, that is, scripture teaches a canonicity of words, not books. He, however, conflates canonicity with textual criticism, something I've never read elsewhere, so it seems brand new to me. Has anyone anywhere ever taken the position that textual criticism is a form of canonicity? Canonicity would be a settled judgment, not an ongoing, never ending process. That would clash with actual canonicity. The "whole point" of TSKT, as Aaron calls it, is not that TC is bad. The whole point is what the Bible teaches on the doctrine of preservation of scripture, which is that all of God's Words were available for every generation of believer.
To Be Continued (leaving about 18 comments from the two posts, out of the 39)
Friday, June 09, 2017
Trinitarianism Class on Youtube
My college or seminary class on Trinitarianism is getting posted on Youtube on my Youtube channel, KJB1611. The class is already posted on my website at faithsaves.net/trinitarianism/. The course lectures cover:
Lecture #1: Introduction to
Trinitarianism; the Definition of the Trinity
Lecture #2, The Sanctifying
Power of Knowing the Trinity; the Definition of the Trinity continued
Lecture #3, Definition of the
Trinity Concluded & the Definition of Anti-Trinitarian positions
Lecture #4, The Revisionist
History of Trinitarianism presented by Anti-Trinitarians and the Actual
Historical Development of Trinitarianism
Lecture #5, Actual Historical Development of Trinitarianism continued
Lecture #6, Actual Historical Development of Trinitarianism concluded
Lecture #7, Textual Variants
Impacting Trinitarianism & The Exegetical Basis for the Son’s being
Eternally Begotten and the Spirit’s Eternally Proceeding from the Father and
the Son
Lecture #8, Review for Midterm
Exam &; Introduction to the Examination of Modern Modalism/Oneness
Pentecostalism
Lecture #9, The Trinity of
Persons Defended Against Modern Modalism/Oneness Pentecostalism
Lecture #10, Modern Modalism/Oneness
Pentecostal “Proof-texts” Examined
Lecture #11, The Old Testament
Evidence for the Deity of Christ
Lecture #12, The Old Testament
Evidence for the Deity of Christ Concluded and the New Testament Texts where
Christ is called "God."
Lecture #13, The New Testament
Texts where Christ is called “God” Concluded and Further New Testament Evidence
for the Deity of Christ
Lecture #14, The Deity of Christ
Concluded and the Personality and Deity of the Holy Spirit
Lecture #15, The Personality and Deity of the Holy Spirit Continued &
Introduction to Arian “Proof-texts” Examined
Lecture #16, The Personality
and Deity of the Holy Spirit Concluded & Arian “Proof-texts” Continued
Lecture #17, Arian
“Proof-texts” Concluded
Lecture #18, The Question of
Prayer to the Holy Spirit and an Introduction to Christian Communion with God
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit
Lecture #19, Distinct Communion with the Father and with the Son
Lecture #20: Distinct
Communion with the Son and with the Holy Spirit and the Necessity of a
Robust Trinitarian Spirituality
Lecture #21: A Synopis
of John Owen’s Of Communion with God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,
each Person distinctly, in love, grace, and consolation; or, the Saint’s
Fellowship with the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost unfolded
Lecture #21: Final Exam Review
Please feel free to watch the videos and link to and like them on Youtube; doing all three of these things will drive web traffic to them, and they contain, I trust, a great deal of sound Biblical teaching.
Tuesday, June 06, 2017
Is Being a Believer, Believing Scripture about Scripture?
When our church first published Thou Shalt Keep Them (TSKT) in 2006, the point of the book was to report what scripture said about its own preservation, so we called a biblical theology of preservation. I still don't know of any that had been written before our book. Our point was to let the Bible speak about itself. Can we believe what scripture says about itself? Is someone believing God, who doesn't believe what God says about His own Word?
There is a lot of disagreement about the Bible among those who don't take the same position as TSKT. Is there any final authority to settle disputes about the Bible? As I see it, the wide variety of belief and thinking about the Bible comes because the Bible itself isn't the sole source for belief or knowledge about the Bible. More new manuscripts are found. Another ancient book is uncovered. Another edition of the critical text is published. Teaching about the Bible is in flux.
Two important questions especially guide how we see the world. Can we know? How we know? Can we know God? How we know God? The Mormons rely on the burning in the bosom. Roman Catholics depend on tradition. Charismatics trust in experiences. Shouldn't scripture be the final authority about itself? Shouldn't true believers have as their major premise that what the Bible says about itself is true?
A corollary to the previous paragraph could be some thoughts about source criticism, historical criticism, or biblical criticism. Should we go outside of scripture for the interpretation of scripture? Here's what a passage of scripture says, but the external evidence doesn't match up; therefore, we adapt or conform the teaching of the passage to the external evidence. I read a lot of commentaries and this is a new hot fad among even conservative evangelical commentaries. I've been studying Ecclesiastes a lot recently and the most popular new position on Ecclesiastes is that there are several authors, and that position is mainly buttressed, not by internal evidence, but by the existence of ancient texts that rely on frame narration. Is the Bible sole authority, when its meaning is guided by non-inspired information?
I wish the critics of TSKT would be honest about it. I wish they would take the book at face value and judge the meaning of preservation texts. I wish they would point out their own, already established doctrine of preservation, before they ever dipped into external "evidence." TSKT doesn't present historical theology (that will be a second book), but I wish they would move next to what Christians have believed in history, and not just independent Baptists or individual churches. There is a reason why many Presbyterians, Free Presbyterians, and Reformed men take the same position as TSKT. It really hurts the crazy theory that this doctrine originated from Benjamin Wilkinson and the Seventh Day Adventists---that is just a blatant lie (really among many, many lies that I read about the position we teach---why do they need to resort to these lies?).
Most men today approach their doctrine of preservation, even their doctrine of the Bible, different than they do other doctrine. This is a new, modern or postmodern approach to a doctrine. At one time, men started with what the Bible said about something. They believed that. Their explanation of what happened was guided by that presupposition. When I study historical doctrine, I look to see if that's what someone did. I also expect historical theology. I expect that someone has established already, before believing something, that there is some historic basis for believing it. Those start all off my beliefs. If it is something new, then it must be thoroughly vetted by scripture, coming out of really firm exegesis, not speculation. This is what honors and glorifies God. Faith pleases Him. This doesn't happen in the discussions on preservation, which is why what you read is so all over the map, like a buffet table of various doctrines, taking about anything that they think will stick.
As an example, an article was written in the last month by Mark Ward on his blog, called By Faith We Understand. It should come with a disclaimer on his doctrine of scripture, because he doesn't start with scripture or operate by faith for his doctrine of scripture. He wrote, KJVOism, Fanatacism, and Epistemology. There are so many falsehoods in the article, it's hard to know where to start. When it comes to the Bible, you really can say almost anything you want today, true or not, and it is accepted as long as it comes to an acceptable conclusion to your audience. Ward essentially mocks people who use only the King James Version, and buttresses his scorn with falsehoods. He doesn't start with a doctrine about the preservation of scripture, but he uses a "scriptural argument" in his article. I hate articles like this one, but it must be dealt with.
You can read Ward's article yourself. I've linked to it. In the first paragraph of his section, "KJV-Onylism and Sources of Revelation," he argues something that I have not read in historical theology anywhere ever and I think I'm widely read, that is, that creation and providence are an authority over the meaning of scripture, and, therefore, scripture itself. He doesn't really stop there, because he also says that your own personal experience is necessary for the interpretation of scripture. You can read his argument there. The closest I've seen of this in history is the Petrine theory on papal primacy, which is not putting you in good company. It's easy to see where he's headed with this novel approach. I was the only person that I've read, who even criticized this new doctrine, and that doesn't surprise me, because this is the new nature of theology. You are credited with coming up with new stuff, invented new doctrine. There were two major problems here among many others.
First, the history of sola scriptura includes the analogy of scripture, that is, Holy Scripture is its own interpreter. Scripture is self attesting. Scripture doesn't require outside knowledge to know what it means. In that way, the Bible is truly the final authority. If outside sources were required, then the authority for scripture would shift to those sources, which is what Ward does, and he doesn't understand that by faith. He understands that by his own experience. He makes it up and talks like it is scriptural. It isn't. Don't believe it is, because beliefs come from scripture, and it isn't from scripture.
Scripture is fulfilled in the real world. It applies in the real world, but you don't work in reverse of that, looking to the world to find out what scripture is saying. That is what Ward asserts. Read him yourself. I say that I get what he's doing. He's justifying textual criticism, using this argument, saying that we look out there in the world of manuscripts to allow that to tell us what scripture is. I say he's got it reversed, because you've got to start with understanding what scripture says by faith ("by faith we understand," the name of his blog). He doesn't do that. This is how we have run into all sorts of problems today, because the burning on the bosom is someone's understanding of James 1:5, and why shouldn't that be wrong? Your take on scripture becomes very subjective, when you've got the whole world to call general revelation for purposes of getting your meaning of scripture.
I can already hear it---"that's not what he's saying!" That's why I keep saying, read it yourself. Ward's article itself is an example of why you don't want to do what he says to do. You can make up things, like he is making up things, when you start with something so subjective.
Do you know what the answer to what I'm writing here is? Brandenburg is a Baptist brider! I'm not. I don't even believe the bride is the church. I've written about that here, but people just say it anyway, because it will stick as a smear. It's a lie. Or they say he's a borderline Baptist brider, like someone is a borderline serial killer, as a means of deniability. Like some of the comments I'm reading about me on SharperIron right now, "I didn't say you 'were' that, just that you might be." I'm not. I didn't. It's not true. Remove it. It still stays. Why? It contributes to the approved view, which is not "a" view, but not a certain view, that is the unacceptable view, almost anything else is tolerable, as seen in some of the theories thrown out without justification from scripture or history. It's like watching CNN right now, or MSNBC.
Second for Ward, he is espousing a false, unscriptural, and anti-historic, modernistic view of general revelation to defend his point. He turns general revelation to general in its content. General revelation is general in its audience. In other words, it is "general" in that everyone sees it, like Romans 1 explains. Everyone knows it. Ward elevates his own observations to general revelation. This is a view that you will read all over in evangelicalism today. Just read what Ward writes.
Ward notices that men are not computers. He sees that men make copyist errors. He observes that there are textual variants. Guess what? Christians have been doing that for centuries. But that is not general revelation. It might be providential, but it isn't revealing any new doctrine that contradicts scripture. It isn't providing an adjustment to what scripture already teaches. What we observe isn't doctrine and there are a number of good reasons to deny that, the greatest being something related to copyist errors, and that is the depravity of man. There are so many reasons to question many's observation. He gets it wrong.
Mark Ward in his article repeatedly misrepresents the biblical and historical view of preservation. He won't let me comment on his blog to correct his errors. There are so many of them that it would seem to be purposeful, he's fibbing on purpose. I am going to reject that and just say that he's ignorant and deceived. He's accustomed to operating that way, so he can't help it, sort of like a copyist error. Like a good writer would, he should provide any quotes or examples of his particular made-up fictional observations, but he doesn't.
Either Ward doesn't understand providence or he is just twisting it for this article. He doesn't represent what believers mean by providential preservation. He should read more to get what it does mean. I know he doesn't understand it, because the first time I talked to him in the last year, he had never heard the historic and biblical view. It was all new to him. He was already against it, because it differed from what he already thought, but he hadn't heard it. Because it was new to him, he assumed that it must be off or weird, when actually his position is the novel one in history and especially the Bible. He had not heard it, because he didn't learn that way and doesn't think that way. He's not thinking the right way. There's a mocking tone throughout, but also when he writes:
In John 16:13, Jesus said:
There is a lot of disagreement about the Bible among those who don't take the same position as TSKT. Is there any final authority to settle disputes about the Bible? As I see it, the wide variety of belief and thinking about the Bible comes because the Bible itself isn't the sole source for belief or knowledge about the Bible. More new manuscripts are found. Another ancient book is uncovered. Another edition of the critical text is published. Teaching about the Bible is in flux.
Two important questions especially guide how we see the world. Can we know? How we know? Can we know God? How we know God? The Mormons rely on the burning in the bosom. Roman Catholics depend on tradition. Charismatics trust in experiences. Shouldn't scripture be the final authority about itself? Shouldn't true believers have as their major premise that what the Bible says about itself is true?
A corollary to the previous paragraph could be some thoughts about source criticism, historical criticism, or biblical criticism. Should we go outside of scripture for the interpretation of scripture? Here's what a passage of scripture says, but the external evidence doesn't match up; therefore, we adapt or conform the teaching of the passage to the external evidence. I read a lot of commentaries and this is a new hot fad among even conservative evangelical commentaries. I've been studying Ecclesiastes a lot recently and the most popular new position on Ecclesiastes is that there are several authors, and that position is mainly buttressed, not by internal evidence, but by the existence of ancient texts that rely on frame narration. Is the Bible sole authority, when its meaning is guided by non-inspired information?
I wish the critics of TSKT would be honest about it. I wish they would take the book at face value and judge the meaning of preservation texts. I wish they would point out their own, already established doctrine of preservation, before they ever dipped into external "evidence." TSKT doesn't present historical theology (that will be a second book), but I wish they would move next to what Christians have believed in history, and not just independent Baptists or individual churches. There is a reason why many Presbyterians, Free Presbyterians, and Reformed men take the same position as TSKT. It really hurts the crazy theory that this doctrine originated from Benjamin Wilkinson and the Seventh Day Adventists---that is just a blatant lie (really among many, many lies that I read about the position we teach---why do they need to resort to these lies?).
Most men today approach their doctrine of preservation, even their doctrine of the Bible, different than they do other doctrine. This is a new, modern or postmodern approach to a doctrine. At one time, men started with what the Bible said about something. They believed that. Their explanation of what happened was guided by that presupposition. When I study historical doctrine, I look to see if that's what someone did. I also expect historical theology. I expect that someone has established already, before believing something, that there is some historic basis for believing it. Those start all off my beliefs. If it is something new, then it must be thoroughly vetted by scripture, coming out of really firm exegesis, not speculation. This is what honors and glorifies God. Faith pleases Him. This doesn't happen in the discussions on preservation, which is why what you read is so all over the map, like a buffet table of various doctrines, taking about anything that they think will stick.
As an example, an article was written in the last month by Mark Ward on his blog, called By Faith We Understand. It should come with a disclaimer on his doctrine of scripture, because he doesn't start with scripture or operate by faith for his doctrine of scripture. He wrote, KJVOism, Fanatacism, and Epistemology. There are so many falsehoods in the article, it's hard to know where to start. When it comes to the Bible, you really can say almost anything you want today, true or not, and it is accepted as long as it comes to an acceptable conclusion to your audience. Ward essentially mocks people who use only the King James Version, and buttresses his scorn with falsehoods. He doesn't start with a doctrine about the preservation of scripture, but he uses a "scriptural argument" in his article. I hate articles like this one, but it must be dealt with.
You can read Ward's article yourself. I've linked to it. In the first paragraph of his section, "KJV-Onylism and Sources of Revelation," he argues something that I have not read in historical theology anywhere ever and I think I'm widely read, that is, that creation and providence are an authority over the meaning of scripture, and, therefore, scripture itself. He doesn't really stop there, because he also says that your own personal experience is necessary for the interpretation of scripture. You can read his argument there. The closest I've seen of this in history is the Petrine theory on papal primacy, which is not putting you in good company. It's easy to see where he's headed with this novel approach. I was the only person that I've read, who even criticized this new doctrine, and that doesn't surprise me, because this is the new nature of theology. You are credited with coming up with new stuff, invented new doctrine. There were two major problems here among many others.
First, the history of sola scriptura includes the analogy of scripture, that is, Holy Scripture is its own interpreter. Scripture is self attesting. Scripture doesn't require outside knowledge to know what it means. In that way, the Bible is truly the final authority. If outside sources were required, then the authority for scripture would shift to those sources, which is what Ward does, and he doesn't understand that by faith. He understands that by his own experience. He makes it up and talks like it is scriptural. It isn't. Don't believe it is, because beliefs come from scripture, and it isn't from scripture.
Scripture is fulfilled in the real world. It applies in the real world, but you don't work in reverse of that, looking to the world to find out what scripture is saying. That is what Ward asserts. Read him yourself. I say that I get what he's doing. He's justifying textual criticism, using this argument, saying that we look out there in the world of manuscripts to allow that to tell us what scripture is. I say he's got it reversed, because you've got to start with understanding what scripture says by faith ("by faith we understand," the name of his blog). He doesn't do that. This is how we have run into all sorts of problems today, because the burning on the bosom is someone's understanding of James 1:5, and why shouldn't that be wrong? Your take on scripture becomes very subjective, when you've got the whole world to call general revelation for purposes of getting your meaning of scripture.
I can already hear it---"that's not what he's saying!" That's why I keep saying, read it yourself. Ward's article itself is an example of why you don't want to do what he says to do. You can make up things, like he is making up things, when you start with something so subjective.
Do you know what the answer to what I'm writing here is? Brandenburg is a Baptist brider! I'm not. I don't even believe the bride is the church. I've written about that here, but people just say it anyway, because it will stick as a smear. It's a lie. Or they say he's a borderline Baptist brider, like someone is a borderline serial killer, as a means of deniability. Like some of the comments I'm reading about me on SharperIron right now, "I didn't say you 'were' that, just that you might be." I'm not. I didn't. It's not true. Remove it. It still stays. Why? It contributes to the approved view, which is not "a" view, but not a certain view, that is the unacceptable view, almost anything else is tolerable, as seen in some of the theories thrown out without justification from scripture or history. It's like watching CNN right now, or MSNBC.
Second for Ward, he is espousing a false, unscriptural, and anti-historic, modernistic view of general revelation to defend his point. He turns general revelation to general in its content. General revelation is general in its audience. In other words, it is "general" in that everyone sees it, like Romans 1 explains. Everyone knows it. Ward elevates his own observations to general revelation. This is a view that you will read all over in evangelicalism today. Just read what Ward writes.
Ward notices that men are not computers. He sees that men make copyist errors. He observes that there are textual variants. Guess what? Christians have been doing that for centuries. But that is not general revelation. It might be providential, but it isn't revealing any new doctrine that contradicts scripture. It isn't providing an adjustment to what scripture already teaches. What we observe isn't doctrine and there are a number of good reasons to deny that, the greatest being something related to copyist errors, and that is the depravity of man. There are so many reasons to question many's observation. He gets it wrong.
Mark Ward in his article repeatedly misrepresents the biblical and historical view of preservation. He won't let me comment on his blog to correct his errors. There are so many of them that it would seem to be purposeful, he's fibbing on purpose. I am going to reject that and just say that he's ignorant and deceived. He's accustomed to operating that way, so he can't help it, sort of like a copyist error. Like a good writer would, he should provide any quotes or examples of his particular made-up fictional observations, but he doesn't.
Either Ward doesn't understand providence or he is just twisting it for this article. He doesn't represent what believers mean by providential preservation. He should read more to get what it does mean. I know he doesn't understand it, because the first time I talked to him in the last year, he had never heard the historic and biblical view. It was all new to him. He was already against it, because it differed from what he already thought, but he hadn't heard it. Because it was new to him, he assumed that it must be off or weird, when actually his position is the novel one in history and especially the Bible. He had not heard it, because he didn't learn that way and doesn't think that way. He's not thinking the right way. There's a mocking tone throughout, but also when he writes:
The KJV-Onlyites look at providence, too, and they say that the text used by the greatest number for the greatest time must be the right one; it’s blessed.People who take the biblical and historical position on the preservation of scripture don't start with providence and then look at the Bible. That's Ward. So we don't do it too. Providence starts with scripture and then looks to see how God works. This is reading Daniel and then expecting the fulfillment of the prophecies. It starts with a biblical model and then looks for its fulfillment. Men see the promise of preservation and then they observe how that looks through history.
In John 16:13, Jesus said:
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
All the verses surrounding this promise talk about it. The Father gives it to the Son and gives it to the Spirit, the Son gives it to the Spirit, and then it is given to them and we know from later also to us. So we expect that. We look for that. We have a Bible. That is not general revelation. It is providence, but it does not start with observations about what happened and apply that to what Jesus said. It starts with what Jesus said. God made a covenant with Israel, teased out in Esther. This is how providence works, but it starts with the covenant, not with the events fulfilling the covenant.
The error of Ward I'm describing is serious, very serious. Men should be concerned, but what I've read is in essence and repeatedly, "Good job, Mark." Good job? He's wrong. He opens a can of worms that you want closed. You don't want that can opened up. It should stay closed.
Ward is saying that we get our bibliology from this false idea of general revelation and even providence. He misses it on the analogia scriptura, misses it on general revelation, and he misses it again on providence. Strike three. He fans with this article, but he is treated like he hit a home run.
Bibliology starts and stops with scripture. It originates only from scripture. It's source is scripture. Bibliology comes from scripture. That's what we did in TSKT. That was the point of the book. What people don't like about TSKT, I've noticed, is that it doesn't delve enough to them about manuscript evidence and historical application. It doesn't answer from their perspective the crucial question, Which TR? It was never intended to do that. Doctrine about scripture is the place where men see experience and observation to be priority number one in authority. Attack on scripture is the first attack in the Bible itself. It continues to be.
Friday, June 02, 2017
Andrew Murray, Mystical Quietist and Higher Life / Keswick Writer, part 5 of 7
The content of this post has now been moved to:
Please click on the link above to read the complete form of parts 1-7 that used to be in the posts here at What is Truth?.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)