One of the Two Primary Distortions of the Gospel in the New Testament, and The Most Prominent Today

Gospel means "good news," good news that we can be saved, that God wants to save us.  We need to be saved, but we also can be saved.  We don't deserve it, but God in His nature saves, wants to save us, and we can be saved.  Nothing is more important to anything and everything in life than being saved, which includes relationship with God and relationship with man.

Ephesians deals with relationship.  I've started to include that in my series on relationship and will continue through Ephesians and other relationship books and passages for exposition.  I established in that series (all links to every part are HERE), and showed how that wrong relationship (in part thirteen) with God is the paradigm or template for a wrong relationship with men.  The impediments to relationship with men do proceed from the barrier in relationship with God.  They do proceed.  This is axiomatic; it is a rule.

A fundamental way that Paul shows in Ephesians that someone can know and understand the relationship with God is by means of the relationship with men, and this relates to one of the two primary ways the gospel is distorted.  Nothing is worse than the gospel being distorted.  It means people go to Hell.  When someone does it, he is causing more damage than any singular activity on earth.  He should be rebuked in the strongest possible terms.

One distortion of the gospel is represented in many places in the New Testament, but in the epistle to the Galatians in a classic way.  Paul rebukes Peter to his face for a corruption of the gospel that today someone might think is meaningless.  Peter chooses not to eat meat with Gentile Christians in Antioch because of the pressure of Jews from Jerusalem.  Paul withstands Peter to his face for doing that, because of what it would do to the gospel.  This is the "adding works to grace" kind of corruption, or what has been termed, legalism.

Today, professing evangelicals have assigned legalism to all sorts of activity that resemble nothing like what Paul confronts with Peter and so they conveniently distort the problem of actual legalism, real legalism, which is a problem still, but not to the extent of a worse one presently, the second of the two primary distortions of the gospel in the New Testament.  This one is also all over the New Testament, but I want to focus on what one should see in Ephesians about this.  It could be a corollary to my relationship series.  I am motivated right now by a specific example, and I'll get to that.  Someone I know well is corrupting and confusing the gospel.  It's too big of a problem not to expose.

Ephesians 5:1-13 and the Other Distortion of the Gospel, the Main One Today

I could cover more or less than the first 13 verses of Ephesians 5, but that's what will expose the point.  I'm going to bold certain portions to show you that this relationship material does apply to the gospel.  Read these verses (all of them)!

1 Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children; 2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour. 3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; 4 Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. 5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. 6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. 7 Be not ye therefore partakers with them. 8 For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light: 9 (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;) 10 Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. 11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. 12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret. 13 But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.

If you are a "dear child" (v. 1), you are saved (John 1:12), and children will follow their Father, literally "imitate."  The supreme example of this is Christ, as seen in His obedience to the Father, offering himself as a sacrifice to God.  Yes, He gave Himself for us, but He was also pleasing the Father, described as being a sweetsmelling savour to the Father.  Contrasted with this ("But") is something different, which isn't being a child of God, which is later "a child of light," rather than a "child of disobedience."  Paul uses this same phrase in Ephesians 2:3 in that gospel passage of Ephesians 2:1-10, that also is formulated for relationship, starting in Ephesians 2:11.

Paul is dealing with a distortion of the gospel, and he commands in in Ephesians 5:6, "Let no man deceive you."  It's obvious that there were false teachers that were deceiving in this way, giving people the impression that someone might be a dear child or child of the light, who is participating in these types of activities.  Today this is mainly called "antinomianism."  In the New Testament, especially exposed in 2 Peter and Jude, it is turning the grace of God into lasciviousness.  In Galatians, it is using grace as an occasion of the flesh.  This is not the grace of God.  It is an impostor, counterfeit grace, but it is popular in evangelicalism today, often called free grace and now I've read, "scandalous grace" (read this and this).  It is not the gospel.  It is a placebo that gives people a horrific false sense of security.  That is the scandal of it.  Paul says, don't be deceived by that false gospel -- the person who is deceived will not inherit the kingdom of Christ and of God.

Right now, I have good reason to believe that someone who I love dearly, almost as much as anyone, is being deceived by this kind of deception.  I have no good reason to think he isn't.  He is promoting exactly what the Apostle Paul says not to do here, and then Paul also characterizes it as a non-Christian.

Let's go back to Ephesians 5.  Paul contrasts Christ's obedience, which is His love, with that which might include the acts of fornication, uncleanness, or covetousness (5:3).  Paul doesn't stop there, he also brings it to the equivalent in speech:  filthiness, foolish talking, and jesting (5:4).

The actions are bad, but Paul doesn't stop there.  He includes the people, who talk about these things.  "Filthiness" is obscenity, someone who uses the foul language or suggestive language in line with fornication.  "Foolish talking" is the kind of talk of a fool, and a fool is an unbeliever, but it is characterized by temporal and of this world and lust again (see eph 2:1-3, please read).  "Jesting" is coarse, double entendre and innuendo.  It's not funny but it is made light of, even though Paul says it shouldn't even be "named among you."  Christians won't use this language and of course would never direct to or support someone else who uses it, like an entertainer, comedian, or "musician."  Popular music is full of, primarily constituted by, filthiness, foolish talking, and jesting.

Paul is clear.  People who act this way and talk this way are not followers of God, not His dear children, not loving, not a sweet smelling savor to God, not a child of light and not acceptable to the Lord, but instead a child of disobedience, darkness, and those not inheriting the kingdom of God but instead recipients of God's wrath.  They are not saved.  Are you listening?  Are you being deceived?  Stop being deceived.  This view of grace is false.  You will right now walk away from this view of grace, because it is false, whoever is telling you it, even if it is an uncle, an aunt, a cousin, a proclaiming preacher, an author, or a professing friend.  He isn't your friend.  He is a deceiver.  If you are saved, you'll be able to walk away from it.

What Paul Says to Do About It

Paul first commands not to be deceived.  He doesn't stop there.  He makes some commands to the church that are typically not done and church members don't look fondly on them.  Let me remind you of what they are.

Be not ye therefore partakers with them.
Walk as children of light.
Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness.
Rather reprove them (make manifest them).
Don't speak of them even in secret (let alone in public).

It doesn't say, like, be silent, get along, tolerate, and be polite with.  Separation must occur.  No approval can be shown.  It must be rebuked.  That is real speech.

Here's the thing.  Today in this postmodern world, almost everyone, especially millennials, think that love is tolerating this behavior.  "Scandalous grace" tolerates it.  Jesus doesn't.  God doesn't.  These people will not be in His kingdom, but be under His wrath.  If you rebuke it, you are doing the right thing.  If you don't, you are not doing the right thing.  You are allowing it to be done, unlike a child of light.  You are not loving this person. You are jumping in with this person.  Do not do this!

The one I love is promoting new "country artists," and he says every week he'll do some of it more.  I looked into the lyrics of the first three.  I'm not even talking about the sensual, lustful music, which is bad enough, but the lyrics are filthy, foolish, and jesting.  Almost everything they write has this in it.  He calls them "authentic" and "honest" and "know how to deliver a hook," which are nonsense as a means of evaluation.  Everywhere one can adjudicate biblical teaching, they violate God.  They represent darkness, disobedience, and all things that should not even be named, let alone promoted.  This first one he pushes everyone to hear (what Christian would do this?) has these lyrics:

Whoever wrote the rules of breaking up never kissed your lips
Touched your skin, held the world at their fingertips
Didn't have a clue what heaven was
No they didn't have to lose that kind of love
And if they ever saw that smile, ever felt your fire
They might know what I'm going through
Whoever wrote the rules of breaking up
Ever been broke up? Broke up

There is more and there is worse.  The next one he endorses, sing their song, Underage, which says these:

Young,
All we ever think about is fun
All we ever wanna be is 21
Hey, doesn't everyone wanna sit on top of the world?
Revolves around athletic boys and girls
Dressed up in their older sister's clothes, R. Kelly on the radio
Screaming out, "This'll never get old" 

Racing cars and breaking hearts
First taste of love and twist-off wine
Kissing strangers, daring danger
Burning bridges, crossing lines
You don't think to take it slow
And you don't know what you don't know
The nights are young and our IDs are fake
Underage
Underage 

Time,
Feels like it's always on our side
So we fill it up with midnight drives and lies
To your mama when she asks you where you've been
And you hide your smile and say anywhere but with him
'Cause you know when she was seventeen
She was doing the same **** thing

I'm going to stop there, but it doesn't get better.  It's worse.  The language is worse and the themes are worse.  The above is tame and being used just for the blog post.  These not only shouldn't be promoted and pushed.  The world doesn't need it.  Satan will get the word out.  Christians should be talking about the Lord Jesus Christ, which I just don't see.  This is just the opposite.  Take into consideration everything Paul says in Ephesians 5 with these examples as a consideration.

If someone is to the point where he says he's a Christian, who loves Jesus, and yet he is promoting and adulating the above types of groups and lyrics, then he is being deceived like Paul talks about.  I think we should assume, that since Paul writes this to a church, that the church could be deceived and that a Christian could be deceived.  If a Christian is deceived, when he is being taught or warned, he will also listen (cf. James 1:18-27), and repent of this type of behavior.  I look forward to that from anyone who is an actual believer and in this present condition.

Major Message in Scripture: Suffering for Evil Doing Isn't Actually Suffering

In this postmodern age, people don't want to suffer at all and they "succeed" by avoiding any and all suffering.  This includes suffering for evil doing.  The feel entitled not to suffer for evil doing.  You could see how postmodern that is.  There can't be evil doing in a post modern world, except for bringing suffering to an evil-doer.  Just telling one of them they're wrong is evil doing, which is in social media world, "not like."  When postmoderns do wrong, they don't want to hear it, and if they do, they have suffered.  Even if parents are the ones telling them, they are the real evil doers.  That's the only rule in their postmodern world.  Do you know the verse for that?

There isn't one.

Just the opposite.

Peter in his foremost epistle on suffering writes (read it all, but bold for emphasis):

1 Peter 2:20, For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. 

1 Peter 3:13-14, 16-17, 13 And who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good? 14 But and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled; 16 Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ. 17 For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing. 

1 Peter 4:12-16, 12 Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you: 13 But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy. 14 If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified. 15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters. 16 Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.

No one should be surprised when he suffers as an evil doer.  Throughout scripture, one repeated aspect of repentance for evil doing is admittance of the deserving of the punishment, essentially of taking the punishment.  A person who is angry with punishment, that he deserves, is not repentant.  This is a major theme of the book of Lamentations.   God will most often show mercy to unrepentant sin.  He gave multiple opportunities to Israel. The punishment is the barbaric siege of Jerusalem that God brings as a means of chastisement.  It is savage treatment by the Babylonians. Here are some excerpts a samples (bold again for emphasis).

Lamentations 1:5, 8, 15, 18,  5 Her adversaries are the chief, her enemies prosper; for the LORD hath afflicted her for the multitude of her transgressions: her children are gone into captivity before the enemy.  8 Jerusalem hath grievously sinned; therefore she is removed: all that honoured her despise her, because they have seen her nakedness: yea, she sigheth, and turneth backward.  15 The Lord hath trodden under foot all my mighty men in the midst of me: he hath called an assembly against me to crush my young men: the Lord hath trodden the virgin, the daughter of Judah, as in a winepress.  18 The LORD is righteous; for I have rebelled against his commandment. 

Lamentations 2:4, 17,  4 He hath bent his bow like an enemy: he stood with his right hand as an adversary, and slew all that were pleasant to the eye in the tabernacle of the daughter of Zion: he poured out his fury like fire. 17 The LORD hath done that which he had devised; he hath fulfilled his word that he had commanded in the days of old: he hath thrown down, and hath not pitied: and he hath caused thine enemy to rejoice over thee, he hath set up the horn of thine adversaries. 

Lamentations 3:1, 26-30, 33-43 1 I am the man that hath seen affliction by the rod of his wrath. 26 It is good that a man should both hope and quietly wait for the salvation of the LORD. 27 It is good for a man that he bear the yoke in his youth. 28 He sitteth alone and keepeth silence, because he hath borne it upon him. 29 He putteth his mouth in the dust; if so be there may be hope. 30 He giveth his cheek to him that smiteth him: he is filled full with reproach.  33 For he doth not afflict willingly nor grieve the children of men. 34 To crush under his feet all the prisoners of the earth, 35 To turn aside the right of a man before the face of the most High, 36 To subvert a man in his cause, the Lord approveth not. 37 Who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass, when the Lord commandeth it not? 38 Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? 39 Wherefore doth a living man complain, a man for the punishment of his sins? 40 Let us search and try our ways, and turn again to the LORD. 41 Let us lift up our heart with our hands unto God in the heavens. 42 We have transgressed and have rebelled: thou hast not pardoned. 43 Thou hast covered with anger, and persecuted us: thou hast slain, thou hast not pitied. 

Lamentations 4:6, 13, 22,  6 For the punishment of the iniquity of the daughter of my people is greater than the punishment of the sin of Sodom, that was overthrown as in a moment, and no hands stayed on her. 13 For the sins of her prophets, and the iniquities of her priests, that have shed the blood of the just in the midst of her, 22 The punishment of thine iniquity is accomplished, O daughter of Zion; he will no more carry thee away into captivity: he will visit thine iniquity, O daughter of Edom; he will discover thy sins. 

Lamentations 5:15-17,  15 The joy of our heart is ceased; our dance is turned into mourning. 16 The crown is fallen from our head: woe unto us, that we have sinned! 17 For this our heart is faint; for these things our eyes are dim. 

Especially look at Lamentations 3, the apex of the book, where Jeremiah writes that this punishment from God is His faithfulness, great is His faithfulness (3:23).

Another facet of what I'm writing about in this essay is the example of the Babylonian captivity of Judah.  Judah went through a siege, but then captivity and part of her repentance before God was accepting the punishment she received.  People who can't take their punishment are not repentant.  One should also consider the repentance of Zacchaeus in Luke 19.  Part of his repentance was retribution or remuneration, which was punitive.  He had to pay back with a high percentage of interest money that he admitted that he stole through wicked taxation.

The duration of the Babylonian captivity was precisely 70 years.  The reason for that captivity is that Israel had failed to observe 70 Sabbath years (Leviticus 26:27-35; 2 Chronicles 36:20-21).  Matthew Henry writes in his commentary on Jeremiah 27:

Jeremiah the prophet, since he cannot persuade people to submit to God’s precept, and so to prevent the destruction of their country by the king of Babylon, is here persuading them to submit to God’s providence, by yielding tamely to the king of Babylon, and becoming tributaries to him, which was the wisest course they could now take, and would be a mitigation of the calamity, and prevent the laying of their country waste by fire and sword; the sacrificing of their liberties would be the saving of their lives. I. He gives this counsel, in God’s name, to the kings of the neighbouring nations, that they might make the best of bad, assuring them that there was no remedy, but they must serve the king of Babylon; and yet in time there should be relief, for his dominion should last but 70 years (v. 1-11). II. He gives this counsel to Zedekiah king of Judah particularly (v. 12-15) and to the priests and people, assuring them that the king of Babylon should still proceed against them till things were brought to the last extremity, and a patient submission would be the only way to mitigate the calamity and make it easy (v. 16-22).

Read especially Jeremiah 27:8-11:

8 And it shall come to pass, that the nation and kingdom which will not serve the same Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, and that will not put their neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, that nation will I punish, saith the LORD, with the sword, and with the famine, and with the pestilence, until I have consumed them by his hand. 9 Therefore hearken not ye to your prophets, nor to your diviners, nor to your dreamers, nor to your enchanters, nor to your sorcerers, which speak unto you, saying, Ye shall not serve the king of Babylon: 10 For they prophesy a lie unto you, to remove you far from your land; and that I should drive you out, and ye should perish. 11 But the nations that bring their neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, and serve him, those will I let remain still in their own land, saith the LORD; and they shall till it, and dwell therein.

It was God's will that His people submit to His judgment because of their sins.  Their admission of guilt and willingly acquiescing to His punishment would mean repentance.  This is a reason that parents should look for willing acceptance of discipline from their children.  Later on, if a child, who has sinned, is bitter because he chafes under the punishment he received, essentially in willful pride, he is not repentant.

Someone suffers in actuality for well-doing.  Someone is punished or chastised for evil-doing.  When a parent spanks a child, lectures a child, disapproves of a child's behavior, the child isn't suffering.  He's being punished and deserves it.  If he wants to hold on to that and consider himself to be a victim, this is a recipe for disaster.  I don't even believe it.  Children who do that are looking for a way to justify future sinning.  All discontent and resentment holds a future of iniquity.

If a church member is subjected to discipline and the church practices separation from that person, and he doesn't not accept that punishment, then he is not repentant over his sin.  He is justifying his own actions.  If he is saved, I would expect chastisement, even death, and that would be a mercy of God.  If this is an unbeliever, and he doesn't repent, it is even worse punishment in store for his future.

The Ancient Text of the New Testament, part one

In 1975, Jakob Van Bruggen (Wikipedia link), longtime professor of New Testament at the Theological College of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands, gave a lecture on the text of the New Testament in Broederwig, Kampen at the anniversary of the College.  The transcript of the lecture was translated into English and was published into a forty page booklet entitled, The Ancient Text of the New Testament.  With his lecture, Van Bruggen argued for the superiority of the majority text and the textus receptus (those two are not seen as the same thing anymore, but at one time, the textus receptus would be referred to as the majority text -- for the sake of the reader, very often the terms textus receptus, received, Church, ecclesiastical, Syrian, Byzantine, traditional, and majority are used interchangeably).  I want to explain his lecture in a manner that almost anyone reading could understand his argument.  It is very good.

When I consider the text of scripture and its preservation, I start with scriptural presuppositions about what we should expect God to have preserved and to have made or kept available.  This is the best approach or even the right one, but it is also important, I believe, to accompany that with an explanation of the text in a historical manner.  Van Bruggen has thought through and given a good defense in a textual way, and it should be considered.  It is strong.

The first line reads:  "The New Testament textual criticism of the twentieth century is characterized by great uncertainty."  He says that "on the surface the opposite seems to be the case," because there is so much agreement among Catholics and Protestants in support of the eclectic Nestles text of the United Bible Society.  He follows:

All this does not yet mean that there is certainty about the correct text of the New Testament.  Agreement can be based on mutual certainty, but also on mutual uncertainty.  And the latter is the case.

Furthermore, he writes:

This again means acquiescence in a consensus text which has been determined on the basis of uncertainty. . . . many readings which have been chosen only by the majority of the committee.   That they did not unanimously arrive at a text. . . . At present there is no certainty concerning the history of the textual tradition. . . . the eclectic method is generally followed. . . . Subjectivity is not out of the question with this method.  Thus they will just have to arrive at a text by majority vote.

In contrast, he continues with some seeming tongue-in-cheek:

Among all uncertainties of the 20th century, we, however, to one great, lasting uncertainty in the modern textual criticism. . . . One can even say that the modern textual criticism of the New Testament is based on one fundamental conviction that the true New Testament text is at least not found in the great majority of the manuscripts.  The text which the Greek church has read for 1000 years, and which the churches of the Reformation have followed for centuries in their Bible translations, is now regarded as defective and deficient. . . . Already for more than 100 years the certainty that this type of text is inferior has already been taken for granted. . . . The heritage of the 19th century criticism was a solitary certainty -- the inferiority of this "traditional text." . . . .  It is striking how emotionally people often speak about this one certainty.

Van Bruggen does not explain why one should even expect certainty for the text of the New Testament.  This is a single lecture that doesn't come close to asserting everything, so he just assumes the expectation of certainty.  The nature of God and His Word assumes certainty.  Uncertainty is not a satisfactory basis for faith.  It should be easy to understand why certainty is important.  Scripture itself affirms certainty to the jot and tittle, every word, settled to the extent that a curse exists on those who add or take away from the words (Rev 22:18-19).  I often hear evangelicals today mock the expectation, approaching certainty like of course it isn't to be expected.  This exposes their absence of biblical presuppositions.

To segue to the argument of the book, Van Bruggen writes:

The friction between certainty and uncertainty in modern New Testament textual criticism gives occasion to ask what reasons are given for rejecting the Byzantine or Church text, which has been used for many centuries. . . . There is a scientific and religious duty to ask the question whether the ancient text of the New Testament is not found in the majority of the manuscripts and whether the church has failed to follow the truly ancient text for many centuries.

Van Bruggen asserts that the rejection of the textus receptus is accepted as fact in the 20th century, but not defended.  The defense is merely refer "to the work of Hort in the 19th century.  Yet the various arguments of Hort are no longer generally accepted today"  As well, "no new supplementary arguments against the Byzantine text have been worked out."  Van Bruggen summarizes the arguments of Hort against the Syrian text or the traditional text as the following:

1. this text goes back to a revision of the Greek text in the 4th century, probably under the leadership of Lucianus of Antioch;
2. this text can on external grounds be characterized as a late text:  it is not found in the old majuscules and it is not followed by the Church Fathers before Nicea in the New Testament quotations;
3. this text can on internal grounds be characterized as secondary because of its inclusive nature (conflate readings) and because of its tendency to harmonize and assimilate, leading to a complete and lucid text.

Soon thereafter Van Bruggen provides a snapshot push-back:  [I]t must be remembered that for centuries people could daily acquaint themselves with the character of the Byzantine text or the textus receptus, yet they did not regard this as secondary and inferior."  Also, "if Hort's arguments are proven right, then it is strange that they were not advanced earlier.  If they are wrong, the question becomes urgent why they were still generally accepted in the last century."  Although puzzled by that phenomenon Van Bruggen chooses to focus his "attention on the question what force the argument of Hort in themselves have"  -- "after all, on the ground of these arguments people were so bold to abandon the traditional text."  The next three sections of the booklet are given to dealing in order with each of Hort's arguments.

The Value of the Number of Manuscripts

Van Bruggen earlier made light of the use of a majority of committee members to determine the acceptance of a textual variant.  He asks, why since there is no certainty still about the text of the New Testament would the critics not then rely on a majority of the manuscripts?  The answer is Hort's first argument, that the majority can be traced back to one recension, that is, "the many manuscripts would be nothing else than copies of only one manuscript."

The critical text is not based on a majority of the manuscripts because those are given the weight by critics of only one single manuscript.  "The historical starting point for this recension-idea is sought in the person of Lucianus of Antioch."  The critics are saying that a man, Lucianus of Antioch, revised the New Testament text in the fourth century and then the majority of the copies of the New Testament were made from that 'corrupt' revision.  The majority of the handwritten copies, manuscripts, of the New Testament must be dismissed, critics say, because they all come from the same source, which can't be trusted.  These are the copies which give the essential basis of the textus receptus and the Reformation era translations of scripture.

It is not possible to prove Lucianus made a revised text of the New Testament in the fourth century.  Because of that, a far diminished number of 20th century critics now mention Lucianus, despite continuing with a recension claim.  Van Bruggen writes:

That there is much agreement between all these manuscripts does not mean that they all come from one and the same source.

The work that debunked Hort's theory was done at least by Ernest C. Colwell and Kirsopp Lake.  Van Bruggen says:

[They clearly show] that it is better to describe the Byzantine textual tradition as a collection of converging textual traditions than as a varying reproduction of one archetype.  This fact now prevents us from thinking of one recension as the source for the text that is found in the majority of the manuscripts.  No matter how one judges about the value of the growing consensus in the textual tradition, one can not simply reduce the large majority of manuscripts to one vote and then only a secondary vote. . . . It is impossible to treat the majority of the manuscripts during the evaluation of them as though they textually formed one family. . . . We do not deny that small family groups can be distinguished within this majority, just as families can also be determined in other text-types and with the versions.

He continues:

That no importance is attached to this majority as such in modern textual criticism is not only connected with the recension-idea, but especially with the opinion one has concerning the age and character of the Byzantinue type.

Lucianus is not the basis of "convergence and uniformity."  So what is it?  Van Bruggen answers:

The different centres of production in the 4th and following centuries aimed at a most faithful copy of the original or at a good restoration of the original text. . . . Growing uniformity . . . points in the direction of a simultaneous turning-back in various centres to the same same central point of the original text.  This text was sought in the oldest and most faithful manuscripts.

Churches should not have allowed a modernist influenced movement to abandon the text received by the churches.  Many leaders did reject the rationalistic bias against the uniformity of a majority of the copies.  There was a historic trend toward uncertainty that resulted in this weak theory holding sway.  An honest recalculation would reconsider the historic reception of a uniform text in light of the unmasking of the underlying ideology for its abandonment.

More to Come

Tax the Poor: The Rich Are Paying Far More Than Their Fair Share

With April 15, tax day in the USA, having just recently passed, it is appropriate to reflect on the mantra that the rich are not paying their "fair share" of taxes, but are ripping off the poor, who allegedly are overwhelmed by the burdens the federal government is imposing on them to give to the rich.

What part do the rich and the poor pay?

The top 50% of tax payers paid 97% of all income tax in 2016, and the figures are about the same today.  The top one percent paid 37% of all income tax.

Approximately 44% of all lower-income workers will pay no income tax at all.  In other words, they are not just failing to pay their "fair share."  They are paying no share.  The rich are paying their fair share--in fact, they are paying far more than their fair share.  The government is stealing from the rich.

The large majority of what is stolen from the rich goes to unconstitutional "redistribution" of wealth--it is the government using force and the threat of fines and imprisonment to take from one person and give to another:

What is a "fair share"?

Enemies of the free market and advocates of socialism and of "redistribution" of wealth rarely define what the "fair share" is that they want the rich to pay.  However, the Bible clearly states what the maximum just level is for an income tax. In the words of the tract The Role of Government:  Has God Spoken?:

In economics, God teaches that taxation on income should be below a flat 10% rate—any higher rate is a curse and a form of slavery (1 Sam 8:6-8, 15, 17-18). “Redistrib­uting” wealth—the government taking from one person by force through taxation to give to someone else it believes is more worthy—is ungodly (1 Sam 8:14-15). Governments that redistribute wealth are stealing (Ex 20:15), just like a robber who “redistributes” what a person owns. Such practices are considered in Scripture to be pagan (1 Sam 8:19-20), tyrannical (1 Sam 8:17-18), and oppressive (1 Sam 12:3). Devaluing currency—as the government does by inflation—is also stealing (Isa 1:22, 25). National debt is a curse (Deut 28:12, 44). Bribery—including bribing certain classes of people to vote a certain way by promises of government handouts—is a sin and “perverted judgment” (1 Sam 8:3), for the government is to be impartial and neither favor the rich or poor (Deut 16:19; Ex 23:3; Prov 22:16). God commands individual believers and churches to generously and selflessly help the needy and poor (2 Thess 3:10; Gal 6:10; Lu 6:35), and not to do so is sinful, but for the government to employ force to extract money from people to give to either the rich or poor is the sin of stealing, not charity or generosity. The Bible teaches an economic system that values private property (Ex 20:15), free enterprise (Mt 20:2), and economic freedom (Mt 20:15), rather than socialism, fascism, or communism.

Any income tax above the tithe--above the 10% that God requires for Himself--is stealing and iniquity, not justifiable taxation.  10% is the maximum Biblically justifiable tax rate.  Furthermore, the tax rate should be flat--the poor should pay at most 10% of $1,000, namely, $100, and the rich should pay as a maximum 10% of $1,000,000, namely, $100,000. Therefore, every tax bracket in the USA, except perhaps the very lowest one, is sinful, and the rates become more sinful the more people earn:

2018 Tax Year Individual Income Tax Rate Schedule

Tax Rate	Single	Married/Joint & Widow(er)	Married/Separate	Head of Household
10%	$1 to $9,525	$1 to $19,050	$1 to $9,525	$1 to $13,600
12%	$9,526 to $38,700	$19,051 to $77,400	$9,526 to $38,700	$13,601 to $51,800
22%	$38,701 to $82,500	$77,401 to $165,000	$38,701 to $82,500	$51,801 to $82,500
24%	$82,501 to $157,500	$165,001 to $315,000	$82,501 to $157,500	$82,501 to $157,500
32%	$157,501 to $200,000	$315,001 to $400,000	$157,501 to $200,000	$157,500 to $200,000
35%	$200,001 to $500,000	$400,001 to $600,000	$200,001 to $300,000	$200,001 to $500,000
37%	over $500,000	over $600,000	over $300,000	over $500,000

(Note that the bottom brackets are essentially not really what they appear to be because various credits cancel out the tax rate--people in the 10% income bracket, for example, are almost certain to really pay 0%, having all their income tax returned to them.)

Biblically, the government is simply to be like a night watchman, punishing evil (Romans 13) and doing nothing except offering praise to what is good, rather than funding what it believes to be good through taxation.  Were the government to cease its sinful "redistribution" or stealing of people's private property through unbiblical spending, it could definitely both tax at below a 10% flat rate and also balance its budget and pay off the national debt.

Why the poor should be taxed

A flat tax is appropriate, not only because of the (entirely sufficient) reason that God says that it is, but also because it is very important for everyone to have "skin in the game."  When 44% or so pay no income tax at all, they have no incentive to fight for lower taxes and spending--rather, they have every incentive to vote for politicians who promise to steal more from other people and "redistribute" the goods of others to themselves.

Furthermore, a flat tax rate of less than 10% would result in much faster economic growth, making both rich and poor more wealthy.

It should be noted that in America the "rich" and the "poor" are highly fluid, not static, categories.  It is not that hard to become a millionaire in the USA. (See the IRA calculator here, for example--just start early enough and it is highly likely you will be a millionaire if God spares your life).  Furthermore, if you avoid the "strange woman" of Proverbs and work, you have less than a 2% chance of being below the poverty line.  What is more, the "poor" of the USA are not really poor--they are far better off than the vast majority of people in the world today, and far better off than just about everybody that lived in past centuries.

Thus, the poor that fear God should protest against the fact that other more wealthy Americans are having their property unjustly stolen by the government, and they should vote against programs that give them the stolen goods of others.  (I'm not holding my breath.)

Far too often (though not always), people are poor because of sinful behavior--drugs, alcohol, sexual immorality, etc.--and government welfare programs actually make their situation worse, not better.  Rather than stealing money from the wealthy through unjust taxation, the government should praise the wealthy who give generously to true churches that preach the gospel that changes the lives of drug addicts and other sinful lifestyles and cleans them up.  From a secular viewpoint, an organization such as Kiva does far more to help the poor in the USA and around the world with the money it has than the government does with the funds that flow through its "redistribution" schemes.

Conclusion:  Tax the poor

In conclusion, the rich are indeed not paying their "fair share"; they are paying much, much more than their fair share.  The poor, by contrast, are not paying their "fair share"; a huge percentage of them are paying no share at all.  These facts are ungodly, like many of the other things that the government does, the worst of all being allowing the slaughter of helpless infants in the womb.

Politicians will never say what this blog post says, because it would be highly unpopular and they would be out of a job the next election cycle.  (To be even more politically incorrect, you should not give the homeless money either--they are almost certain to spend it on drugs or alcohol, not food.)  Visualize the soundbites and headlines now:  "Politician says to tax the poor and give nothing to the homeless," followed by pictures of needy people, while ignoring the fact that the role of government, not of private charity, is under discussion.  It is not the role of government to be "generous" with other people's money--it is the duty of individuals and churches to be generous with their own money.  While politicians will never say these things, they are, nevertheless, the truth.  The rich are paying too much in taxes, and the poor are not paying their fair share.  The government is wickedly violating the eighth commandment, "Thou shalt not steal" (Exodus 20:15), and God's sword of justice will not always sleep.

-TDR