Verse differences

[Semper Fidelis]

First, you are abusing the theological principle of the Regulative Principle of Worship (by which we have clear commands) and applying it conveniently and incorrectly. We don't "infer" things for the Regulative Principle by general equity but by clear commands of Scripture. Your description is more like a normative principle where (if applied to worship in the manner you apply to preservation) you would overthrow the very regulative principle itself.

Secondly, the Priests were not all regenerate who kept the Books of the Law.

Thirdly, as we know in Josiah, the Priests had pretty much lost track of the Scriptures for decades.

Fourthly, it was the King's responsibility to make a new copy of the Scriptures. I could easily apply your "general equity" and state that is now the purview of the Magistrates to ensure that every magistrate that assumes a judicial/leadership role ought to be those who are most trusted in the copy of the texts.

Fifthly, the Reformers were adamant that justification by faith alone was the heart of the Reformation. In its denial is the denial of the Gospel itself. In the service of your idiosyncratic theory, Erasmus' denial of a central doctrine is a mere small error. Does your theory of preservation depend so much on Erasmus that you're willing to jettison this doctrine as inconsequential so long as insisting Erasmus must be regenerate serves the ends? Were the Reformers really just schismatics in the final analysis since this doctrine is so disposable to you?

You build irrelevant (and some impious) points on faulty foundations and give the appearance of a strong house but it is easily blown over.

As I said previously, there are regenerate men who are handling and have handled the same texts that Metzger and others use. Whatever you might want to do in the form of character assasination to convince people by verbiage of a fundamentally flawed argument you're still left with the regenerate handlers of the texts that come to the same conclusions as the "unregenerate" scholars. Consequently, by your own standard, you ought to trust their conclusions when they agree with the readings in the CT. Everything else is just fluff.

I repeat there is no "general equity" of the Regulative Principle and I would urge you to actually study that principle rather than undermining it to establish a theory of preservation. Secondly, you offer no GNC on how Providence depends upon the regenerate in the task which is the relevant theological header for the topic of preservation. Thirdly, if you want to argue for "trusting the regenerate" then you need to trust regenerate scholars when their conclusions differ from your own.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

I will consider the things you men are saying.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Matthew, there is some truth to what you say in your post #30 about not all who had the care of the Scripture having to be regenerate. As Rich brought up, it is very likely that some of the OT priests who kept the Books of the Law were not regenerate. And we know that the various classes of Jewish scribes (the Tannaim, Amoraim, Masoretes) who guarded and preserved the OT Scriptures after the dispersion following the 70 A.D. destruction of the temple, we know these scribes were not believers in Christ – although Jacob Ben Chayyim, who produced the Second Great Rabbinic Bible (1524-25) was converted to Christ – and yet they are the ones who kept the Scriptures by God’s providence, as it is written, “unto them were committed the oracles of God” (Rom 3:2), and they fulfilled that task, God’s providence enabling them. Augustine called them the “librarians” of the church.

Edward Hills, in his chapter eight of The King James Version Defended, avoids laying the weight of his argument on the regeneration of Erasmus, hinting at it while not denying it:

“Hence in the editing of his Greek New Testament text especially Erasmus was guided by the common faith in the current text. And back of this common faith was the controlling providence of God. For this reason Erasmus’ humanistic tendencies do not appear in the Textus Receptus which he produced. Although not himself outstanding as a man of faith, in his editorial labors on this text he was providentially influenced and guided by the faith of others.” (p 199)

“In the days of Erasmus, therefore, it was commonly believed by well informed Christians that the original New Testament text had been providentially preserved in the current New Testament text, primarily in the current Greek text and secondarily in the current Latin text. Erasmus was influenced by this common faith and probably shared it, and God used it providentially to guide Erasmus in his editorial labors on the Textus Receptus.” (p 197)​

You say,

I think it is also a misapplication to speak of the regulative principle in this context. What is not commanded is forbidden in matters of faith and worship. That principle does not apply to all of life.​

The last two sentences of course I agree with. You referred me to WCF 20.2,

God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship. . .​

Okay, worship is worship, and matters of faith are . . . that of which the word of God speaks concerning what we are to believe and do. And we are to believe – exercise faith in – those things He has said we should believe, which are many, directed to the OT people in their day, and the NT people in ours – with some things applicable to both dispensations.

Now if the care, preservation, and reproduction of God’s word in which we must have faith are not themselves “matters of faith” I do not know what is. When men who have demonstrated a faithless attitude to the word of God as Scripture put their hands to it with power to alter it, and do so, is this not contrary to His word and will? “Add thou not unto his words” (Prov 30:6); “diminish not a word” (Jer 26:2).

Is the giving of it to the priesthood to keep and guard not something that should speak to us? Is the saying, “For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope” (Rom 15:4), not applicable with regard to this matter? Is it only with regard to the typical things this applies?

Perhaps my likening it to the RPW is incorrect, though I am not certain it is. And I am castigated (not by you – but I will get to this shortly elsewhere) for daring to suggest that there could be – or ought to be – a principle enunciated in Scripture that ought to regulate how its care and reproduction is approached? The word of Moses to the priests to keep the Law was a command. And just why may not this have a general equity for our era? I certainly will not be beaten down by berating remarks (not that you are doing this), though I am willing to be edified.

As I noted earlier, the Scripture says of God, that “without faith it is impossible to please him” (Heb 11:6), so is He displeased with those who openly declare a lack of faith in the inspiration and historicity of His word? If “whatsoever is not of faith is sin” (Rom 14:23), why does the church allow those “text critics” who openly sin with an “evil heart of unbelief” to do those things which they presume to involve themselves in?

As you say, we cannot always tell who are wheat and who chaff among the visible professing church are, but we can tell who open disbelievers are, especially if they publish it forth.

I am open to hearing more about these things from you, as I may well be instructed.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Rich, I have addressed the matters of general equity and the RPW to Matthew above, and I am willing to be edified if I am wrong in my understanding of these things.

As I said to him, you were right about the priests not all being regenerate, and the strong wind coming from you has battered the door of my mind so that it is loosened a bit and I find myself willing to consider if it is possible you may just be right about Erasmus.

Though I ask, please take a gentler tone, and avoid the assumption of ill motives and contra-Reformed views on my part. You are not a Luther, and I am certainly not an Erasmus! Yet I do realize that you, as always, are fervent in your desire not to let error prevail here on this ship, and that I can respect (sorry to link you with the Navy!). Still, I am at least as much a fervent defender of Reformed doctrine as you.

I gather at New Geneva you are preparing for the pastorate. When I planted and pastored the church in Cyprus almost all those who attended, and became members, had not been taught anything positive about Reformed doctrine. Some were Arminian, some charismatic, some from atheist and others from Islamic backgrounds. A number of them evidenced a genuine faith in Christ, yet it was without a sure foundation on Biblical doctrine. I had to work tenderly and caringly with them despite their erroneous beliefs, gently showing them the consequences of false doctrine. From the pulpit I would preach regularly on the sovereign grace of God in regeneration, and our utter spiritual inability apart from this grace, and how we were not only born again by sovereign grace, but justified by grace through faith, and that a gift, not a thing earned. This was revolutionary in the lives of those that took it to heart; still, it was a work of years to strengthen and guide them in this.

So I am used to being gentle and non-condemning with Arminians (and with others who err in different areas), seeking to recognize real faith even when it was not sound and healthy. And I still work with such, for even in a Presbyterian church back here in the U.S. (where I have taught a number of classes), many come from other church backgrounds – some staunchly Arminian, some Dispensationalist, some charismatic, etc – and I do not deal with them with a heavy hand and doctrinaire approach, nor do I accuse them of “denying the gospel” by what they believe. Rather, gently but firmly show them the flesh-honoring and death that result from attributing merit to ourselves in how we are saved and justified, and how this takes away from the glory of God’s grace toward us who do not deserve it, neither can receive it unless He first give it to us freely.

Many come to Christ through the bare proclamation of their desperate estate under the law and the mercy offered through the death of Christ in their stead, and subsequent resurrection, and so come to Him without much other doctrinal knowledge. Many are truly born-again in quite substandard settings, and struggle long as a result of little or no good instruction.

When you say to me, “In the service of your idiosyncratic theory, Erasmus’ denial of a central doctrine is a mere small error.” Rich, you put a spin on what I say that is unworthy a Christian brother. Please, grant me a little more grace.

Not everyone who errs in the doctrine of justification is “a hater of Christ”. I wasn’t in my early years, and the Lord led me out my error, and I have a heart for those who are likewise deceived. If you think and proceed as those hate who are but deceived, you will do much harm to those you ought instead be leading to the truth.

It appears you are lowering the boom on me in your imagined thought that I am betraying the Reformation to serve a textual position. I do think it is clear, as I noted to Matthew above and as EF Hills stated (and as you also hold), Erasmus need not have been regenerate for the TR view to stand. I just think he is anyway, but will continue to study his life (concerning which I have found so many differing views over the centuries!).

It is not just regeneration that has been an issue for me (rightly or wrongly), but also agendas with regard to the textual material men deal with. Erasmus wanted to get the NT in Greek (and then vulgar tongues) into as many hands as possible; other textual scholars have other agendas, not all of them God-honoring.

To clarify some issues: You said,

#25 “Erasmus was not an Arminian. That's anachronistic. Semi-pelagian does not equate to Arminian.”​

It is true that, strictly (historically) speaking, semi-Pelagianism way antedated Arminianism, although Packer explicitly equates the former being the theological precursor of the latter, they both having the same view of the human will and human merit.

Is our salvation wholly of God, or does it ultimately depend on something we do for ourselves? Those who say the latter (as the Arminians later did) thereby deny man’s utter helplessness in sin, and affirm that a form of semi-Pelagianism is true after all. (J.I. Packer, “Historical and Theological Introduction” to Martin Luther’s, The Bondage of the Will, p 59.)​

In Steele and Thomas’ book The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, Documented (the edition I have is 1963, and I realize there are later revised editions), they show the intimate connection:

Semi-Pelagianism, the Forerunner of Arminianism

Smeaton, in showing how Semi-Pelagianism (the forerunner of Arminianism) originated, states that “Augustin’s unanswerable polemic had so fully discredited Pelagianism in the field of argument, that it could no longer be made plausible to the Christian mind. It collapsed. But a new system soon presented itself, teaching that man with his own natural powers is able to take the first step toward his conversion, and that this obtains or merits the Spirit’s assistance. Cassian . . . was the founder of this middle way, which came to be called SEMI-PELAGIANISM, because it occupied intermediate ground between Pelagianism and Augustinianism, and took in elements from both. He acknowledged that Adam’s sin extended to his posterity, and that human nature was corrupted by original sin. But on the other hand he held a system of universal grace for all men alike making the final decision in the case of every individual dependent on the exercise of free will.”

Speaking of those who followed Cassian, Smeaton continues, “they held that the first movement of the will in the assent of faith must be ascribed to the natural powers of the human mind. This was their primary error. Their maxim was: ‘it is mine to be willing to believe, and it is the part of God's grace to assist.’ They asserted the sufficiency of Christ's grace for all, and that every one, according to his own will, obeyed or rejected the invitation, while God equally wished and equally aided all men to be saved. The entire system thus formed is a half-way house containing elements of error and elements of truth, and not at all differing from the Arminianism which, after the resuscitation of the doctrines of grace by the Reformers, diffused itself in the very same way through the different Churches.”* (pp 20-21)

* Quoting from George Smeaton, The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit, pp 300, 301.​

Rich in your post #15 you said,

“nobody would ever try to rehabilitate Erasmus as one who ‘clings to Christ’ while simultaneously outright denying justification by faith unless there was a system of thought that depended upon it”.​

To repeat myself, No, I don’t think that is true, as I have long considered Erasmus a genuine believer based on his life and writings. And I will allow the possibility he was not, as per what I have said above. I continue to look for light on this.

Post #22 “Erasmus was not an Arminian but one committed to the Sacramental system of the Roman Catholic Church - a defender of its sacerdotalism.”​

I think you’re too quick on the draw with regard to Erasmus being committed to the sacramental system and RC sacerdotalism. I believe you’re making unfounded assumptions. Those were the days – the 1520s – of the Eucharist Controversies, and Erasmus was if anything, against the Roman Catholics in this. I am still researching his position. To quote from Michael Maynard,

The attitude of Rev. Hugh Pope (professor of N.T. exegesis in Colegio Angelico at Rome) toward Erasmus is noteworthy:​

But the real trouble was Erasmus’ lack of theology . . . He seemed to take pleasure in suggesting doubts about almost every article of Catholic teaching: the Mass, confession, the primacy of the Apostolic See, clerical celibacy, fasting and abstinence, and so forth. Small wonder then, that he came to be regarded as the man who paved the way for the Reformation . . . (H. Pope, English Versions of the Bible, revised by Rev. S. Bullough, O.P. [St. Louis: Herder, 1952, p 105])​

Cited in Michael Maynard, A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8, (Comma Publications, 1995 AZ) p 329.​

This (Rev. Pope’s) the view of a Catholic.

---------

Rich, getting briefly to your post #31, point 4, “it was the King's responsibility to make a new copy of the Scriptures.”

John Gill in his commentary on Deut 17:18 says,

Instead of hanging his heart upon these earthly things, when he sat upon his royal throne he was to have a copy of the law written out by the Levitical priests, that he might keep the law by him, and read therein all the days of his life. [It] does not involve writing with his own hand (Philo), but simply having it written.​

Looking at your post #25, With “regenerate scholarship” resulting in different conclusions we weigh and study what they have said; they are all in the camp, and are worthy a hearing; some are so obviously wrong we study them so as to refute them – yet they are within the pale.

When I spoke of “greater to lesser”, the greater referred to the many who err yet are not haters of Christ; if all those who err on the doctrine of justification are “haters of Christ” then I would call this a doctrinaire stance, the caring for correct doctrine more than the souls of those who err. You even have the nerve to imply that in pointing this out I make the Reformers “just schismatics . . . since this doctrine [justification by faith] is so disposable to you”. This is bad spin.

Whatever you may imagine, my supposed “sentimental argument” is not primarily about Erasmus but, as I have said, about the many who likewise err. Forget for a moment – for argument’s sake, please – Erasmus and the textual issue. Is it as you say, but a “sentimental argument” to talk about professing Christians that err on a sound view of justification by faith – who nonetheless exhibit saving grace in their lives and words – as all “haters of Christ”?

May it not more rightly be termed a “heartfelt care argument” for those true sheep who have been fed bad grain for many years, and both fail to live fully godly Christian lives and do not ascribe the honor and glory to God that He alone deserves? I fear you may be as impatient with such who may come under your pastoral care as you are with me who bring them up.

That you denigrate me as an opponent of the Reformation by my views on the regenerate who err on justification I find ironic, for if I err, instead of edifying me in grace, you accuse and vilify, even though the word says,

“Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted” (Gal 6:1).​

(Please also note concerning Erasmus, it was by you in post #13 his name was first brought into this thread after I earlier spoke about other text critics and their unbelieving agendas, as though you needed him to bolster your own argument, and tear mine down.)

It is not sentimental, Rich, to care for souls, and to grant them judgment of charity, rather than judgment of condemnation. For they do call on His name.

I really won’t be dismissed so lightly and derogatorily, for my arguments are not built on “faulty foundations and give the appearance of a strong house but it is easily blown over”. And I can so demonstrate it.

Rich, if I examine the works and sayings of unbelieving textual critics who have stated agendas against a believing approach to the church’s Bible, why do you term this “character assassination” when it is sober assessment? And you may claim mine is a “fundamentally flawed argument” but I do not believe you have demonstrated this at all. You have just put a bad spin on me and it, undeservedly. I care at least as much as you about the integrity of the doctrines of God’s sovereignty in salvation, and His justifying us by faith.

O.K., I will admit I was heated when I spoke about the change in the words of institution for the Lord’s Supper (but the WCF framers used the traditional reading of 1 Cor 11:24 in all their proof texts, and so does the current 2005 OPC / PCA edition of the Westminster standards). His words in the traditional text are very important and meaningful to me. It really upsets me that it has changed from the old Reformation view, and I am not sure what to do about it. I can deal with churches using different versions, but this strikes home.

Still and all, how’s about we both speak with less heat and more grace?

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

P.S. I see I didn’t respond to your saying in post #31 regarding Deut 17:18, when you said it might as well apply to magistrates of our times “who are most trusted in the copy of the texts”. I did give Gill’s take on the meaning of that, but my point – which I neglected to make clear – pertained not to governance and magistrates’ use of the Scripture, but to the latter part of the verse which refers to “a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites”, the emphasis being on there was an appointed personnel and place for the keeping and care of God’s word (as Deut 31:9-13, 24-26 also indicate).

Harvard text critic, E. F. Hills, really has the same concern:

Has the text of the New Testament, like those of other ancient books, been damaged during its voyage over the seas of time? Ought the same methods of textual criticism to be applied to it that are applied to the texts of other ancient books? These are questions which the following pages will endeavor to answer. An earnest effort will be made to convince the Christian reader that this is a matter to which he must attend. For in the realm of New Testament textual criticism as well as in other fields the presuppositions of modern thought are hostile to the historic Christian faith and will destroy it if their fatal operation is not checked. If faithful Christians, therefore, would defend their sacred religion against this danger, they must forsake the foundations of unbelieving thought and build upon their faith, a faith that rests entirely on the solid rock of holy Scripture. And when they do this in the sphere of New Testament textual criticism, they will find themselves led back step by step (perhaps, at first, against their wills) to the text of the Protestant Reformation, namely, that form of New Testament text which underlies the King James Version and the other early Protestant translations. (The King James Version Defended, page 1)​

I’m not really saying anything different with regard to the issues of faith and unbelief being of utmost importance in how we approach the texts of Scripture, exactly as they are in all other areas of the Christian life. You may not agree with this view, but it is surely not worthy of ridicule and blithe dismissal.

I also note in JimmyH’s posting of Piper’s kind tribute to the late Bruce Metzger, that Piper did not say a word about his spiritual life, but simply aspects of his civil conduct and demeanor (and Piper is big on spiritual biography when applicable). Nor have I spoken against his character, save to say he was not a believing man of God, nor fit to determine what was or was not the word of God in behalf of the church. Rich, this is not character assassination in the least.

I realize we differ in our views on the spiritual status of textual critics, but my approach is worthy of consideration, and not condemnation, however much one may not agree with it.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Steve,

I repent for being overly harsh but some of your arguments are exasperating. I have friends who were affected by faulty theology that I considered Christians. I loved them and served with them to try to teach them the Truth.

But I would never, and I repeat, never use their error in the service in the argument for the Truth. That is to say that I can't use my affection for them to establish some other kind of point that is totally unrelated to the fact that I considered them brothers and sisters in Christ insofar as I was able to make that judgment.

The problem is that you bring in so may things that have to be responded to that are completely inconsequential to the argument. Someone sees your passion for an "Arminian" or poorly taught person and you say: "Rich,

Is it as you say, but a “sentimental argument” to talk about professing Christians that err on a sound view of justification by faith – who nonetheless exhibit saving grace in their lives and words – as all “haters of Christ”?

And someone thinks to himself: "Boy, he made a great point there. Maybe his textual position makes sense."

Do I really need to respond to this? It's exasperating. The friends I know have nothing to do with the issue. I might as well start a debate about Baptism and use my affection for certain Christians as proof for some point and when the person with whom I'm debating takes issue with it, I can throw the fact that I love these people in his face as some sort of weapon to show him unloving. That'll show him!

You show me and others a tremendous amount of disrespect by introducing points that are irrelevant and then accuse us of thinking people are "god haters" because we don't buy the argument to begin with.

Premise 1: Some semi-Pelagians love Christ.
Premise 2: Erasmus was a semi-Pelagian who loved Christ.
Premise 3: All textual criticism needs to be done by those who love Christ.
Conclusion: ?????

But, if I call into question Premise 2 as unknowable and doubtful and challenge Premise 3 as un-Biblical I'm now required by you to defend whether I believe Premise 1! My problem is that the form of your argument is NOT VALID and you have false premises. Your conclusion cannot be supported at all. I wish you understood how exasperating it is because you're showing disrespect to many people by your Premises and accusations with lofty speech about how your view is the true Regulation and then you're offended when people rebuke you for the faulty argument that you're using that makes everyone else look as if they're heartless or love not the preservation of the Scriptures.

As for Erasmus being Arminian. Don't waste my time. Seriously. Do some homework. Many Arminians downplayed the importance of the Trinity. Semi-Pelagians sharing things in common is one thing but just admit to the error. If anything I was complimenting Erasmus. Many in the medieval Church had a higher view of the necessity of grace than those in the Church today. Many current Roman Catholics do as well. The debates were never over the necessity of grace but the sufficiency of it.

The reason I took you to task over Erasmus is that you can wax LONG about the sins of every textual scholar you disagree wtih. You can cite every denial that suits your aim. When it comes to Erasmus, however, you can say this:

t is one thing for a man’s theology to be faulty – even greatly so – and he still be saved. When one denies the basic foundation of the Biblical revelation, and faith in it, this is saying of the Bible, “I don’t believe Genesis is historic but rather the religious account of a people to whom history and religion are important.” If there is no historic fall as per Genesis, a Saviour making atonement for the sin of humankind is both unnecessary, and a sham.

In other words, in you view. A man's theology can be greatly faulty on soteriology and still be saved but if his theology is faulty on the nature of Genesis then he cannot. I consider that hand waving Steve. I'm extremely uncomfortable making pronoucements about the salvation of either individual but I cannot put Metzger behind Erasmus on the basis of his views on Genesis. I consider your pass on Erasmus in denying the sufficiency of grace in salvation IN COMPARISON to how you savage Metzger as necessarily unsaved to be reprehensible. I'm pretty sure I know what the "unforgivable sin" is in your estimation and it's certainly not related to how one undertands the Gospel even if one is faulty on Genesis.

Finally, you still have the RPW wrong and you need to study it. You cannot rehabilitate that argument and you're only destroying the very principle of the RPW in your attempt. Let me be brief: IF THE RPW APPLIED TO TEXTUAL PRESERVATION YOU WOULD NOT HAVE TO INFER IT. Worship is NOT regulated by INFERENCE. it is regulated by POSITIVE COMMAND. An element of worship is an element of worship precisely because IT IS CLEARLY COMMANDED in Scripture. We do not sing because we infer singing. We do not preach because we infer preaching. We do them because they are commanded. If the Scriptures are only to be copied and collated by certain Churchmen AND it is regulated by god then you have to produce the POSITIVE COMMAND of God from the Scriptures. Insofar as you have failed to do so you have failed to show that it is part of the RPW. Insofar as you do not think you need a positive command but only inference from general equity you have FAILED TO UNDERSTAND THE RPW and, in doing so, are undermining the very principle itself.

In conclusion, you may feel that you are gently approaching this subject but your arguments provide for a tremendous amount of contention because of the manner in which you bring them up. You make the love or hatred of potentially saved people the supporting basis of an argument and then call into question the love of potential brethren to put the person who calls you on that faulty argument in the dock. If I did that to you, you would be livid. You claim that a man can have faulty theology and be saved but Erasmus denial of key tenets of soteriology is among the list of "passable" offenses that receive nary an exploration while you go out of your way to show how terrible the faulty theology of a person is who denies the historicity of Genesis. You then go out of your way to show that Erasmus must not have been so bad because he criticized the Roman Catholic Church. You do everything in your power to cast your opponents beyond the reach of God's salvation for their faulty theology but Erasmus is the object of your special concern as probably saved. The imbalance is both breathtaking and exasperating and I think I'm warranted in openly rebuking how little you think of certain denials compared to others. My position does not require that I either pass or fail any man so I'm not here to rule on Erasmus' regeneracy. The ONLY reason it is an issue is because you have made one's holy disposition toward God a foundational piece in your system and you utterly savage those who won't fit and will give every benefit of the doubt to those who do. You do not weigh with fair scales.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Thanks, Rich, for the more irenic level of interaction. The way I see it, the discussion went like this (as it developed in complexity and varying topics). JimmyH recommended Metzger and Ehrman’s book, which I cautioned against (post 9) because of both their backgrounds. You, Rich, disputed that (post 13), disliking my characterization of Metzger, brought up the issue of regeneration not needful and attacked Erasmus as a case in point, characterizing him as an instrument of the devil in attacking Luther. I brought up (post 14) Wesley and Whitefield, and asked “may a man not greatly err in understanding doctrines, yet be born of Christ’s Spirit?”

You said – in a round-about defense of Metzger – “a system of preservation that depends on ‘well, a man can deny the Gospel but cling to Christ’ is not a system I'll ever be persuaded to hold” (post 15). So your defense of Metzger was built on denying the regeneration of Erasmus, they supposedly both being in the same boat of unregeneracy. Your denial of E. was based on a) his being semi-Pelagian, and b) a sacerdotalist, which I sought to refute by saying there were many semi-Pelagians / Arminians who, despite bad theology, were still regenerated and loved Christ, and that E’s holding to the RC sacraments was doubtful.

I went on to give the example of Hills (post 33) who minimized the issue of the spiritual status of E. and focused instead on his following the “common faith” of “informed Christians” in his textual choices.

I then brought up the idea of principles similar to the RPW which might apply to the care and reproduction of the Scriptures (post 29), which you scorned (post 31), and likewise with the idea of general equity from the OT’s priests appointment to care for the Law to the priesthood of believers in the gospel age doing the same for the NT. Perhaps I err in this, but there is a definite connection in my mind, which I will continue to seek to formulate.

It might seem like a complicated discussion with many rabbit-trails, but there is a coherency throughout. I would posit the following syllogisms re the New Testament text:

Premise 1: The word of God is for believers
Premise 2: The word of God is cared for by believers, whether lay or text critics
Premise 3: The word of God cannot be cared for by those who don’t believe
Conclusion: Text-critical caring for the word of God can only be done by believers

-------

Premise 1: Some semi-Pelagians love Christ
Premise 2: Some semi-Pelagians hate Christ
Conclusion: Not all semi-Pelagians hate Christ

-------

Premise 1: Erasmus the semi-Pelagian professed to believe in and love Christ
Premise 2: Erasmus’ words and conduct make this likely (though not certain)
Premise 3: Erasmus’ theology was bad
Premise 4: Bad theology does not cancel out belief in and love of Christ
Conclusion: It is likely (though not certain) Erasmus believed in and loved Christ

-------

Premise 1: Erasmus was likely a believer
Premise 2: It cannot be proven he was not a believer
Premise 3: Erasmus cared for the word of God
Conclusion: Erasmus can text-critically care for the word of God

-------

Premise 1: Metzger denied the fall and atonement
Premise 2: Deniers of the fall and atonement cannot have saving faith
Premise 3: Metzger did not have saving faith (was not a believer)
Conclusion: Metzger cannot text-critically care for the word of God.

If Metzger denied the historicity of Genesis, including the account of creation in the opening chapters, it follows that he denied the events therein. If there is no fall of man – and all mankind – into death and perdition, there is no need for a Saviour to save man from these. If there is no need for a Saviour, then Christ did not make an atonement for mankind.

This is of an entirely different order than believing in Genesis, and the creation account, but having a faulty theological understanding of it.

I do not see that I, regarding Erasmus, “use [his] error in the service [of] the argument for the Truth” (post 36); I have used not that, but rather what in him was not error in service of the truth. Big difference.

I will be continuing to study Erasmus, as impartially as I can, and if I come to lean in your direction of thinking about him I will share that.

You said (post 36), “The ONLY reason [Erasmus’ regeneracy] is an issue is because you have made one's holy disposition toward God a foundational piece in your system and you utterly savage those who won’t fit and will give every benefit of the doubt to those who do. You do not weigh with fair scales.”

Rich, I think the benefit of doubt in E.’s case is far more warranted than in Metzger’s. Even if we deal not in the matter of regeneration, but simply regarding their respective agendas and views concerning the word of God, the latter is prejudiced against faith in it, while the former is not. I do not “utterly savage” Metzger but examine his presuppositions concerning God’s word in the NT. When one takes faith into consideration in these things, I think my scales are righteous.

--------

To take a different tack now – pertaining to the OP – here is something to consider when we talk of being true to the Reformation, the differences in various verses, i.e., the variant readings, and the United Bible Societies stance vis-à-vis Rome (and by implication, the Reformation).

This is from a post from Will Kinney’s articles page alleging an agreement between the Vatican and the United Bible Society on jointly producing the critical text:

Kinney: “I have a copy of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 27th edition right here in front of me. It is the same Greek text as the UBS (United Bible Society) 4th edition. These are the Greek readings and texts that are followed by such modern versions as the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard AND the new Catholic versions like the St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem Bible 1985.
“If you have a copy of the Nestle-Aland 27th edition, open the book and read what they tell us in their own words on page 45 of the Introduction. Here these critical Greek text editors tell us about how the Greek New Testament (GNT, now known as the UBS) and the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece grew together and shared the same basic text. In the last paragraph on page 45 we read these words:
"The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and following an agreement between the Vatican and the United Bible Societies it has served as the basis for new translations and for revisions made under their supervision. This marks a significant step with regard to interconfessional relationships. It should naturally be understood that this text is a working text: it is not to be considered as definitive, but as a stimulus to further efforts toward defining and verifying the text of the New Testament."

And then, from The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity:

Collaboration for the Diffusion of the Bible
“Following the responsibility undertaken by the then Secretariat for the preparation of the dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, the PCPCU was entrusted with promoting ecumenical collaboration for the translation and diffusion of Holy Scripture (Dei Verbum, n. 22). In this context, it encouraged the formation of the Catholic Biblical Federation, with which it is in close contact. Together with the United Bible Societies it published the Guidelines for Interconfessional Cooperation in Translating the Bible” (1968; new revised edition 1987).

[Kinney]: The United Bible Societies Vice-President is Roman Catholic Cardinal Onitsha of Nigeria. On the executive committee is Roman Catholic Bishop Alilona of Italy and among the editors is Roman Catholic Cardinal Martini of Milan. Patrick Henry happily claims, “Catholics should work together with Protestants in the fundamental task of Biblical translation …[They can] work very well together and have the same approach and interpretation ... This signals a new age in the church.” - Patrick Henry, New Directions in New Testament Study (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1979), 232-234.

United Bible Societies welcomes Pope Francis

[Excerpt:] MARCH 15, 2013 - The election of Pope Francis, ‘a long-time friend of the Bible Societies’, is an encouragement to United Bible Societies (UBS) to work even harder to make the Bible available to everyone.
“He is a man of the universal church with an ecumenical spirit and he is a pastor, who knows the reality of ‘simple’ people. The new Pope is a truly biblical person whose faith and actions are deeply rooted in the Bible and inspired by the Word of God.”

“As a long-time friend of the Bible Societies Pope Francis knows that our raison d’être is the call to collaborate in the incarnation of our Christian faith,” says Mr Perreau. “we assure Pope Francis of our renewed availability to serve the Catholic Church in her endeavours to make the Word of God the centre of new evangelisation.”

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Thanks, Rich, for the more irenic level of interaction. The way I see it, the discussion went like this (as it developed in complexity and varying topics). JimmyH recommended Metzger and Ehrman’s book, which I cautioned against (post 9) because of both their backgrounds. You, Rich, disputed that (post 13), disliking my characterization of Metzger, brought up the issue of regeneration not needful and attacked Erasmus as a case in point, characterizing him as an instrument of the devil in attacking Luther. I brought up (post 14) Wesley and Whitefield, and asked “may a man not greatly err in understanding doctrines, yet be born of Christ’s Spirit?”

You said – in a round-about defense of Metzger – “a system of preservation that depends on ‘well, a man can deny the Gospel but cling to Christ’ is not a system I'll ever be persuaded to hold” (post 15). So your defense of Metzger was built on denying the regeneration of Erasmus, they supposedly both being in the same boat of unregeneracy. Your denial of E. was based on a) his being semi-Pelagian, and b) a sacerdotalist, which I sought to refute by saying there were many semi-Pelagians / Arminians who, despite bad theology, were still regenerated and loved Christ, and that E’s holding to the RC sacraments was doubtful.

I went on to give the example of Hills (post 33) who minimized the issue of the spiritual status of E. and focused instead on his following the “common faith” of “informed Christians” in his textual choices.

I then brought up the idea of principles similar to the RPW which might apply to the care and reproduction of the Scriptures (post 29), which you scorned (post 31), and likewise with the idea of general equity from the OT’s priests appointment to care for the Law to the priesthood of believers in the gospel age doing the same for the NT. Perhaps I err in this, but there is a definite connection in my mind, which I will continue to seek to formulate.

It might seem like a complicated discussion with many rabbit-trails, but there is a coherency throughout.

A very strange reading of the facts. I never *insisted* on Erasmus being unregenerate and my point about him being an instrument of the devil was with respect to his debate with Luther. I also characterized his work as being of service to texual criticism. The only reason, and I have repeated this throughout, is that the idiosyncratic notion that regenerate men can only be of service in the Providential preservation of the text cannot be sustained and you have failed to do so here.

Conclusions are only true if the form is valid and all premises are valid:

Premise 1: The word of God is for believers
Premise 2: The word of God is cared for by believers, whether lay or text critics
Premise 3: The word of God cannot be cared for by those who don’t believe
Conclusion: Text-critical caring for the word of God can only be done by believers

Premise 1 is false. The word of God is for the unregenerate and the regenerate and we do not know who is regenerate.
Premise 2 is true but but can also be false. Believers can do a bad job of caring for the text and they are not automatically given an ability
Premise 3 is an assertion. It is not established.
Conclusion is invalid.

Premise 1: Erasmus the semi-Pelagian professed to believe in and love Christ
Premise 2: Erasmus’ words and conduct make this likely (though not certain)
Premise 3: Erasmus’ theology was bad
Premise 4: Bad theology does not cancel out belief in and love of Christ
Conclusion: It is likely (though not certain) Erasmus believed in and loved Christ

Premise 1 is true of every person who has ever been called a Christian.
Premise 2 is an assertion.
Premise 3 is true but an understatement.
Conclusion is doubtful.

Premise 1: Erasmus was likely a believer
Premise 2: It cannot be proven he was not a believer
Premise 3: Erasmus cared for the word of God
Conclusion: Erasmus can text-critically care for the word of God

Premise 1 has not been established. It also contradicts your prior false conclusion that textual criticism can only be done by believers. If Erasmus is only *likely* a bliever then your Conclusion is already false.
Premise 2 is about as useful as saying that nobody can be proven to an unbeliever. The Premise adds nothing to the conclusion.
Premise 3 is again something you said he can ONLY do if he is a believer and you stated in Premise 1 that he is likely a believer.
You're missing a premise in order to support your conclusion (you sneaked it into premise 1 but it's already been shown to be false).
Conclusion is false both because the form is invalid as are all three premises (on your own suppositions)

Premise 1: Metzger denied the fall and atonement
Premise 2: Deniers of the fall and atonement cannot have saving faith
Premise 3: Metzger did not have saving faith (was not a believer)
Conclusion: Metzger cannot text-critically care for the word of God.

Premise 1 is true of most Arminians who deny substitutionary atonement and the nature of the Fall.
Premise 2 is contradicted by you throughout this thread in your appeal that you can't possibly imagine all those Arminians who really love Christ. If deniers of the fall and the atonement cannot have saving faith then Arminians cannot. For that matter, a semi-Pelagian Erasmus denied substitionary atonement or he would not have argued against the sufficiency of grace and so Erasmus is caught up in your premise.
Premise 3 is again contradicted by you in your appeal to all the fine Arminians you know.
If conclusion was true then everything you said about Arminians is false. We know the Conclusion is false because your earlier conclusion has already been demonstrated to be false.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

his is from a post from Will Kinney’s articles page alleging an agreement between the Vatican and the United Bible Society on jointly producing the critical text:

Cue conspiratorial music for what follows. Of course, if Erasmus had agreed to this it would have been perfectly in accord?

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

“Cue conspiratorial music for what follows.”

Joking it off won’t make it go away. The source documents speak for themselves.

------

There is some merit in your objections to my syllogisms; I will try to tighten them up, yet as Matthew said (post 30) “the visible professing church. . . is a mixed communion”, and thus we are very often “not certain” about those who claim to be saints, yet some things – i.e., types of fruit – are better indicators than others.

Plus I am continuing my research on Erasmus.

 

[JimmyH]

The books linked below will answer your questions. Bruce Metzger's earlier edition without the assistance of Bart Ehrman, before Ehrman went apostate, is the one I have read. I can't speak for the other.

JimmyH,

I don’t think it’s responsible to recommend a book, the most up-to-date edition of which is co-authored By Bart Ehrman, a fervent enemy of the Christian faith and its Bible: The Text Of The New Testament : Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration .

Steve, note that I specified that I read the edition published before any involvement by Ehrman. Add that, though I deliberately found a used copy sans Ehrman I'm given to understand that he contributed to professor Metzger's book before he became apostate.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

Thanks, Rich, for the more irenic level of interaction. The way I see it, the discussion went like this (as it developed in complexity and varying topics). JimmyH recommended Metzger and Ehrman’s book, which I cautioned against (post 9) because of both their backgrounds.

Brother Steve, a friend of mine, years ago used to say,"Don't put words in my mouth, and then quote me." I'm an old man myself, and not as sharp as I was, if I ever was. Sometimes I get facts wrong. This is the second time, in this thread, you have mis-characterized my post. Whether it is advanced age, carelessness, or deliberate, I cannot say, anymore than I can say whether Erasmus, Bruce Metzger, or Brooke Foss Westcott for that matter, were regenerate.

I will say that if I were to get jumped by a gang of thugs in a dark alley, I'd be glad if you were on my side. I've seldom seen someone with your tenacity in a debate.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Don't bother Steve. I'm weary of this. As much as I'm trying to convince you, you have your Procrustrean bed and no objection will suffice. I think we've made that abundantly clear. One cannot salvage your argument because you keep appealing to "facts" that cannot be supported by Scripture themselves. You are also careless with other people's words as has been demonstrated in this thread in the way you cite and characterize others thoughts. You've started with your conclusion and will keep generating bad syllogisms. I just don't have the energy to keep up with your imagination.

As for the Roman Catholics cooperating with the UBS, I have two thoughts:

1. By your own repeated insistence, all these fine Roman Catholics may have bad theology but are otherwise motivated to be faithful to the text. I would suggest you study how often in Church history the Roman Catholic Church has affirmed the inerrancy of the text in dogmatic statements. I furthermore you suggest you research as vigorously as you can to find nice things that these people say about dependance on the Holy Spirit and the like. They'll sound as pious and holy as Erasmus and, by this, you will assuage yourself of any fears that they are involved in textual critical studies. Why, the things you quoted about Pope Francis being so "biblical" are quite glowing.

2. Let's assume for a minute you succeed on measuring all current Roman Catholics and find them wanting. So what? News Flash: Translation is not the same thing as textual criticism.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Jimmy, I apologize for twice mischaracterizing you! I retract saying you recommended Ehrman, and I was mistaken in doing so. Sorry again!

 

[JimmyH]

Jimmy, I apologize for twice mischaracterizing you! I retract saying you recommended Ehrman, and I was mistaken in doing so. Sorry again!

Thank you Steve, I understand it was nothing personal, just in the heat of a rigorous debate. We are brothers who agreee on the most important thing, and disagree on some other important, and not so important things, but brothers in Christ nonetheless.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Rich, it is quite possible I am just enveloped in a sphere in “invincible ignorance” and out of touch with reality, but I am open to being shown this if it is so. I even ask the Lord to show me, for thick-headedness is no problem to Him. I think it a good maxim, the saying, If you say you cannot be deceived you already are.

I think it odd that when I seek to cleave to the Bible of the Reformation I am thought an obscurantist and reactionary; when I seek to proceed by faith in textual matters I am called a fundamentalist, and against the godly conventional wisdom of the day. When I point out that the UBS is in serious league with the RCs – producing ecumenical-standard Bibles – you want “conspiratorial music” played in the background. Yet I, as you, also love the Reformation, and have been profoundly affected for the good by its doctrinal standards. We neither of us want to betray the Reformation and what it stood / stands for.

I realize – thanks in good part to you – I need to think through my views re Erasmus more thoroughly and clearly, and that I am proceeding to do. How it will fall out I am not sure.

I have said I do not want to hurt other people’s confidence in their Bibles, and I am serious about that. So why did I bring up the Catholic connection of the UBS? I had been unaware of this till just a week or so ago, but it was startling to me. I am not sure what to make of it. I rather think our Reformation and Puritan forebears would turn away from it, and I wonder about the times we are in, and the state of the church. I repeat that my contention is with the readings not the Bibles of others in the main, and at the same time I have been taken with your own fervor to maintain Reformation doctrine, and I wonder, do I take an Erasmian timidity (if that was really the case with him at all, as some deny it) to the Bible issue? You have modeled (in educational parlance) a fervent spirit for the truth, which I appreciate, even though I was on the pointed receiving end of it!

At any rate, I still believe my approach is right (to be irenic and gracious in the Bible discussion). But this matter of omitting the word “broken” from the words of institution for the Lord’s Table really troubles me (it is so in all the PCA churches in my area, I believe); and to compound the disturbance in me, I note that the Westminster divines agreed to use the King James reading in all their Scripture proofs for the WCF and the LC (as well their practice), as did the OPC (and PCA, supposedly) in their 2005 edition of the Standards, so why do we depart once again from what was right in their eyes. This is shaking my confidence in the PCA, which is a terrible thing for me, as this is my church family and home. If anyone can counsel me how to handle this better than I am I would appreciate it.

Finally, Rich, you also are a dogged and tenacious opponent in discussion/debate, and I have a lot of respect for you, both as a retired officer in a service I was once in, and a master technician in the digital world, and now preparing for the hardest and best of callings, to serve the Lord and His people in ministry. You have been gracious with me (save for an exasperation or two), especially given how difficult I can be, and I always think twice before tangling with you. I’ll give you the last word here – though please be assured I do seek light, and do not want to block it out. If I am in His hands (and I am) He will see to it.

-----

P.S. Thank you for your graciousness, Jimmy.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I think it odd that when I seek to cleave to the Bible of the Reformation I am thought an obscurantist and reactionary; when I seek to proceed by faith in textual matters I am called a fundamentalist, and against the godly conventional wisdom of the day. When I point out that the UBS is in serious league with the RCs – producing ecumenical-standard Bibles – you want “conspiratorial music” played in the background. Yet I, as you, also love the Reformation, and have been profoundly affected for the good by its doctrinal standards. We neither of us want to betray the Reformation and what it stood / stands for.

Steve,

This thread diverged primarily because I was trying to show that some arguments undermine the credibility of a position. I was trying to show you that one does not need to rely upon the "born again" status of people to profit from them or for God to use them. God accomplishes His holy will to include the preservation of His text by means we cannot draw neat categories for. It would not only be nigh impossible to prove who was and was not regenerate in Church history to provide confidence to Churchmen in the text of Scripture but would actually undermine it. One could just back the issue up one more level and wonder why God didn't so require that only regenerate copyists produce texts we need. We could shipwreck many lives by erecting a standard God has not.

Even above, you make the argument rest on the nobility of your cause. It sounds great but it's not an argument. I can't convince a person of Justification by Faith by appealing to how earnest I am. If my arguments are unfounded and un-Biblical then I'm only surrounding bad arguments with flowery language of my love of God that do not pertain to sound principles.

Am I concerned that Roman Catholics put their hand to textual matters? Not really. The Rabbis of Christ's day cared deeply for the transmission of the text. One might say their zeal was good for something at least for it was said that put 12 Rabbis together and they could reproduce the text of the OT from memory to include the jots and tittles (see Edersheim). Does this mean we don't need to be careful? No, but bad translation is different than manuscript manipulation. As recently as Vatican II, the RCC has upheld the inerrancy of the Scriptures. They don't need to worry about messing with the text anyhow because they have a hermeneutical principle that gets them around anything they don't agree with. Honestly, I worry less about the "honesty" of those who come at the text from an RCC position than some KJVO (not TR types but the rabid types) who have a superstitious view of the English version as controlling the underlying Greek and Hebrew.

The point is that I think God is bigger than the conspiracies of men (Psalm 2) so I don't worry about conspiracies. Christ is bigger than them.

I think the thread has been useful in introducing some thoughts that Dr. Robinson brings to expand the textual process and keep one's eyes open with respect to the CT but I find more data and not less data to be useful when looking at what has been copied through the centuries. I also think Dr. Robinson's thoughts about how one ought to go about the task to be quite compelling.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Am I concerned that Roman Catholics put their hand to textual matters? Not really. The Rabbis of Christ's day cared deeply for the transmission of the text. One might say their zeal was good for something at least for it was said that put 12 Rabbis together and they could reproduce the text of the OT from memory to include the jots and tittles (see Edersheim). Does this mean we don't need to be careful? No, but bad translation is different than manuscript manipulation. As recently as Vatican II, the RCC has upheld the inerrancy of the Scriptures. They don't need to worry about messing with the text anyhow because they have a hermeneutical principle that gets them around anything they don't agree with. Honestly, I worry less about the "honesty" of those who come at the text from an RCC position than some KJVO (not TR types but the rabid types) who have a superstitious view of the English version as controlling the underlying Greek and Hebrew.

Steve, as someone who used to sincerely hold a Received Text position, and now holds a CT position I agree with the above. The issue is textual criticism based on mss evidence, not primarily the views of the critics themselves - unless you want to discredit the Masoretic text because it was transmitted by Pagan Jews who were entrenched in unbelief.

I think it odd that when I seek to cleave to the Bible of the Reformation I am thought an obscurantist and reactionary; when I seek to proceed by faith in textual matters

I believe James White gives an excellent defense of the Providential preservation of the CT in his King James Only Controversy [Revised 2009 ed] page 79ff. He concludes the section with this challenge [page 88]
"I have engaged in defense of the Christian faith against a wide variety of critics and opponents. I have debated leading scholars ... in the midst of this study and apologetic engagement I have been reminded over and over again of one fact: Those who hold to the King James Only position could never, ever provide this kind of consistent defense of Scripture. King James Onlyism is, by its nature, anti-apologetic. Its leaders have not only declined one debate challenge after another from me, but they are not the ones giving any kind of meaningful response to the likes of [a list of liberal and Muslim scholars]. In other words, King James Onlyism cripples its adherents apologetically in a day when such can have devastating results. This has only convinced me again of the need to warn against this unbiblical, ahistorical, and illogical abuse of a fine seventeenth Anglican translation of the Bible in English" [emphasis by James White]

Some points:
1,. James Price in his King James Onlyism gives a similar warning
2. The quote is best understood in the context I mentioned above.
3. I am especially sensitive to this issue as someone with an interest in Muslim evangelism. Whites comments are very relevant over the debate of the transmission of the Bible vs the Transmission of the Quran. White is a Muslim scholar himself and knows first hand the impact of an anti apologetic approach to textual criticism has when debating Muslims.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Stephen,

You said, “The issue is textual criticism based on mss evidence…”

To me the issue is textual criticism based on faith God will uphold his promise to give us His word intact. I remember your saying a few times you held the KJV view but dropped it when DA Waite couldn’t answer James White’s questions. I heard probably the same debate but jotted down the verses he couldn’t answer concerning, so as to study them myself. My faith in textual matters isn’t based on a man but on God’s word – His promises.

I like James White and have high respect for the man, although disagreeing with him on textual matters and baptism. I likely would fare very poorly with him in a verbal debate as I don’t think too fast “on my feet” as it were (especially as I have been ill, and slightly impaired mentally from medicines, although now on the mend – I will probably give a praise report here on this shortly), but am much better in writing when I have time to think and research.

Likely James is right that some KJVO thinking “cripples its adherents apologetically”, but that doesn’t apply to me as a) I’m not KJVO but KJV priority, and b) that hasn’t hindered my apologetic endeavors over a number of decades. I do have to say I am certainly not an apologist of the caliber of Dr. White, but I have had to deal with various cults (JWs, Mormons, Roman Catholicism, etc) false religions (non-Messianic Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, atheism, New Age, Theosophy, etc) and my textual views have not hindered me in the least.

I have interacted with some of James Price’s views starting here (on PB).

It is a matter of faith (albeit not without evidences) that I hold to a fully preserved Bible – the Greek TR and Hebrew MT, and the English translation and other language equivalents derived therefrom – that God brought to pass in His good timing. It is possible I err on discerning the precise nature of the process He used in accomplishing this (I continue studying this, especially after this present discussion), but that He did accomplish this is the faith of the Reformation and the Bible they had. From our vantage it is a fait accompli, though our times generally prefers to trust in the ongoing activities of men plus God’s gracious provision for this Bible, which hasn’t materialized even yet, at least not in a final and intact form.

Nothing can shake me from this faith in God’s realized provision, even as nothing can shake me from faith in Him and His gracious salvation in Christ.

It is odd that the arguments of the variants the CT adherents use against the AV adherents are precisely those which Rome used against the Reformers’ claims in their presentation of the doctrine of sola Scriptura. But they stood successfully against Rome on the word of God they had in hand, as I likewise do on that very same word, and against the very same assault.

Please note that my language is not flowery and poetic, but to-the-point and concrete, insofar as matters of faith can be concretized.

 

[MW]

It is a matter of faith (albeit not without evidences)

This is important to emphasise. The reality is, we do not have one word which can be established with certainty by an empirical methodology to be the word of God. One would have to see and examine the original writing, and be able to prove it was the original writing, in order to reach that kind of empirical certainty; and even then, we would still only be in the same situation as the original recipients in terms of having to exercise faith that this is the word of God.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Likely James is right that some KJVO thinking “cripples its adherents apologetically”, but that doesn’t apply to me as a) I’m not KJVO but KJV priority, and b) that hasn’t hindered my apologetic endeavors over a number of decades. I do have to say I am certainly not an apologist of the caliber of Dr. White, but I have had to deal with various cults (JWs, Mormons, Roman Catholicism, etc) false religions (non-Messianic Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, atheism, New Age, Theosophy, etc) and my textual views have not hindered me in the least.

Steve, did you read the pages I mentioned? This is relevant to the discussion on how God preserved His word. Note it is only in the 2009 ed, it is not in the 1995 ed.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello, Stephen,

I only have the old edition, and the budget is too tight to spring for the new one. If you'd care to scan the pages 79-88 and send them to me (PM me for email) I'd be very interested to see what he says. Thanks.

 

[One Little Nail]

I believe James White gives an excellent defense of the Providential preservation of the CT in his King James Only Controversy [Revised 2009 ed] page 79ff. He concludes the section with this challenge [page 88]
"I have engaged in defense of the Christian faith against a wide variety of critics and opponents. I have debated leading scholars ... in the midst of this study and apologetic engagement I have been reminded over and over again of one fact: Those who hold to the King James Only position could never, ever provide this kind of consistent defense of Scripture. King James Onlyism is, by its nature, anti-apologetic. Its leaders have not only declined one debate challenge after another from me, but they are not the ones giving any kind of meaningful response to the likes of [a list of liberal and Muslim scholars]. In other words, King James Onlyism cripples its adherents apologetically in a day when such can have devastating results. This has only convinced me again of the need to warn against this unbiblical, ahistorical, and illogical abuse of a fine seventeenth Anglican translation of the Bible in English" [emphasis by James White]

When I read this, could not help but think of Sir Walter Raleigh's famous quote :

"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still"

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Consider,

Vaticanus has been in the Vatican Library at least since 1481, when it was catalogued. Those with some historical knowledge will remember that these were the years of the Inquisition in Spain during the reign of Pope Sixtus IV (1471-1484). In 1481 some 2,000 believers dissenting with Rome were burned alive, with multitudes of others tortured (M’Crie, History of the Reformation in Spain, p. 104). When Pope Innocent VIII (1484-1492) sat in the royal “Throne of Peter,” he followed in the vein of his namesake Innocent III and commenced anew a persecution against the peaceful Waldensian Christians in the northern Italian Alps, commanding their destruction “like venomous snakes” if they would not repent and turn to Rome (Wylie, History of the Waldenses, pp. 27-29). Bloodbaths followed against these harmless mountain peoples, who had their own Scriptures from ancient times, and worshipped in Biblical simplicity and order.

It perplexes many that the Lord of these many hundreds of thousands of Bible-believing saints who were tortured with unimaginable barbarity and slaughtered like dogs by the Roman Catholic “church” for centuries (it is no exaggeration to say for over a millennium) should have kept His choicest preserved manuscript in the safekeeping of the Library of the apostate murderers, designating it by their own ignominious name: Vaticanus.

It is surely an anomaly to the Reformed mind when they consider that the so-called “Queen of the manuscripts” was in the treasures and under the care of the antichrist, and given to the world to – in effect – undermine the text and sola Scriptura doctrine of the Reformation, in the name of “modern textual criticism”. All this fancy footwork of argumentation, all this scorn and dismissal of the Authorized Version, well, you can have it. I will hold fast to the old paths.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

If you'd care to scan the pages 79-88 and send them to me (PM me for email) I'd be very interested to see what he says. Thanks.

Sorry I do not have a scanner. I tend to spend my money on books rather than technology.

Here is a core summary of his argument: There have been much discovery of ancient papyri mss in the last 80 or so years that show the CT was the majority text in the early church. The discovery of the Papyri has moved knowledge of the NT text back closer to the original than any other work of antiquity. Evidence shows that the mss were spread geographically very fast so that no one controlling authority could change and corrupt them. They are spread over a large area geographically - this in the providence of God prevented early corruption. Thus the corruption argument by the TR advocates is not true historically. It means CT advocates can argue for Providential preservation.

What is more significant is that the Qua-ran was modified by a controlling authority and the original mss of the Qua-ran were destroyed. Thus there is no way to check to see if the modifications were reliable or not. Christians who support the CT have a powerful argument against Muslims. Further the CT predates the Qua-ran by a number of centuries so Christians who support the CT can show an earlier witness to the NT text than Muslims can. CT supporters thus have a two fold argument against Muslims. This is why James White says that King James Onlyism cripples its adherents apologetically.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

It is surely an anomaly to the Reformed mind when they consider that the so-called “Queen of the manuscripts” was in the treasures and under the care of the antichrist, and given to the world to – in effect – undermine the text and sola Scriptura doctrine of the Reformation, in the name of “modern textual criticism”. All this fancy footwork of argumentation, all this scorn and dismissal of the Authorized Version, well, you can have it. I will hold fast to the old paths.

This argument makes no sense. Erasmus was linked to Rome (under the care of the Antichrist as you put it). Further the Byzantine Text is the text of the Greek Orthodox church which is no more and no less the antiChrist than Rome.

Steve, it is this sort of argument that DA Waite and Jack Moorman used with James White. Both were thoroughly refuted!!

 

[JimmyH]

All this fancy footwork of argumentation, all this scorn and dismissal of the Authorized Version, well, you can have it. I will hold fast to the old paths.

Steve, in my opinion accepting scholarship and respecting the CT translators, does not equate to "scorn and dismissal" of the Authorized Version. Some of us believe that God's providential preservation extended beyond the manuscripts Erasmus used for his translation of the TR, and value the AV as much as we do the CT translations. Believing that they are God's Word in spite of some explainable, some unexplainable, inconsistencies between manuscripts. Virtually all of which have no effect on doctrinal tenants of the faith.

 

[MW]

Here is a core summary of his argument: There have been much discovery of ancient papyri mss in the last 80 or so years that show the CT was the majority text in the early church. The discovery of the Papyri has moved knowledge of the NT text back closer to the original than any other work of antiquity.

This is fallacious. (1) The corruptions of the text pre-date the earliest mss. (2) The earliest mss. contain a variety of readings; they do not bear witness to a so-called CT text, and they include support for some Byzantine readings. In other words, the array of findings have served to overthrow the Westcott-Hort theory of a neutral text. (3) If one wants to follow the "evidence" in the vein of modern textual criticism it will lead to the higher critical theory that there were probably various editions of the same work which were circulated by communities in the second century rather than the traditional view of single compositions written by apostles in the first century.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Jimmy, I appreciate your more irenic approach. Yes, not all are scornful and dismissive. Thanks for the correction.


Stephen, thanks for summarizing in lieu of scanning – much appreciated.

As it has been said, everybody (save the Waldenses and their spiritual kin) was Catholic in those days! And some cleaved to Rome and some sought to Reform her. Erasmus and his works were anathemized by Rome, and his writings were on the forbidden list. He was not the “Catholic” he is made out to be. I am doing further studies in the life and spirituality of Erasmus so as to get greater clarity on him, and to see if ideas I have need correcting, or not.

The Greek text of the New Testament documents was also the language written in by the apostles, and we have a feasible history of the transmission of those manuscripts in Wilbur Pickering’s account of it; the Greek church preserved those documents through fiery persecution, especially that of Diocletian, while the NT manuscripts put together by Eusebius for the NT Emperor Constantine ordered from him (from Origen’s Caesarean library) didn’t have “sticking power” with the Greeks who knew how their ancient manuscripts read – which were different than the Alexandrian type.

Granted, the G.O. church also apostatized to a great extent, but they kept the mss passed on to them from ancient times, even as the Jews did with the Hebrew. There were so many Greek-speakers treasuring these mss (even on pain of death), that when the change-over in the 9[SUP]th[/SUP] century from majuscule to minuscule writing took place, the numerical amount of minuscules were enormous compared to those Greek mss which reflected the Alexandrian, which were not popular among those who knew what the ancient NTs looked like.

The findings of scholars like Dr. Robinson (whose Preface and Intro are linked to above) and Pickering disagree with the theory that the papyri support the predominance of CT readings in the early church.

The Majority / Byzantine Text priority view (and these are theories or differing views because we have no comprehensive historical data – and we all have the same data, but interpret it differently) is not one whit behind the CT paradigm of Dr. White in apologetic use (to say the least) and that would include the further providential views of the AV folks who state that God used the few Latin (and other version) readings to perfect the Byz NT readings that went through Erasmus and then Stephens’ and Beza’s further editorial work to the 1611 translation into English.

I spent 9 years in Greek Orthodox Cyprus, and I would agree that the church there is mostly apostate (cleaving to the sacramental system of salvation), though the manuscripts of their NT reflect the ancient archetypes.

It comes down to this: we either have a Bible we can hold in our hands, or a provisional concept of a Bible that we can assert more or less is God’s preserved Book, but not one that actually exists. I agree that the few modern versions based on the TR Greek and MT Hebrew are close to this, but still provisional.

I believe God gave us an intact Bible at the time of the Reformation.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Stephen, when you say above, concerning my statements re Rome, “This argument makes no sense”, it is not true that “the Greek Orthodox church… is no more and no less the antiChrist than Rome”. John Chrysostom (347 – 407) was not apostate, and his liturgy has been in use since then in the Greek churches. Though it is correct to say that the Greek church slowly fell, but not correct to say it was “no less the antiChrist than Rome”, for the Greeks did not oppose and slaughter all who differed from them.

I wonder what the Reformed churches will look like in the U.S. should the Lord not come back for 100 years (already the larger portion of them are apostate); I wonder what the descendant European churches of the Reformation look like in the U.K. and Europe today – I think most are apostate, with but a remnant remaining. Does this mean that the things of the Reformation were not true, and should not be held to? If so many become antichristian, does this invalidate their original standards? I expect to see the same here as the end approaches (I do not think we have 100 years till the return of Christ), with a great falling away attending that.

To disregard the place of Rome in the purposeful corruption of the Protestant Bible, to say it “makes no sense” to take a Reformation view of Rome even though centuries have past, appears to me to betray our heritage, and to relativize everything so that there is no longer a true or false with regard to Rome, the Reformers, and ourselves – it is all just one big crapshoot, and let every man do and think what seems right to him as regards our treasured Scripture and our history.

To my view the Reformation made clear – in many respects – what the Rock is upon which we are to make our stand, the Rock of doctrine, of Scripture, and the Person of Christ. I need not give these up because contradicting waters have come upon us as a flood.

Nor need I demonize those godly who take a conscientious, intelligent, and differing stand than the one I hold. We have the freedom to hold forth our views, and Bibles to search and see which ring true and which false.

This is why the Lord through James says, “My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation” (3:1). Those who presume to teach – whether formally or informally – will be subject to a much stricter judgment. I myself speak as one who knows he shall have to appear before the Lord for this very thing, and I do not proceed lightly.

 

[JimmyH]

All this fancy footwork of argumentation, all this scorn and dismissal of the Authorized Version, well, you can have it. I will hold fast to the old paths.

Steve, in my opinion accepting scholarship and respecting the CT translators, does not equate to "scorn and dismissal" of the Authorized Version. Some of us believe that God's providential preservation extended beyond the manuscripts Erasmus used for his translation of the TR, and value the AV as much as we do the CT translations. Believing that they are God's Word in spite of some explainable, some unexplainable, inconsistencies between manuscripts. Virtually all of which have no effect on doctrinal tenants of the faith.

Jimmy, I appreciate your more irenic approach. Yes, not all are scornful and dismissive. Thanks for the correction.

Thanks Steve, what about the point that God also provided providential oversight over the texts that the Alexandrian region had for hundreds of years before the first known sources of the TR surface in the 9th century if I remember correctly ?

Reading James White's "King James Only Controversy" on page 72-74 ;

"The Byzantine text type represents the vast majority of the Greek manuscripts available to us today, and there is a fairly simple reason for this. Within a few centuries after the New Testament's writing, Latin superseded Greek as the language of Western people. Obviously, when people are no longer speaking a language, the production of manuscripts in that tongue will be less than if everyone is still speaking it.

The rise of Islam and the Muslim invasion of Palestine, then North Africa, and into Spain and southern France (AD 632-732) were other factors of great impact upon the use of language. Production of manuscripts in those areas was adversely affected by Islam becoming the predominant religion.

The only area that continued to speak and utilize Greek was the area under the control of Constantinople, also known as Byzantium. The brave people of this region withstood the attacks of the invaders for many years, finally succumbing in the mid-fifteenth century.

Given that these Christians continued to write and use Greek all through this period, even while Greek had passed out of normal use throughout the rest of Europe and North Africa, the dominance of the text-type found there is easily understood.

KJV Only advocates disagree with this summary of the historical situation. The Textus Receptus, the Greek text from which the King James New Testament was translated, is primarily Byzantine in character, so AV Alone believers must find a way of defending the Byzantine text-type as superior, the best. They explain the lack of ancient Byzantine text-type examples by theorizing that those manuscripts wore out from excessive use over the years, while the Alexandrian texts were quickly seen as corrupt and hence just buried in the sand. Such a theory, of course, defies proof by its very nature.

Another common KJV Only claim is that Alexandrian texts have been corrupted by heretics. They point to men like Origen, who did things and believed things that most modern fundamentalists find more than slightly unusual, and on this basis make the very long leap to the assertion that the manuscripts from the same area must be corrupt. The problem is that you can also find excellent examples of orthodox Christians in the Alexandrian area just as you can find some rather heretical folks in the Byzantine area.

As we noted before, it is important to emphasize that the differences between the Alexandrian and Byzantine text-types do not result in two different New Testaments. A person who reads the New Testament as found in Codex Sinaiticus and applies sound exegetical methods to its text will come to the very same conclusions as anyone reading a Byzantine manuscript written a thousand years later."