The above picture is my Westminster Theological Seminary diploma for a Master of Arts in Religion. It is easily my favorite diploma. My Calvin Theological Seminary looks like a standard high school/college diploma and while my PhD diploma is just as large as my Westminster one, it is not in Latin.

Though I have come to know certain Latin words and phrases over the years I’ve never learned the Latin language. I could translate very little if any of this diploma apart from my name and the name of my school. I could also identify most of my professor’s signatures there at the bottom. Touching the rest of the words I find them unintelligible for the most part and yet I simultaneously find my diploma an object of my own personal edification.

How is this possible if edification REQUIRES intelligibility?

It is feasible, indeed it is a reality that the above document edifies me though I do not understand it – I find it unintelligible – for the following reasons:

1.) When I received the diploma it was translated for my graduating class and me by someone who does indeed know Latin so I trust his translation even though the Latin is to unintelligible me even to this day.
2.) It is not necessary that I understand Latin to know that this document represents the completion of my work at Westminster (East) because of what it is…a diploma with my name on it.
3.) What I do understand (i.e., my name, the name of my school, and the signatures of my professors) edifies me even though the vast majority of the document is unintelligible to me. I remember going to that school, studying with those men, and completing my work there.
4.) Though I find my diploma mostly unintelligible, I still find it beautiful. I have an affection for it.

In the very same manner, the King James Version can edify the illiterate, the 8-year-old bus kid, the pastor, and the Ph.D. student in the following ways:

1.) When the illiterate and the 8-year-old bus kid have the word read and expounded in their ear by someone who understands the Bible and the English language they come to trust the Spirit of God who speaks through the reading of the Word and are thereby edified though they find the Bible largely unintelligible apart from a teacher.
2.) Because of #1, the illiterate and the 8-year-old bus kid can come to know the KJV under their arm is the word of God though they may find much of it unintelligible. In other words, they are edified that God has given His Word to them and that they hold it in their hand though when they read it they find most of it unintelligible.
3.) What the illiterate and the 8-year-old bus kid do understand edifies them even though the vast majority of the document may remain unintelligible to them. Perhaps they have memorized the Romans Road, John 3:16, or Psalm 23. What they do understand of those passages will indeed edify them though they may not understand fully words like halt, meat, justification, and reconciliation.
4.) The illiterate and the 8-year-old bus kid may find most of his King James Bible to be unintelligible but he may still find it beautiful, he may have an affection for it. It was the Bible he won in VBS or was the Bible given to him by his mother or his Sunday School teacher. It is equally feasible that he has come to love the Bible that he knows to be God’s Word even though he does not understand God’s Word. We love God even though we find many of His ways unintelligible. Why would things be any different with His words? And is not our love for God and His word edifying? Does it not build us up?

In sum, it seems rather plain that edification does not require intelligibility. In fact, as we have seen, a document can be nearly unintelligible and yet can still be edifying in a host of ways.

And just to be clear, simply because I find the Latin in my diploma to be unintelligible does not mean I am going to do away with my diploma and find another. In like manner, simply because certain English words or phrases in the King James Bible are unintelligible to certain readers doesn’t mean the KJV should be tossed for a newer and “better” model.

Unfortunately, Ward’s bumper sticker theology on this point is part of a long list of gaffes and theological missteps starting with his half-baked argument for “false friends” and his backing out of a debate with yours truly. Then there is that lopsided dumpster fire that is the Textual Confidence Collective – Season 1 and the largely irrelevant IFB recovery group sessions aka the Textual Confidence Collective – Season 2. Finally, we have this bumper sticker slogan, “Edification Requires Intelligibility” coupled with a blundering use of I Corinthians 14. Still, I do give Ward points for creativity and effort though the fruits of which bear little resemblance to the good, the true, and the beautiful.

On February 18, 2022, I posted an article entitled “Dr. Mark Ward, Psalm 12:6-7, and the Historic Exegetical Argument for the Providential Preservation of God’s word.” Now surpassing the two-year anniversary of this response to Dr. Ward’s opposition to Psalm 12:6-7 teaching the providential preservation of Scripture, I thought I would follow up on Dr. Ward’s response to the posting. Based on a shared contact with Ward on his planned response, Ward assured the brother that his response would be included in a scholarly journal sometime in 2024. Now June of 2024, with half of the year past, Ward is creating an increased sense of anticipation by raising expectations for the impending journal article refuting the pre-critical rendering of Psalm 12:6-7 to teach the providential preservation of Scripture. Up until today, Dr. Ward’s method seems to be to throw rhetorical rocks through the exegetical windows of Psalm 12:6-7 and then run away hoping that everyone will forget he has offered no rebuttal to the providential preservation historically taught in the passage. But having raised expectations of an upcoming journal article, all interested parties patiently wait, anticipating the Ph.D. will write a robust, scholarly rebuttal to the historic, churchly, exegetical tradition. Just by way of reminder, for Dr. Ward and others who deny that any verse of Scripture teaches providential preservation, for a leader in the evangelical critical camp to allow this passage to stand without refutation is significantly problematic. Indeed, allowing the passage to stand unchallenged compromises an essential part of the critical position by moving Scripture’s preservation from a solely phenomenal, evidential issue to an exegetically, theologically grounded matter. Additionally, accepting one passage as grounds for providential preservation, shifts the critical paradigm away from an empirical premise to a position driven by prior Christian precommitments and the probability of other supporting passages. Dr. Ward’s delay, if not culminating in a robust refutation of Psalm 12:6-7, will be ensconced as an insurmountable, paradigm shifting problem for the evangelical textual critic, whose only defense will be that he has chosen to ignore hoping everyone will forget. If, after two years and 10 months, or the close of 2024, no journal article or Ph.D. level response is offered, it will become publicly and abundantly clear that Dr. Ward’s best defense for rejecting Psalm 12:6-7 referring to providential preservation is indeed simply hoping everyone will forget that his dogmatic, drive by position is without historic grounding.

To rob the Church of the truth gleaned through the exegesis of Scripture, passages are wrested to diminish the substantive or intrinsic significance of the written word. For instance, counsel, covenant, truth, judgments, testimonies, and law are considered subjects taught uncoupled from the ontological character of God’s written word. These subjects may be pure and preserved but the words themselves which teach us possess no transcendent qualities, e.g. purity, holiness, eternality, immutability. The law will be fulfilled but jot and tittle preservation are not in hermeneutical view per Matthew 5:18. Theological purity is conceded but the purity of the very words of the which the theology is sourced is denied. Simply put, the Holy Bible teaches us holy things but the words that comprise the Bible are not intrinsically holy. A brief perusal of modern commentaries will sufficiently demonstrate this bifurcation. At best Scripture is a blend of man’s words and God’s words. The quintessential error of this modern hermeneutic is the belief that Scripture is not inspired, it is not God’s word, it is the word of Moses, David, Paul, etc. all men with a limited understanding of the world around them and prone to mistakes. Inerrancy, then, takes on varying applications governed by externally applied criteria.

Historic protestant orthodoxy exegetically maintained, rather, that the penmen wrote as secondary authors was God’s word, and as Primary and creative Author, the Holy Spirit protected the writing from all error which is the essential sum and substance of the orthodox definition of immediate inspiration. The channel of counsel, covenant, truth, righteous judgments, testimonies, and law is the pure, holy, eternal, and immutable written words of God.

            The egregious modern error of decoupling the written word from the Holy Spirit resulted in the preeminence of the human element of the reconstructed notion of inspiration at the expense of omitting the primary and creative role of the Holy Spirit in the writing of the autographs. Essentially, the novel theological formulation of inspired Scripture is practically a thoroughly human, phenomenal document that teaches good, pure, and true lessons. The new phenomenal notion holds that Matthew 5:18 may be a written record of the words of Christ, subject to the findings of the textual apparatus but Matthew 5:18 is not the very words of Christ. From this interpretive paradigm shift liberty was given popular venues to say such things as “this passage may be better rendered” and “oldest and best manuscripts omit verses 9-20” as if the words of the Holy Spirit are now subject to the judgment of the teacher or preacher because Scripture itself is considered to be on a par of equality with the speaker.

            There can be and is no middle ground when describing immediate inspiration. If Scripture is not God’s word, then Christianity is not theologically grounded but anthropologically sourced. Consider how nonchalantly interlocutors of pre-critical theological formulation dismiss any truth of Scripture’s own self-testimony – the self-attesting, self-authenticating, self-interpreting of Scripture, and how unreasonably they discount pre-critical exegesis of passages that speak the divine character of Scripture, see Ward and White. What we have witnessed and are witnessing is the normalizing of the secularization of Scripture. Because no middle ground exists between theologically grounded Christianity and anthropologically sourced “christianity,” the role of the pre-critical apologist is to appeal theologically and exegetically to the covenant keeper with robust arguments with the explanatory scope to answer and refute the secularization of the faith once delivered to the saints.

That the immutable written word’s delivery by immediate inspiration into a sin cursed world put the Scripture into a comprehensive, adversarial context cannot be underestimated. Everything and everywhere the pure word of God touched and was carried suffered under the devastation of the curse. And indeed, if left up to historic, sin-cursed methods, the immediately inspired word would not have survived its initial writing let alone its first copying. It is wholly impossible that such a unique book could survive as the sole exception to the ravages of such an all-corrupting environment if not for divine intervention. God alone, against such overwhelming corrupting pressures, can make the Scripture and keep the Scripture what the Scripture says about itself – inspired and preserved.

After the singular process of immediate inspiration, the Holy Spirit teaches the covenant keeper through the inspired product confirming in the mind of the saint what He initially said to the penmen. This is why the Church hears in Scripture the same words as were heard by the original writer. Both the original writer and subsequent believing readers hear the witness of the same Holy Spirit. The singular transgenerational witness of “one Spirit in the bond of peace” in and through the word creates the unity of one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, Eph. 4:4-6. What the Spirit said by immediate inspiration and the Spirit Himself are inseparable. Scripture is the witness of the Spirit written by secondary authors, the penmen.

Since the inception of immediate inspiration, by necessity, the Holy Spirit has been teaching the saints its content, because Scripture to be understood must be “spiritually discerned.” Considering Scripture the voice of the Holy Spirit is foundational to having a high view of the intrinsic nature of Scripture and shifts the emphasis of any discussion of the written word away from its historicity to its Christocentricity. History, which in post-critical thought is the ultimately determinative qualifier of Scripture is rather simply the God ordained context for immediate inspiration’s delivery. History, in the providence of God, was predestined to provide the events the Holy Spirit would interpret by immediate inspiration thus producing what is called theologically grammatical/historical special revelation, that special revelation is both word and event.

With Scripture, the word of God, in hand, the Holy Spirit informs us about what He has given us telling us in part about Scripture’s own immutability and purity. And it is His voice in Scripture that creates a conflict in our minds, a tension either to overcome or to succumb to. That is, we are incapable of demonstrating an unbroken line of manuscript custody between the autographs and our current Greek NT. So, the Holy Spirit, through the word, is telling the Church one thing, while at the same time the Church cannot historically, empirically prove the word of God to be true.

This objection, for many, has been considered the principal defeater of pre-critical Bible defense. But pause for a moment and consider how shallow this objection is.

1. This is a negative polemic based on the unknown, fundamentally conceding that history and God’s providential hand are sequestered.
2. Furthermore, the providential preservation of Scripture cannot be classified, categorized, or easily referenced. A revealed work, Scripture’s preservation reflects the complexity of God’s eternal decree in the flow of redemptive history.
3. Providential preservation is evidence of an algorithm of Divine proportion, according to the eudokia, “good pleasure” of God and therefore is beyond the scope of human genius and ingenuity. If ever the words of Jeremiah 55:8-9, ring true, it is in the work of God’s providential preservation: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

What the Holy Spirit teaches us in Scripture is by analogy the answer sheet of an infinitely long Divine equation. To know the equation is to have comprehensive knowledge of the mind of God. The Holy Spirit who “searches the deep things of God” informs the spiritual man of the mind of God in His word regarding “all things that pertain to life and godliness.” Keeping with the analogy, understanding the answer sheet does not answer all our questions on how we arrived at the answer, but this should not be considered problematic. We trust God.

            So how do we handle interlocutors? Our apologetic is based on what we are informed of by the Holy Spirit in His word, and from that grounding we interpret the historical, empirical data. Only from this perspective can the covenant keeper have any confidence that his or her interpretation of the evidence is correct.

This post does not directly relate to an apologetic for a standard sacred text. What is does, however, is demonstrate the depth of study engaged in by our Reformation era forefathers before coming to an exegetical decision. Willet stands as perhaps the principal example of this era to the opposite of the claim of “nonscientific.” Ainsworth’s Annotations on the Pentateuch, Psalms and Song of Solomon, following a Talmudic model and critical in many respects, still lack the rigor employed by Willet to work and worry through the text and tradition. Furthermore, by the time Matthew Poole wrote his commentary it appears that much of the discussion raised by Willet and Ainsworth had been received as the best proved exegesis and codified. Rather than debating the text’s merits, Poole cites the received aspects of the exegetical tradition.^[1] Jack Rogers qualified the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith as a “pre-scientific statement,”^[2] as if to say that “the ancients were not of a mindset to describe historical events, geographical details, or the natural world in ‘precise’ terms; they did not have at their disposal categories of measurement that could mesh in a meaningful way with those employed by participants in the ‘new science’ (post-1650?).”^[3] If a work is described as prescientific one would expect a non-textual, contextual, dogmatic spiritualization of the written document in question, which in this case is the sacred text of the believing community. Contrary to this erroneous assertion, Willet is still arguing in his exegesis and commentary for the history, geography, diction, phonics, grammar, syntax, and manuscript support of the given passage in question.

            Rather than subjectivism, Willet catalogs the exegesis of the entirety of the ecclesiastical tradition, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, as he sought to establish the prepositional basis for dogmatics. His voluminous commentaries were unrivaled by any exegete of this day and represent the intensity to which he worried through the exegetical tradition.

            This post is one example of the investigative rigor of Willet on the knotty interpretation of Romans 7. A hallmark of the Reformation dogmaticians is that every reading of Scripture has only one interpretation, the interpretation intended by the Holy Spirit. Here, Willet works through multiple churchly, exegetical interpretations, winnowing the ten down to one and concluding that Paul is speaking of himself as a regenerate man.

Andrew Willet (1562-1621), Hexapla: That is, a sixfold commentary upon the most divine epistle of the holy Apostle S. Paul to the Romans (Printed by Cantrell Legge, Printer to the University of Cambridge, 1611), 335-338.

Romans 7:  p. 335.  36. Quest. of the famous question, whether S. Paul does speak in his own person, or of another here in this 7. chapter.

1. Some think that the Apostle speaketh in the person of a natural man, not yet in the state of grace.

2. Some of a man regenerate, from v. 14 to the end.

3. Some that the Apostle indifferently assumeth the person of all mankind, whether they be regenerate or not, “and in everyone of these opinions there is great diversity.” p. 335.

1. Of the 1st opinion 

1. “the Apostle speaketh in the person of a natural man, and sheweth what strength a man’s free will hath by nature without grace. So Julianus the Pelagian, with others of that sect, whose epistles Augustine confuteth. So Lyrannus, he speaketh in the person, generis humani capsi, of humankind after the fall.

2. Some will have the person of man described sub legge & ante leggem degentis, not living only before the law, but under it, having some knowledge of sin. So Chrysostome, Theophylact, whom Tolet followeth, annot.4.

3. Some think that the Apostle describeth a man not altogether under the law, nor yet wholly under grace, but of a man beginning to be converted, quasi voluntate & propositio ad meligra conversi, as converted in mind and desire unto better things, Origen. So also Basil in Regul. Brevior. and Haymo saith, the Apostle speaketh expersona hominis poenitentiam agentis, in the person of a man penitent, etc.

2. The second sort.

1. Augustine confesseth that sometime he was of opinion, that the Apostle speaketh in the person of a carnal and unregenerate man, but afterward he changed his mind upon better reasons, thinking the Apostle to speak of a spiritual man in the state of grace, lib. 1. etract.c.23.lib.5.contr. Julian.c.11. But Augustine retaining this sense, thinketh that the Apostle, saying, v. 15.  “I allow not that thing which I do, speaketh of the first motions only of concupiscence, quando illis non consentiatur, when no assent is given unto them, lib. 3. contr. Julian.c.26. which concupiscence the most perfect man in this life can not be void of. So also Gregory understandeth, simplices motus carnius contra voluntatem, the simple motions of the flesh against the will, and hereunto agreeth Bellarmine, lib5. de amission. grat.c.10. Rhemist sect. 6. upon this chapter.

2. Cassianus collat.23.c.13. understandeth a man regenerate, but then by the inner man he would have signified the contemplation of celestial things, by the flesh, curam rerum temporalium, the care of earthly things.

3. a regenerate man, as yet that he may sometime become in a manner carnal. We see this in the example of Paul regenerate, etiam regeneratum non nunquam mancipium fieri peccati, that a regenerate man may sometime become the source of sin. Rolloch.

4. But the sounder opinion is, that the Apostle in his own person speaketh of a regenerate man, even when he is at the best, that he is troubled and exercised with sinful motions, which the perfectest can not be rid of til he be delivered from his corruptible flesh. Of this opinion was Hilary, habemus nunc nobis admistam materiam, qua mortis lege & peccato obnoxia est, etc., we have now mixed within us a certain matter, which is subject to the law of sin and death, etc., and until our body be glorified, non potest in nobis verae vitae esse natura, there cannot be in us the nature and condition of true life, Hilar. in Psalm 118. Of the same opinion are all our soundest new writers, Melancthon, Martyr, Calvin, Beza, Hyperius, Pareus, Faius, with others.

3. Of the third sort.

1. Some are indifferent, whether we understand the person of the regenerate or unregenerate, gloss. ordinar. and so Gorrhan showeth how all this, which the Apostle hath said from v. 18 to the end, may in one sense be understood to the regenerate, in another of the unregenerate.

2. some things may be applied unto the regenerate, as “I am carnal sold under sin,” but somethings solely can be applied to the regenerate, [p. 336] as these words, “I delight in the law of the Lord, etc.” Perer. disput.21.num. 38. And the rather inclineth to think, that the Apostle taketh upon him the person of a man regenerate.  and Origen seemeth to have been of this mind, that sometimes the Apostle speaketh in his own person, as “I thank God through Jesus Christ,” and sometime in the person of a weak man, and young beginner, as in the rest.

3. take all this discourse of the Apostle to touch the regenerate, or unregenerate in the particular, but the nature of mankind in general. As Jerome noteth, that the Apostle saith not, “O wretched sinner,” but “O wretched man,” vt totam complecteret ur naturam omniun hominum, & non tantum peccatorum, etc., that he might comprehend the nature of all men, and not only of sinners. lib.2.contra. Pelag. So also Erasmus, humnai generis in se personam recipit, etc., he taketh upon him the person of mankind, wherein is both the Gentile without the law, and the carnal Jew under the law, and the spiritual man made free by grace, annot. in hunc locum.

“Now of all these opinions, which are ten in all, we embrace the forth of the second sort. And this diversity of opinion may be reduced to this point, whether the Apostle speaketh in his own person of a man regenerate, or in an assumed person of a man unregenerate. The other particular differences have been dispersedly touched before. Now then the arguments shall be produced with their answers, which are used on both sides. And first for the negative, that the Apostle giveth not instance here of a man regenerate, and spiritual, but carnal and unregenerate.”

Argum.1. Origen urgeth these reasons: first, the righteous man is not said to be carnal, 2 Cor. 10:3, “We do not war after the flesh,” but the Apostle here saith, vers. 14, “I am carnal.”

2. Of the righteous the Apostle saith, 1 Cor. 6:20, “Ye are bought with a price,” but here the Apostle saith, v. 14, “I am sold under sin.”

3. Of the righteous it is said, c.8.9, “The spirit of God dwelleth in you,” but the Apostle confesseth, “that no good thing dwelleth in him.”

4. Origen also presseth these words, v. 28, “In my flesh I serve the law of sin.” If the Apostle should speak thus of himself, desparationem mihi videtur incultere, it were about to strike despair into us, that there is no man who doth not serve sin in the flesh.

5. The regenerate, such as Paul was, do not only will that which is good, but performs it also.  But this man cannot do, that he would, of whom the Apostle speaketh, vers. 15. Tolet.

6. The righteous and just man cannot be said to be captived unto sin, as the Apostle saith of that man, whose person he beareth, v. 23. Cassianus collat.22 in fine.

7. The Apostle speaking of himself, and of others which are regenerate, said before v.5.6, “When we were in the flesh, etc., the motions of sins, etc., had force in our members, etc., but now we are delivered from the law, etc. But here the Apostle speaketh of a man, that is captived [captured] unto the motions of the flesh, so that the Apostle if he should speak of here of a regenerate man, would contradict himself.

8. The scope of the Apostle is the shew the invalidity of the law, that it cannot take away sin, but sin is rather increased thereby, by reason of the weakness of man’s nature. It is therefore more agreeable to the Apostle’s intent, to give instance of a carnal man in whom sin yet reigneth, than of a regenerate man, that by grace is brought to yield obedience to the law. Tolet c.10. in tractat.

9. Jerome, and before him Origen shew, that the Apostle here assumeth the person of the other, like as Daniel being a just man, yet prayeth in the person, saying, c.9, “we have sinned, we have done wickedly,” Hierom. epist.151. ad algasiam.

The formal arguments answered

1. The regenerate simply are not called carnal but, secundum quid, after a sort they are carnal in respect of the unregenerate part. As the Apostle speaking to the Corinthians, that were believers, and justified, sanctified, 1 Cor.6:11, yet calleth them carnal, in regard to the sects and divisions among them, 1 Cor. 3:1. And one is said to be carnal in two ways, either he which is altogether obedient to the flesh and fleshly lusts, or he that doth not yield himself unto them, but striveth against them, and yet against his will feeleth the violent motions thereof. So that the Apostle confesseth, that “though he war not after the flesh, yet he walketh after the flesh,” 2 Cor. 10:3.

[p. 337]

2. The righteous is bought for a price, and redeemed from his sins, and yet in respect to his unregenerate part, the corruption of nature and the reliques of sin remaining, he is said to be sold under sin, not simply as the unregenerate is given over wholly, but in part only.

3. In the faithful as they are regenerate, the Spirit of God dwelleth, but in the unregenerate part sin inhabiteth. There is no inconvenience to grant, that two diverse inhabitants may dwell in one and the same house, in two diverse parts. For the Apostle speaking of the regenerate, saith, Gal. 5:17, “the spirit lusteth against the flesh, and the flesh against the Spirit and these are contrary one to the other.” They which feel not this fight and combat are either angelical, as the saints in heaven, or they have not received the spirit at all, as they which are carnal.

4. There are two kinds of services to sin, the one is a willing service, such as in the unregenerate, the other unwilling, and in a manner forced, as in the regenerate.

5. The unregenerate have no will at all to do good, “for the wisdom of the flesh is not subject to the law of God, neither can be,” Rom. 6:7. The regenerate receive grace to will, and sometime to perform, though not as they would. They are therefore regenerate though not perfectly, as none are in this life.

6. There are two kinds of captivity, the one when one is wholly captived under the bondage of his own voluntary sin, the other is forced captivity under the bondage of original sin. This is in the righteous, not the other.

7. The Apostle is not contrary to himself, for it is one thing to obey the lusts of the flesh, as the unregenerate and carnal, an other, to feel the motions of the flesh, and to strive against them, as in the regenerate.

8. The Apostle’s intent and meaning is the shew, that the law in itself is good and just, and that it cometh by reason of man’s own infirmity, that it is otherwise to him. And thereupon the Apostle to set forth the perfection of the law, giveth instance in the regenerate, that they are not able to keep the law, much less the unregenerate. So that it is more acceptable to the scope and purpose of the Apostle, to speak of a man regenerate, than of one unregenerate.

9. Even Daniel, though he be called a man of desires, that is, beloved, and accepted of God, yet had his sins, which he confessed in his own name, and person. As David is said to be a man after God’s own heart, yet he had his sins and imperfections.

Arguments for the affirmative past, the S. Paul speaketh in his own person as of a man regenerate.  

First these two points must be premised, that the Apostle speaketh of himself, not another, still continuing his speech in the first person, “I am carnal,” “I will,” “I consent,” “I delight,” and so throughout, that it will be a great forcing of  the Apostle’s speech to make him speak of another and not himself. Secondly, the Apostle from the 14 v. to the end, speaketh of his present state, (who was then regenerate) as may appear, because while he was yet under the law, he speaketh of the time past, v. 9, “I was alive,” and v. 10, “sin seduced me.”  But of the time present, “I am carnal,” and so throughout the end of the chapter.

Arum. 1. Hence then is framed our first reason. The Apostle speaketh of himself, as he then was, because he speaketh in the present tense.  But then he was a man regenerate, ergo.

Theophylact answereth, the Apostle saith, “serve,” v. 15, that is, serviebam, “I did serve.” cont.  As the Apostle saith, “I serve,” so he saith, “I delight in the law of God,” v. 22.  And in this verse 25, “I thank God, etc.,” which immediately go before the other, “I serve.”  But those words must be understood, as they are uttered, of the same time present, therefore the other also.

2. Gregory urgeth these words, v.18, “to will is present with me.” He that saith “he will,” per infusion em gratia quae in se, am lateant semina ostendit, doth shew what seed lieth in him by the infusion of grace. lib.29 moral.c.15.

Ans. even the unregenerate by nature do will what is good. They may imperfecte velle bonum sine gratia in peccato, imperfectly will what is good without grace even in the state of sin.  Tolet. in tractat.c.9.

Contra.  There is bonum naturale, morale, spirituale, that which is naturally good, morally good, spiritually good. The first one by nature may desire, as brute beasts do the same, and therein they do neither good, nor evil. The second also in some sort as the heathen follow after moral virtues, but they did it not without sin, because they had no [p. 338] faith. But that which is spiritually good, the carnal have no mind at all unto, for it is God, which worketh both the will and the deed, Phil. 2:13.

Argum.3. Augustine presseth these words v.17, “It is not I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me,” this is not vox peccatoris, sed justi, the voice of a sinner, but of a righteous man. lib.1.cont.2.epist.pelag.c.10.

Ans. A sinner may be said to do evil, not because he doth not consent unto it, but because he is not only moved of himself, but drawn my his concupiscence. Tolet. ibid.

Contra. There is nothing in a man to give consent unto any action, but either his spiritual or carnal part. But in the unregenerate there is nothing spiritual, but all is natural. Therefore, whatsoever such an one doeth he wholly consenteth. He himself is not one thing, and his sin another to give consent. But he is wholly moved and led to sin.

Argum. 4. Augustine addeth further, the Apostle thus beginning the 8. chapter, “There is condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus,” which words follow as inferred upon the other, which sheweth that the Apostle spake before of those which were in Christ Jesus.

Ans. Nay rather those words following upon the other, “who shall deliver me, etc.,” which the Apostle uttereth of a man not yet delivered or freed from his sin, and maketh answer, “the grace of God, etc.,” shew that he spake before as one not being in the state of grace.  Tolet. ibid.

Contra. 1. It is the bondage of corruption, which the Apostle desireth to be delivered from, as is shewed before, qu. 33. Neither doth the Apostle answer, “the grace of God, etc,” but, “I give thanks to God, ” as likewise hath been declared qu. 34 before. But one not in the state of grace, cannot give thanks unto God. Therefore, the immediate connection of these words, c.8. sheweth that he spake before of those, which are in Christ.

Argum. 5. Further Augustine this reasoneth: a carnal man cannot delight in the law of God, in the inner man, as saint Paul doth. Neither indeed is there any inner man, that is, regenerate and renewed in those which are carnal.  Pareus.

Ans. The unregenerate man may delight in the law, as Herod did. And it is nothing else, but velle bonum, to will that which is good. Tolet. ibid. And they have also the inner man, which is the mind, as the outward man the body.

Contra. 1. The carnal cannot delight in the law, but they hate it, as Psalm 50:17, “thou hastest to be reformed, and hast cast my words behind thee.” Herod gave ear to John the Baptist, not of love, but for fear, for afterward he put him to death. Hypocrites and carnal men may stand in some awe, and fear a while, but it is not of love, nor in truth, or from the heart. 2. The inner part is that which is spiritual and renewed. But in the wicked their very mind is defiled, Tit. 1:5.  Therefore in them there is no inner man. See before qu. 26.

Argum.6. The Apostle desireth to be delivered from his corruptible and sinful body, hoping then for perfect liberty.  but in the resurrection the carnal shall have no such liberty. They shall rise to greater misery. Augustine.

Ans. The deliverance there spoken of is by justification from sin, not in the resurrection. Tolet. ibid.

Contra.  The Apostle evidently speaketh of being delivered from “this body of death,” that is, his mortal body, which shall not be till the resurrection.

Argum. 7. The children of God, that are regenerate, do only find in themselves the fight and combat between the spirit and the flesh, Gal. 5:17, as the Apostle doth here, v. 22. Pareus.

Argum.8. The unregenerate do not use to give thanks unto God, but they sacrifice to their own net, as the prophet saith, Hab. 1:16, “they give praise to themselves.”  But S. Paul here giveth thanks. Faius.

Argum.9. No man but by the spirit of God, can hate and disallow that which is committed against the law of God, as the Apostle doth here, v. 15. Hyperius.

Argum.10. To what end should the Apostle thus at large show the effects and end of the law for their cause, qui prorsus sunt a Deo alieni, which are altogether strangers from God, and care not for his law? Faius. 

By these and such like reasons it is concluded, that S. Paul speaketh in the person of a man regenerate.

---

[1] Richard Muller, “Prolegomena to Theology,” in Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987), 13.

[2] Jack B. Rogers, Scripture In The Westminster Confession: A Problem of the Historical Interpretation for American Presbyterianism (Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1966), 306.

[3] John D. Woodbridge, Biblical Authority: A Critique of the Rogers/McKim Proposal (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982), 28. For a theological appraisal of this new science see Abraham Kuyper, Principles of Sacred Theology trans. By J. Hendrick De Vries (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1989), 347-348.

On June 9, 1973, was the 105th running of the Belmont Stakes at Belmont Park in Belmont, New York in front of a crowd of 69,138 spectators. Facing a field of five horses, Secretariat won by 31 lengths, the largest margin of victory in Belmont history, and never since approached, winning the Triple Crown of horse racing, Kentucky Derby, Preakness, and Belmont Stakes. Secretariat continues to be considered the greatest horse in racing history.

On June 9, 1973, it would have been the epitome of foolishness to bet against Secretariat and among those who did bet on Secretariat, it would have been considered absolute lunacy to say that the horse would win by an unheard of before 31 lengths. Nevertheless, this extraordinary victory is no hypothetical notion but an exciting part of horse racing and American history. The seemingly impossible margin of victory unimagined before the race 2 minutes and 24 seconds later became reality.

The church has been told, indeed commanded by scholars who tout some notion of a past premonition of what the autographa said, to omit, for example 1 John 5:7. What makes these scholars less credible than the money losers who bet against Secretariat is that what Secretariat accomplished had never been achieved before in horse racing history, whereas, I John 5:7 has a robust historic and confessional significance to the church only recently rejected by secular scholars and their evangelical surrogates. Conversely, betting on the racing history of Secretariat to win the race made for a profitable day at the track.

For all the friends of Standard Sacred Text.com you may be wondering why betting or gambling is a blog topic at all. It is because, dear brothers and sisters, modern textual criticism is nothing more than high brow horse racing. Scholars have no more way of knowing what a textual reading is than the person laying a bet on a horse at the track. But what makes textual criticism at least as corrupt as horse racing is that they rig the race by means of publishers to make sure their horse or reading wins. Rigged race after rigged race gives the crowd in the stands the impression that the same horse always wins, e.g. NIV, ESV, et al., that it is really the fastest, the best reading, when really the reading is part of a rigged system designed to take the money of the spectators. Unlike the King James Bible and Received Text, modern versions and the critical text are financially and ecclesiastically unsustainable if not propped up by publishing corroborators.

The Church was not in need of a new bible at the end of the 19th c. but scholars and publishers decided we all needed another bible anyway. And because we had no need for another bible, a propaganda crusade by publishers pressed the novel edition on the spiritually weak ecclesiastical market. From the beginning, the race has been rigged against the Church under the auspices of scholarship. The Church would never have forsaken 1 John 5:7 until someone they thought was trustworthy told them to omit it for their own good.

So, in the world of chance, how secure is the wager to omit 1 John 5:7 considering its long-term reception by the Church? Or, on the wager to include 1 John 5:7? Let’s consider the wager from two vantage points, a race where the fix is in, or a race that lets the best reading win. If the fix is in, to omit or include really doesn’t matter, but considering the modern textual argument the fix is only oriented on omitting 1 John 5:7. Scholars and the Church already knows due to Church history that if the race is not fixed, 1 John 5:7 is the sure winner, and from the position of placing a wager, one will return from the seminary classroom a richer person by holding to the passage.

Horse racing “experts” before the 105^th running of the Belmont States would have told all 69,138 spectators that day that no horse could win by 31 lengths, a laughable bit of “expert” trivia now proven to be absolutely false. “Experts” are now telling us they know what is in the autograph and that 1 John 5:7 was not in the original writing of the Apostle John, an equally laughable bit of “expert” trivia. But what makes the textual critical “expert” even less credible than horse racing aficionados, is that 1 John 5:7 was already part of the Church’s vocabulary and confessions; it had to be omitted from the ecclesiastical text, whereas no horse had ever won a race by 31 lengths. Based on the evidence available, wagering on 1 John 5:7 is even a better bet than wagering on the fact that Secretariat would win by 31 lengths which makes omitting 1 John 5:7 a bad bet.

Recently I have accepted an invitation to debate Francis Turretin (aka TurretinFan) on Nick Sayer’s YouTube channel. The topic under examination is as follows:

“Has God’s Word Been Perfectly Preserved by the Greek and Hebrew Manuscripts or by the King James translation?”

The question, as proposed by TurretinFan, needs some work. It is a bit sloppy but I think as details regarding the debate emerge we should be able to tighten up a couple of things contained in the question.

Currently there is neither a date nor a time for the debate but as those details emerge I will be sure to share them here.

Blessings.

P.S. – If there are any others out there that would like to discuss/debate the validity of the TR/KJV as the preserved word of God for God’s people, then add a comment to this post and we’ll see what we can work out. I am willing to do so both in person and online.

With the Reformation Bible Society’s inaugural meeting fast approaching we wanted to share our paper titles with our readership. Both Dr.s’ Van Kleeck will present papers in their respective fields on the topic of the Septuagint. The title of our papers are as follows:

Dr. Van Kleeck Sr. – Andrew Willet (1562-1621) and the Management of the Septuagint in His Hexaplas

Dr. Van Kleeck Jr. – Augustine, the LXX, and Reformed Epistemology: A Temporally Conditioned Case Study

As a reminder the Reformation Bible Society conference will meet on August 3rd at the Liberty Mountain Conference Center in Lynchburg VA. Looking forward to seeing you there.

In the video to follow, Pastor Christian Khanda (OPC) offers a clear and concise argument in favor of the TR. Leaning on Scripture (as all Christians should when it comes to their theological belief) Pastor Khanda shares both exegetical and theological reasons for holding to the TR. Even more, with the help of the interviewer both Khanda and the interviewer are able to weave into the conversation historical theology by appealing to the Westminster Divines and their use of contested passages of Scripture. Noting that these passages were used as proof texts for theological confession. This episode as a whole was a breath of fresh air. I thoroughly enjoyed it. I think you will too.