From My Seminary Notes

Both Dr.’s Van Kleeck had the privilege of studying under Dr. Richard Gaffin Jr. at Westminster Theological Seminary [East]. We still have our notes from that/those classes. Gaffin taught Introduction to Systematic Theology which included his lectures on Bibliology. His lectures formed the way we talk about the Bible now at StandardSacredText.com

Gaffin has since retired but his legacy lives on in his writing, lectures, and in our learning. Below is a small excerpt of notes taken in class by a colleague of mine, Tim Black. Tim gave his notes to anyone who asked so long as we promised to pass them on in like manner. Tim Black’s notes saved me more than once on an exam or quiz. And you’ll see why in a minute. Tim was a phenom when it came to the discipline of typing. But what can I say, phenomenal professors attract phenomenal students.

So without further ado I give you a couple of lines from Dr. Gaffin’s lecture which he delivered on day one of ST 101 – Introduction to Systematic Theology. Enjoy.

“We must recognize the function scripture has in revelation.  There are two facets that are the leading function of Biblical revelation: (1) Pointedly redemptive character- it is a redemptive revelation and of crucial significance in a world order corrupted by sin.  Biblical revelation has a unique, crucial significance.  (2) The Bible Alone is Uniquely Linguistic and verbal in character- This is revealed in genuine human language.  In the concrete situation we find ourselves in God’s revelation, Scripture performs its leading function and stands out as the purist exemplification of theology, the purist instance of the speaking of God: the divine speaking of God.  The Bible is theology.  The Bible is the speaking of God.  The speaking of God in the most direct and proper sense.  The Bible is God contemporaneously speaking to us TODAY.  The WCF, Chap. 1, sec. 10: ‘The Bible today is the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.'” 

I offer this quote to make one point. While salvation is indeed a crucially significant function of Scripture, it is not its primary or leading function. The primary or leading function of Scripture is that it is God’s speech. Scripture is God speaking to us in “genuine human language.” This is its primary function. For if Scripture is not God speaking to us then salvation is impossible because faith comes by hearing and hearing by God’s words, by God speaking to us in genuine human language.

So all the theology boys out there who claim sufficient reliability is measured by whether the Gospel is clearly proclaimed in their particular version(s), have wholly missed the point of the primary function of Scripture.

The question is not, Do you believe you can be saved out of that text? No, the question is, Do you believe that text is in its totality, God’s speech or is it mixed with the words of men?

The real test is whether or not the Scriptures are God speaking to His people in ordinary human language or are the Scriptures some kind of alloy composed of God’s words and men’s words. And of course the CT/MVO crowd plainly and confidently tell us that there are many places where God is not speaking [i.e., the Long Ending in Mark or the story of the woman caught in adultery], or where they are unsure God is speaking. Or as Dan Wallace puts it,

” We do not have now in any of our critical Greek texts – or in any translation – exactly what the authors of the New Testament wrote. Even if we did, we couldn’t know it. There are many many places in which the text of the New Testament is uncertain.”

Daniel Wallace, “Foreword” in Elijah Hixson & Peter Gurry. Myths & Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism. xii.

The way Wallace was trained and the way he continues to train acolytes is far different from the way we were trained at Westminster. This should give you a small window into why we differ with the Wallace’s, White’s, and Ward’s of the world. We find their arguments to be bankrupt theologically.

Compare Gaffin’s words and Wallace’s words. Which do you think has the best chance of being positively defended from the teaching of Scripture? It seems obvious that Gaffin’s words are best suited to such a defense: “Hath God said,” “Thus saith the Lord,” “As the Lord spoke by the prophet,” and on and on. No where in Scripture will you find our Lord saying of His own divine words of the OT, “We do not now have in any of our scrolls exactly what the authors of the Old Testament wrote. Even if we did, we couldn’t know it. There are many places in which the text of the Old Testament is uncertain.”

Our position: The Bible is the speaking of God in the most direct and proper sense.
Their position: The Bible is the speaking of God in a sufficiently reliable sense.

See the difference? Can you see now why we disagree with Wallace and those like him? And this is just the third page of notes from one class at Westminster. There are plenty of other places where Wallace and his ilk show themselves to be wondering sheep. The question now is, which position is most consistent with the teaching of Scripture regarding itself?

That King James Is Not The Best

So as you peruse the internet have any of you found it interesting that there is another huge debate going on about the King James? When I type in “King James debate” into Google I get story after story and image after image of who is the best basketball player: His Airness, Michael Jordan or King [Lebron] James.

Here on StandardSacredText.com we are going to settle this debate once and for all.

Michael Jordan

6 NBA Championships
6 Finals MVP’s
5 MVP’s
1 Defensive Player of the Year

Lebron James

4 NBA Championships
4 Finals MVP’s
4 MVP’s
0 Defensive Player of the Year

Beyond these numbers, Jordan took the game to a whole other level. Jordan’s ability seemed to show so many other NBA players, indeed the best of his time, to be no match. I mean, watch the game where Jordan scored 63 points while having the flu and then stand in awe. In other words, Jordan was the rising tide which lifted all other NBA players’ game. Lebron has yet to do this. Indeed, he is better than most, but he is not so clearly better that all NBA players have become better as a result of Lebron’s play.

The first year we sent our NBA players to the Olympics, the team on which Jordan played, the basketball players of the world got trounced. In many cases it looked like a Harlem Globetrotters game. In fact it got so bad that network television stop showing the games half way through and switch to something like synchronized swimming. Lebron does not represent such domination in the field and that is because Jordan raised the bar of greatness and it showed itself in the rise of ability and competency both here in the USA and around the world. When Lebron does this, then perhaps he will be the greatest. Until then, he is merely a great player.

Now of course we can’t leave this post as a mere assessment of why Jordan is the GOAT. Let us now turn to a brief discussion on the King James Version debate.

Don’t you find it puzzling that the debate around Jordan and Lebron is about who is the GOAT, the Greatest Of All Time? Don’t you think it would be better to simply refer to Jordan and Lebron as sufficiently reliable basketball players? Can you imagine a Lebron fan or sports commentator saying for a Finals Game 7, “That Lebron James, he’s a sufficiently reliable baller.”?

No, it’s about exceptionalism. Denis Rodman was a sufficiently reliable player for the Bulls, but he is not Michael Jordan, the Greatest Of All Time.

And why is Jordan the GOAT? Is it because he is a man? Is it because he played in the NBA? Is it because he played with the Bulls franchise? Is it because he went to the Finals? No, plenty of other NBA players did these very same things. Jordan is the GOAT because of the details, the shot percentages, the free-throw percentages, the number of wins in a season and in post-season, the number of assists, Jordan’s leadership and many many other factors. It’s the little stuff. Like in American football, it is a game of inches. The point is that greatness is defined by the small stuff.

On the textual issue our opponents would have us abandon exceptionalism. There cannot be one English version that is better than all the others. In fact, to desire such a thing is to be in error. All the versions need to be super. But as that deranged philosopher Syndrome says,

And that is the point of the Textual Confidence Collective. Every man chooses the versions that are right in their own eyes. But as soon as someone comes to cut down the groves, dash their academic idols, and tell them there is only one, out comes the scholastic torches and pitchforks.

And does this not spark thoughts of yet another social ill? Everyone gets a trophy these days. ***whining***Why does Jordan always get the MVP?***the whining continues*** He gets the trophy because he is the best. He performed the best. So as good as other players are they are not exceptional, not like Mike.

So while many in our culture demand that every participant get a trophy so too our Critical Text interlocutors demand that every version or nearly every version get a “Sufficiently Reliable” trophy based on the “You Can Get Saved Out Of That Text” trophy which everyone also gets. While they ignore what is exceptional. They whine and complain that the TR/KJV advocate holds their text to be exceptional, to be better than the rest. And Critical Text advocates simply can’t have inequality like that. In fact, as I argued a week or so ago, in Ward’s case he would have this same society that is degrading by the day, be accommodated for its laziness and misallocation of scholae [i.e., leisure] rather than challenged to reverse course and embrace an exceptional text that is certainly within reach.

Which leads to yet another social ill that modern text-critical advocates continue to stump for in their own way. Everyone has to be equal. We are talking both equal opportunity AND equal outcome. Here again the text-critical advocate claims that all or nearly all English versions are to be given equal opportunity in Christendom and that all these equal opportunity Bibles will yield equal outcomes. Furthermore, anyone who argues differently is a textual bigot. Or again, in the words of Mark Ward, a textual absolutist. Queue the torches and pitchforks.

Returning back to the theme of details and the small stuff mentioned above. Again we see that Critical Text advocates continue to unwittingly or wittingly support further social evils, but of course in their own ways. Consider man and woman and our current cultures’ insistence that man and woman are basically the same thing. And in so many ways the Christian worldview agrees. Man and woman are made in God’s image and are souls that have bodies. These are the major inviolable doctrinal truths. A healthy man and woman both have two ears, two eyes, a nose a mouth, nervous system, a respiratory system, a circulatory system, need oxygen, need water, need digestible calories, have a skeleton overlaid with muscle overlaid with skin, and the list goes on and on and on.

But the details, the details make all the difference: differences in reproductive capacity, water in the skin, presence of testosterone, density of musculature, and on and on. Modern woke intersectionality would have us overlook these “small differences” which in the end would not make a man no longer a man if he had low muscular density or only one ear or one eye. Nor would it make a woman any less of a woman if she were unable to conceive. Both he and she would still be very much made in the image of God and be a soul that has a body.

The same goes for our Critical Text brothers. They would have us believe that the small stuff doesn’t matter because no major doctrine [i.e., all men and women are souls that have bodies] is affected by those errors. Try telling that to a woman who cannot conceive a child though she desperately wants one. “It’s ok Susan. Your inability to have children is small compared to the fact that you are created in the image of God [i.e., no major doctrine is affected by her inability to have children]. In fact, despite your inability to have children you are equal with all other women. ” Just writing this sounds ridiculous on so many fronts. Only a cold and ignorant heart could say such stupid things. But for our Critical Text brothers it is not ridiculous to speak this way about God’s words. Rather such words are thought to be brilliant and balanced.

***NEWS FLASH*** The “small stuff” in Scripture, the stuff that is said not to affect doctrine AND the “big stuff” that does affect doctrine are all the same stuff – inspired Scripture.

Current Woke Biology: Men are personalities that have bodies and women are personalities that have bodies, so both are personalities that have bodies therefore there is no meaningful difference between men and women that affects man/woman doctrine.
Current Evangelical Textual Critic: The NIV is sufficiently reliable, the ESV is sufficiently reliable, and the KJV is sufficiently reliable so there is no meaningful difference between these versions that affects Christian doctrine.

Sometimes you got to laugh to keep from crying.

In sum, the Critical Text/Multiple Version Only [CT/MVO] position objects to exceptionalism among Bible versions and in their own way [i.e., in the field of text-criticism] prop up the false equality trumped up by our broken and breaking culture in the West. All versions or nearly all versions deserve a trophy. To say otherwise is to be a textual bigot. CT/MVO’s continued insistence of downplaying the “small stuff” or “the stuff that doesn’t affect doctrine” plays perfectly into the hand of those who wish to diminish the diminutive but properly important differences between men and women. Biologists do it with people and text-critics do it with the Bible.

The worst thing of all though is that the woke biologist understands what he is doing and its repercussions. The modern evangelical text-critic is utterly oblivious and so much so that he thinks he’s doing the Church and Western Culture a favor. Indeed, the worst tyrants are those who believe they are tyrannizing you for your own benefit.

The KJV Didn’t Makes the Pope’s List…Shocker

The image below has been circulating around lately in certain familiar circles so I thought I would I would share it here for anyone who had not seen it. It is an image of the current English versions of the Bible approved by the Apostolic See i.e., the Pope. Canon law regarding the authority of Scripture states,

“Books of the sacred scriptures cannot be published unless the Apostolic See or the conference of bishops has approved them. For the publication of their translations into the vernacular, it is also required that they be approved by the same authority and provided with necessary and sufficient annotations. With the permission of the Conference of Bishops, Catholic members of the Christian faithful in collaboration with separated brothers and sisters can prepare and publish translations of the sacred scriptures provided with appropriate annotations.” —  Canon 825 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law

So here is the list.

While the KJV didn’t make the list, nor did all the other TR-based translations, we do see that some familiar modern translations made the list: the New Living Translation, the New Revised Standard Version, and of course the favorite of many evangelicals, the English Standard Version. These all made the cut. Congratulations…I think.

What to Make of Matthew 24:35

As you read through biblical commentaries over the centuries, you will begin to note a rising incursion of secular rationalism into the commentary as the comment moves from the interpretation of the Scripture as a settled standard to a comment that offers alternate, non-exegetically based readings and interpretations. That is, scientific categories – theological, linguistic, historical —  not the Spirit, Word and Covenant keeper began to take precedence and then decide what the Scripture says and means. Most of the commentaries posted on StandardSacredText may seem unusual to the modern mind in that the critical work of the Post-reformation dogmaticians and Protestant Orthodox was positive, aimed toward reinforcing the common faith once delivered unto the saints. The Scripture itself was considered Scripture’s best exegetical and theological “commentary,” theology, linguistics, and history, subject to the self-attesting Scripture.

What follows is a brief comment on Matthew 24:35. As you read it, ask why, considering the simple reading of the passage, someone would assert there is no verse in Scripture teaching the providential preservation of the text. The meaning of the passage seems conspicuous, almost intuitive. How is the Church edified by rejecting this passage as grounds for providential preservation? If there was once a time when the interpretation or providential preservation was maintained by the Church, what philosophical, theological, ecclesiastical, etc., event or events took place to reject the rendering as valid?

Also note that the theology of providential preservation is based on the exegesis of the passage. That is, the idea of providential preservation is not imposed on an unwelcoming passage but that the passage demands such a rendering. If the exegesis of the passage is correct, what transpired to render the diction, grammar, and syntax in a contrary manner?

Thirdly, this interpretation is not sectarian but has been received historically by the orthodox Protestant Church as indicated by well-respected commentators of the Christian religion.

Matthew 24:35

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away

ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ παρελεύσονται οἱ δὲ λόγοι μου οὐ μὴ παρέλθωσιν

Exegesis and Exposition

            The “words” in this passage refer to the words of God in general, that unique set of words that were given by immediate inspiration of God. These words in one sense preclude what we call a “text,” a text being one of many representatives of varying worth attempting to capture the inspired words of God. The word parelqwsi translated “pass away” in the second instance is an ingressive (cf., inceptive) aorist tense verb from parercomai. The ingressive indicates an entrance into a state or condition. (Also see John 1:14; Acts 15:12). When expressing prohibition in the form, aorist tense, subjunctive mood and mh, the ingressive aorist conveys the meaning, “don’t start” or “don’t begin” the action referred to, which in this case is to “pass away.” Scripture in the most definite and unambiguous language tells us that though creation as we know it will go out of existence, the words of God will not. Given the historical context of creation’s past and present existence, not one word of God has “disappeared” or “come to an end.” James Morrison, in his commentary on Matthew observes,

What an immeasurable height here must have been within the self-consciousness of our Lord, when he thus contrasted the imperishableness of his own words with the perishableness of the heaven and earth! It is to his prediction in the preceding verse that he specially refers. Its fulfillment might be absolutely depended on. It would not fail. It was not liable to any casualty or transformation. And what was true of the words of this prediction, is equally true of all our Savior’s words,–of the sum total of his teachings. “The grass withereth, and the flower thereof fadeth away,” the sun and moon and stars shall pass away, “by the word of the Lord endureth forever.” (1 Pet. I, 25.)[1]

In the covenant God made with Abram in Genesis 15, the stars of heaven stand as testimonies to God’s faithfulness and power to bring His promises to consummation. This biblical truth is again attested to in Matthew 24:35 and parallel verses in the synoptic gospels.[2] The verse reads, Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. Reference to the testimony of “heaven and earth” is a common reinforcement to the certainty of the covenant and its fulfillment. In Genesis 15:5, God illustrates for Abram the numerical prosperity of his descendants by asking Abram to gaze into the sky to consider the number of the stars. This passage quoted by the Apostle Paul in Romans 4:3 solidifies the continuity of salvation and the common saving faith of Abraham, those who lived before the coming of Christ, with the saving faith of believers who lived after the death and resurrection of Christ. The stars were made a comparison by God with Abram’s posterity, a comparison Abram believed “and it was counted to him for righteousness.” “Stars” in Genesis 15 were not hyperbole but objects God used to do the work of faith in Abram’s heart. In this passage, the formula is creation/covenantal/salvific.

In Deuteronomy 30:11-13, the covenant is not off in the distant heavens nor beyond the sea, “But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.” Here, the created order is spoken of in spatial terms; that the covenant is not vast distances away but lives within the covenant keeper. Here, the formula is creation/covenantal/sanctifying.

Again, creation is presented as an empirical testimony to the validity of the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:35-37 which reads, “Thus saith the Lord, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The Lord of hosts is his name: If those ordinances depart from me, saith the Lord, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me forever. Thus saith the Lord; If heaven can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the Lord.” In this passage the formula is creation/covenantal/protecting

            Referring to Matthew 24:35, Calvin comments, “To win faith for His words, He illuminates their certainty with a comparison which, certainly, is based more firmly and surely than the fabric of the entire world”[3] and Matthew Henry says,

Christ here assures us of the certainty of them (v. 35 [the events]); Heaven and earth shall pass away; they continue this day indeed, according to God’s ordinance, but they shall not continue forever (Ps. cii.25, 26; 2 Pet. iii.10); but my words shall not pass away. Note, the Word of Christ is more sure and lasting than heaven and earth. Hath he not spoken? And shall he not do it? We may build more assurance upon the word of Christ than we can upon the pillars of heaven, or the strong foundations of the earth; for, when they shall be made to tremble and totter, and shall be no more, the word of Christ shall remain, and be in full force, power and virtue. See 1 Pet. i.24, 25. It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than the word of Christ; so it is expressed, Luke xvi.17. Compare Isa. liv.10…. Every word of Christ is very pure, and therefore very sure.”[4]

Isaiah 54:10, reads as follows, “For the mountains shall depart, and the hills shall be removed; but my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed, saith the Lord that hath mercy on thee.” Here, the formula is creation/covenantal/kindness, peace, mercy.

Note again Jacob’s blessing upon Joseph in Genesis 49:25 where El Shaddai, the Almighty, “the God of the mountains” are bound together with Jacob’s lengthy covenantal blessing upon his son and posterity: “who shall bless thee with blessings of heaven above, blessings of the deep that lieth under, blessings of the breasts, and of the womb. The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills” (or the place of blessing upon the “everlasting hills.”)

In Matthew 5:18, Matthew 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 16:17 and Luke 21:33 Jesus follows and expands upon this Old Testament formula. Rather than stars, mountains, seas and heavens, Jesus says “heaven and earth.” In these Old Testament passages, we see the unconditional, covenantal language of salvation, sanctification, protection, blessing, kindness, peace, and mercy. The mountains, seas, and heaven and earth stand as a witness to the faithfulness of God in the preservation of His covenant people through His word. This is also the larger theme of Psalm 12. Written as a reminder to Israel of the unconditional covenant first made with Abraham in Genesis 12:1-3 and rehearsed to the Patriarchs and throughout the Old Testament, the existence of the mountains and hills are witnesses to Jehovah’s kindness.

That Jesus follows this model in his teaching ministry should awaken our senses to recognize that the jot and tittle preservation of his word is not simply a theological issue to debate. The preservation of God’s Word is the preservation of God’s unconditional promise of salvation, sanctification, protection, blessing, kindness, peace, and mercy to the Church. Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499-1562) was an Italian-born theologian during the early years of the Reformation who expressed the following foundational theological truth, writing,

Thus says the Lord” (Dominus dixit) ought to be held as a first principle (primum principium) into which all true theology is resolved. This is not, moreover, an evidence derived from the light of human senses or from reason, but from the light of faith, by which we ought to be most fully persuaded, and which is contained in the sacred writings…. Christ himself teaches us, as it is said in Matthew 24, “heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words will never pass away”; and it is repeated everywhere that “the word of God stands forever.[5]

Augustus Strong, in his Systematic Theology, cites this passage in the section that deals with the Trinity being “essential to any proper revelation”[6] and specifically that Christ is the only Revealer of God by linking Christ and His words by arguing the following:

The Christian on the other hand regards Christ as the only Revealer of God, the only God with whom we have to do, the final authority in religion, the source of all truth and the judge of all mankind. “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” (Mat. 24:35).[7]

Citing Matthew 24:35 Strong adjoins the person of Christ as the “Revealer of the Father” from His message as the “source of all truth” with special reference to Scripture’s preservation. In other words, because Christ is the immutable Revealer of the immutable Father, so also His word is immutable. Because Christ is the eternal Revealer of the eternal Father so also His word is eternal. Because Christ is the Holy Revealer of the Holy Father, His word is holy. Christ is the immutable, eternal, holy “judge of all mankind” and will judge according to the dictates of his word.

[1] James Morrison, Matthew’s Memoirs of Jesus Christ: or a Commentary on the Gospel according to Matthew (Hamilton, Adams and Co., 1873), 531. http://0-search.ebscohost.com.newlibrary.wts.edu/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=h7h&AN=36332946&site=ehost-live.

[2] See 1 Peter 1:24-25 and Isaiah 40:6-8.

[3] John Calvin, Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, vol. 3, edited by David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 98.

[4]Matthew Henry, Commentary vol. 5 (Old Tappan: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1721), 360-61.

[5] Vermigli, Loci communes, I.vi.2. as cited in Richard A. Muller, “Holy Scripture: The Cognitive Foundation of Theology,” Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1993), 342.

[6] Augustus Strong, Systematic Theology, Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1993), 349.

[7]  Strong, Systematic Theology, 349-350.

Ward’s Textual Confidence Collective is Turning Out to be a Dumpster Fire

So the second episode of Mark Ward’s Textual Confidence Collective [TCC] dropped yesterday. I watch to stay up on the current goings on. I watch to hear a new argument perhaps. I watch to see if someone among them could could offer our arguments a beautiful death. To co-op the words of Stelios,

“I have fought countless times yet I have never met an adversary who could offer my arguments what the Spartan’s call a beautiful death. I can only hope that with all the TCC warriors gathered in one place, there might be one down there that is up to the task.

Stelios of Sparta

But alas none of the reasons I came to watch were fulfilled.

This episode was entitled The History of Textual Absolutism. TCC defines “textual absolutism” as holding to one form of the Scriptural text as their only and final authority. This could be a Greek/Hebrew text, a manuscript, or a version. They then go on to note certain persons who held to one form of the Scriptural text as their only and final authority.

Starting with the legend of the LXX, then Justin Martyr, then onto the Roman Catholics with their Latin Vulgate, and then ending the last five minutes with five modern day absolutist groups as characterized by the thought and work of Ruckman, Riplinger, McClure, Cloud, and Hills respectively. Ruckman being the most extreme and Hills being the most moderate of these five modern-day absolutist groups or positions.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of the episode was bent on critiquing the absolutist position by appeal to opposition contemporaries of Martyr and certain Roman Catholic apologists. So the episode would more aptly be called, The History of Critiquing Textual Absolutism.

This was their opportunity to show that they understand the position they so vehemently protest. They could have given the whole hour to showing their in-depth understanding of Martyr’s position and the Roman Catholic position as well as the robust theological Reformation position. But, no. Almost the whole episode was spent on their personal opinions why the legend of the LXX came to prominence, the virtues of Erasmus’ arguments contra absolutism, and a handful of quotes from the KJV translators, which I am going to get to in a minute.

There were many place where TCC set forth false equivalencies and sloppy argumentation which would have needed attention, but for this post I want to focus on only a few of the more ridiculous things.

1.) One of the huge problems of the TCC is that they set out to define their opponents but fail to properly do so, making the whole show a strawman. It would have been better for them to have an opponent on the TCC, or to have merely stated their arguments without pretending to understand their opponents and then labeling them.

Their hubris is palpable and it tastes a bit salty in that they think themselves able to critique Ruckman and Hills at the same time. I get that Tim doesn’t have advanced degrees but there is no excuse for Ward and Hixon who have Ph.D.’s or Peter who is a Ph.D. candidate. Their scope is too broad and they should know that. But they don’t, or they do and don’t care. And apparently they don’t know the substantive and meaningful differences between Ruckman and Hills so they stupidly lump them all under one title, textual absolutist.

2.) No sooner had they defined textual absolutism than they started to tear it down. Then after ~ 42 minutes of critiquing textual absolutism Ward cluelessly and confidently states, “We are trying to represent them fairly.” [42:18] I laughed out loud at this point. 2/3’s of the episode is over and all they’ve done is critique something they’ve barely defined let alone built up and then Ward, completely unaware of himself on this point, tells the audience that he is trying to represent the other side fairly. This shows you the caliber of scholarship the TCC employs.

3.) I thought it was hilarious around [52:00] when Ward says that he is an absolutist on the resurrection, salvation, and the virgin birth, but then he was not an absolutist on baptism. Then Hixon challenges him on it right then and there and says that infant baptism is no baptism at all. This is a parody of the version issue and they don’t even realize it.

Ward’s position on baptism is in step with his position on the Scriptures. Ward believes in many competing English forms of the word of God and so many competing forms of baptism makes sense to him. Hixon believes in only one form of baptism but in many forms of the word of God from which Hixon draws his beliefs regarding baptism. Hixon’s like, “God has given many forms of His own words to the Church but there is absolutely no way God could give many forms of baptism to the Church.” That part was golden. Then to have Ward and Hixon disagree in their degrees of absolutism was great because Ward would lump himself in with Hixon’s position [at one point Ward quickly affirmed that he was Credo-Baptist] but Hixon would not lump himself in with Ward, all the while the TCC lumps together Ruckman to Hills under the same term, textual absolutist. Good times…

4.) Tim: “If the Bible can be wrong in one point, it can be wrong in every other. It’s that same absolutist logic.” [11:54] Tim is saying here that a hallmark of textual absolutists is that they believe that if the Bible can be wrong at one point then it can be wrong in all other points. And the TCC all nod…

Again, we keep coming back to this point but we have to. The TCC is simply out of their depth on this topic. They were raised in a weak form of Bibliology and then desperately attached themselves to what is currently popular, but their Bibliology is still just as bloodless and effete as when they were in high-school.

Take this quote from Francis Turretin’s Institutes of Elenctic Theology [1696]. Turretin’s Institutes are important because 1.) they were the Systematic Theology of the Academy at Geneva, the first official Protestant school of higher learning in the Third Wave of the Reformation and 2.) Turretin’s Institutes remained the standard Protestant Systematic Theology until the mid-1800’s at Princeton until Hodge’s Systematic Theology replaced Turretin’s.

I tell you this because for nearly 200 years, or approximately ten generations of Christian scholars used Turretin’s Institutes as their standard for Systematic Theology. The quote I’m about to share with you is loudly and clearly this supposed “absolutist logic” and the TCC is oblivious to this truth. Turretin writes,

“Unless unimpaired integrity characterize the Scriptures, they could not be regarded as the sole rule of faith and practice, and the door would be thrown wide open to atheists, libertines, enthusiasts, and other profane persons like them for destroying its authenticity (authentian) and overthrowing the foundations of salvation.” Turretin, Institutes vol. 1, 71.

NOTE: In sum, without “unimpaired integrity” the Bible will be left wide open to destruction by atheist, antinomians, charismatics, and other profane persons which will lead to the overthrow of the foundation of faith. So what does “unimpaired integrity” look like for Turretin?

“For since nothing false can be an object of faith, how could the Scriptures be held as authentic and reckoned divine if liable to contradictions and corruptions? Nor can it be said that these corruptions are only in smaller things which do not affect the foundation of faith.”

NOTE: Every time I read this portion I laugh. 350 years ago Turretin had to respond to the same objection offered now by our evangelical brethren which is, “Well, the corruptions in the New Testament don’t affect any major doctrine.” While Turretin says it cannot be said that these corruptions are only in the smaller things; things that do not affect the foundation of faith i.e., major doctrine.

In the same section again,

“For if once the authenticity (authentia) of the Scriptures is taken away (which would result even from the incurable corruption of one passage), how could our faith rest on what remains? And if corruption is admitted in those of lesser importance, why not in others of greater? Who could assure me that no error or blemish had crept into fundamental passages?”

NOTE: Talk about textual absolutism. Turretin, again writing the standard Systematic Theology of his day, plainly says that one incurable corruption would take away the authenticity and therefore authority of Scripture. Just one. Then he goes on to argue almost word for word what Tim and the TCC believe is “textual absolutist logic”. Turretin’s position is that if we admit error in the lesser things, or in one thing, why can’t their be error in fundamental things, in major doctrinal things?

Also at around [30:25] Hixon says that Dirk Jongkind says every word of God is so important, it is worth losing sleep over. Well, to Dirk and the TCC, here is what losing sleep looks like. If you admit corruption in the small things then you have no grounds to exclude corruption in the fundamental things because the small things and the fundamental things are the same thing, inspired Scripture. That, indeed, is something to lose sleep over.

But wait there’s more. Right around the 15 second mark Peter says, “We don’t need to be more orthodox than God.” This is a clip from later in the conversation where Peter states his belief that because there are errors in the text and textual tradition, that is what God gave us and we should be thankful for that. Turretin, argues quite the opposite.

“It will not do to say that divine providence wished to keep it from serious corruptions, but not from minor. For besides the fact that this is gratuitous, it cannot be held without injury, as if lacking in the necessity of things which are required for the full credibility (autopiston) of Scripture itself. Nor can we readily believe that God, who dictated and inspired each and every word to these inspired (theopneustois) men, would not take care of their entire preservation.”

The point is, Peter and the rest of the TCC, have a low Bibliology and a low Theology Proper because their low Bibliology scared them as kids and now they are scared of variants. So they are comfortable with straying from orthodox Bibliology and Theology Proper so they can make their point based on some shallow view of divine providence. For the rest of you out there, don’t ever tell me that no major doctrine is at stake when I have an example here of two Ph.D.’s and a Ph.D. candidate reframing orthodox Bibliology and Theology Proper just so they can substantiate their novel claims born out of the chaos of their youth.

And this is just Turretin. What about William Twiss, Edward Leigh, and William Whitaker? The TCC simply does not know what they are talking about. They have not done the reading. They have not done the study. The most charitable reason for this I think is that they simply weren’t trained right. I lay a fair bit of blame at the feet of their uninformed and scholastically effete professors.

5.) Lastly, at [54:28] Tim is quoting from Miles Smith and on the screen near the bottom right of the text you see the word “Original”. Note the capital letter “O”. The reason why Smith wrote “Original” and not “original” is because he believed the Greek and Hebrew in his hand were the very words of Moses and the apostles. Note at [47:57] Tim is again quoting but this time from Daniel Featley. Featley is comparing translations and “the originals”. But note how Featley defines the originals, “…or else we must read none at all till we have a translation given by divine inspiration, as the originals are.”

Featley does not day “as the originals were”. No, he says as they “are”. Again, Featley along with Smith believed the Greek and Hebrew in their hand were the exact same words as those written at the hand of Moses and Paul and John. But in case there is still doubt, here is Turretin saying the same thing.

“By the original texts, we do not mean the autographs written by the hand of Moses, of the prophets and of the apostles, which certainly do not now exist. We mean the apographs which are so called because because they set forth to us the word of God in the very words of those who wrote under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit.“

Turretin maintains that at his time and 85 years after the writing of the KJV that the Greek and Hebrew in use “sets forth the word of God in the very words” of Moses, the prophets, and the apostles.

The point is that the KJV translators, in fact all the orthodox, WERE textual absolutists of the Hill/Letis sort, and yet these facts have wholly alluded the TCC. These truths were literally right in front of their faces. They were undermining their own position without even knowing it. They were reading the quotes and yet because of their weak Bibliology could not see the forest for the trees.

With such failures in scholarship it is hard to believe anything good will come of the TCC other than continued clear examples of their ineptitude in field of orthodox Bibliology. I love these guys in the Lord, but so far these guys are lost and wondering, and somebody has got to tell them.

Next week they say they are going to discuss the theology of textual absolutism. Be sure there will more and greater scholarly gaffes. I am beginning to wonder if the proper analysis of the TCC come the last episode will be something like:

Critical Text Advocates Don’t Like Our Argument Because It Doesn’t Bow To Their Gods

Before we get into today’s post I want to make sure we avoid a potential False Friend. Throughout today’s post I will be using the word “rancor” which means “bitter deep-seated ill will” as opposed to “the Rancor” from Star Wars: Return of the Jedi pictured above. I just wanted to make sure there was no confusion.

I have oft asked myself, “Why is that such rancor, especially by Christian academics, is leveled at average Christians who hold to the TR and the KJV as their standard sacred text to the exclusion of all others?” In order to answer this question, allow me to illustrate with pictures.

The image immediately above is a picture I took this morning of my UBS 4th Ed. Revised. It is a picture of Mark 16:2b-8. Note first the blue arrow pointing at the page number. The reason this is important is actually very simple. We are going to look at the very next page and see what that page contains, but first let’s take a look at the red arrow.

The red arrow is pointed to a portion of what is called the textual apparatus or the textual footnotes. Here text-critics include the manuscripts they consider relevant to the choice they made regarding a given variant. As most of you know the “Long Ending of Mark” is an infamous variant because Critical Text advocates believe it should not be in the Bible while TR advocates believe it should be in the Bible.

Take a look at what is in the red square, “[A] omit vv 9-20”. What does [A] mean? Well in the introduction of the UBS, the editors explain,

“The letter A indicates that the text is certain.”

UBS 4th Ed. Revised, Introduction, 3.

“[A] omit vv 9-20” therefore means to the editors of the UBS that they are certain that Mark 16:9-20 should be omitted from the biblical text because in their estimation it is not original. Again, the word here is “certain”. They have no doubt that the Long Ending in Mark should be removed from the text of Mark.

Not long ago I asked a Critical Text advocate why the Long Ending of Mark is printed in the modern versions. He said, “Because scholars are unsure whether the text is original or not.” Not according to the editors of UBS. They are certain the Long Ending does not belong.

Ok, so as promised let’s look at the next page and see what is printed there.

Notice at the top right of the page shown that we are now looking at page 190. What do you see printed in the body of the text? A second shorter ending as indicated by blue arrow 1, and right below that the Longer Ending as indicated by blue arrow 2. Both are printed in the body of the text.

Now there is a lot to disagree about here and I don’t want to diminish the gravity of those things, but it is important to note that the Longer Ending is printed in the body of the UBS 4th Ed. Revised even after the editors rated vss. 9-20 with an “A” to omit. That is, they are certain 9-20 does not belong in the text and yet the thing they are certain does not belong in the text…is in the text.

All that is done to differentiate this text, which certainly does not belong there according to textual scholars, from the rest of the text is to include a “[[” right before vs. 9 as indicated by the red arrow and a “]]” at the end of 20.

The point of this observation on page 190 is that text of the Long Ending is in the body of the New Testament even though the editors are certain that it does not belong there.

What about the story of the woman caught in adultery? Consider the following image,

Now you may not be able to read Greek but you can read the heading on this page, The Woman Caught in Adultery. Again from the UBS 4th Ed. Revised, we see that the story of the woman caught in adultery is printed in the body of the New Testament text as indicated by blue arrow 1.

Looking at the red arrow and the red box we see exactly what we saw with the Long Ending in Mark, “[A] omit 7.53-8.11]”. So again, the editors of the UBS are certain that the story of the woman caught in adultery does not belong in the text and yet they print the story and set if off with “[[“.

So, textual scholarship is certain that the Long Ending in Mark and the story of the woman caught in adultery are not original and therefore do not belong in the text, buuutttt they still print the certainly-not-original text in the body of the New Testament. And here is where the rub comes into the picture when answering my initial question at the top of this post, “Why is that such rancor, especially by Christian academics, is leveled at average Christians who hold to the TR and the KJV as their standard sacred text to the exclusion of all others?”

The TR and the KJV include both of these passages of Scripture in the body of the New Testament. Interestingly enough, the Critical Text and the modern versions include the same passages albeit with brackets in the body of the New Testament. This tells me that our Critical Text brothers are not or at least should not be upset with the TR/KJV folks for included these two passages in the body of Scripture.

The fact that most text-critics consider themselves to practice some kind of science yet their product [i.e., the printed UBS text] goes direct against their “scientific conclusions” [i.e., [A] to omit] makes their work, at a minimum, untrustworthy regarding these passages. I mean what other science does this and remains credible?

Chemistry: “Our investigation of Enchanted Thorium has concluded that it is not a real element.” ***2 months later*** “Enchanted Thorium is now included in the periodic table of elements.”
Biology: “Only women can get pregnant”***5 years later***”Men can get pregnant too.”
Textual Criticism: “The Long Ending is not part of the New Testament.”***1 year later***”Prints the Long Ending as part of the New Testament + a couple of these [.”

Then Critical Text advocates have the gall to call TR/KJV irrational and illogical while CT and multiple version only folks won’t even follow their own conclusions.

With the above point aside, where is the problem? What is the difference between our two positions? It’s not that we include those texts in the body of the NT. The UBS and the modern versions do the same.

We believe those texts are the word of God, should not be omitted, and therefore we include them in TR/KJV with an “[A] to include.” Our opponents on the other hand do not believe those texts are the word of God, that they should be omitted, yet they include them in CT and modern versions.

CT and multiple version only advocates have no problem including these passages in the New Testament so long as the reader believes/knows the passages shouldn’t be there. But when those passages are included in the text AND the reader believes/knows the passages SHOULD be there, then comes the rancor.

Why?

Because we have not appropriately bowed to the academic idols. Because we have not paid appropriate homage and obeisance to academia which looks like “taking their scholarly-word for it.” And their scholarly-word takes the form of first printing these passages in their New Testaments only to say, “Well, those readings are weakly attested” or “Those readings are not among the oldest, shortest, and hardest” or “Those readings are not contained in the best manuscripts.”

Then we say, “I don’t care if it’s weakly attested. And who is the ‘authority’ of what counts as ‘weakly’ anyway? And why is ‘authority’ binding on me?” or “I don’t regard oldest, shortest, and hardest to be reliable criteria for determining was is or is not the word of God” or “What gives you the authority to claim what the ‘best manuscripts’ are?” Language like this will only anger the academic gods.

I can’t help at this point to observe a similarity here with the emperor worship of the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. Rome did not care if you worship your God so long as you also worshipped the emperor. Modern textual critics don’t mind if you include these passages in the body of the New Testament so long as you also acknowledge their opinion that these passages don’t belong in the New Testament.

You can believe the KJV is the word of God so long as you also say most or all of the modern translations are equally the word of God. If you don’t say this here comes the wrath of the academic gods. You can say that the TR is the word of God so long as you speak of it only in terms of it being sufficiently reliable like all the other critical texts. If you say that the TR is equal to the originals, then here comes the that holy academic fire sent to purify you of your ignorance.

Which takes the form of chiding, silly jokes, lumping you in with double-inspiration, informing you that your position is ignorant, teaching as if there is no other meaningful position out there, refusing to print any of your material, when you submit material for publication you receive no meaningful feedback as to the veracity of your arguments, asserting that you’ve “got them all wrong” and thus you are doubly ignorant, telling you straight-out to “Get another version” as happened in my Ph.D. defense and on and on.

Failure to believe in the emperor as god meant death or exile.
Failure to believe in textual criticism means academic exile.

The TR/KJV position is not exiled because it includes the Long Ending of Mark and the story of the woman caught in adultery in the Bible. It is exiled because it does not submit to the prevailing academic consensus to omit those passages while still printing them.

If you believe these passages should be omitted but you desire to print them anyway, then you will be accepted.
If you believe these passages should be included and therefore print them, then you will be exiled.

So here’s your choice, gross inconsistency or exile.

See you on Patmos.

How to Study the Bible, or for all the secular-thinking Christian scholars out there, it’s not too late to get things right.

Hard braking

In the study of Scripture, the saint’s position is one of dependence upon God. Following the example of Samuel, our hearts say, “Speak Lord, for thy servant heareth.” Theologians are by necessity listeners. If there is no listening, there will be no knowledge of what the proper theological questions are. The fact that all knowledge must pass through the colored lenses of the fallen consciences, mandates the apriori recognition of this negative bias, and requires listening and submissiveness, not assertion and imposition to prevent transforming theology into anthropology.

The apriori of faith is the faith that precedes the evidence. The apriori of faith is described by the Latin term principium or the principle of theology. The principium refers to the beginning of theology, cf., John1:1, “In the beginning was the Word,” En arch o logoV. This “before the evidence” faith in God’s Word is the source of our knowledge of God. Theology has two principia or fundamental principles of theology: Scripture and God — the revelation and the one who reveals himself and was divided into a study (locus) of Scripture and a study (locus) on God. This “beginning” brings us to either embracing it by faith or rejecting it. Faith is a response to hearing God’s word, but we cannot demonstrate the Bible is God’s word from a neutral vantage point. A meaningful explanation of the special principle can only occur within those who hold God’s Word to be true because the claims of the text are our only source of knowledge of God.

Calvin in the Institutes, 1.4.15 demonstrates that man’s mind is a non-stop factory of idols, materially and intellectually and therefore what we think, our opinion, feelings, sentiments, etc., are irrelevant to orthodox exegetically based theological formulation. [John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, edited by John T. McNeil, translated by Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), 1.4.15: “For at the same time we have enjoyed a slight taste of the divine from contemplation, we raise up in his stead dreams and speculations of our own brains, and attribute to anything else than the true source the praise of righteousness, wisdom, goodness and power.”] We must think about God the way He wants us to think about Him. We must see God “with the aid of spectacles,” or in the pages of His Word. We are not to master God but are to be mastered by Him and in the submission of listening spiritual renewal comes to the student. Thus, a right approach to the principium is imperative for our learning and spiritual well-being.

The Necessity of Humility and Repentance

The holiness of God requires that all theological thinking is penitential (begging God for forgiveness) thinking. The student of God’s Word is to study to be humble and repentant. As such, theology has its proper goal in doxology that can be summarized “Theology is worshipping God with your entire mind.” Where sin is entertained, spiritual renewal and the knowledge of God is dissipated and vice versa. True worship, then, is grounded in true theology – Scripture based worship.

In Scripture, theology is set in the sphere of doxology. The psalmist writes in Psalm 27:4, “One thing have I desired of the Lord, that will I seek after; that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the Lord, and to inquire in his temple.” The “house of the Lord” has always been the best place to do theology. Which begs the question as to where the seminary stands in relationship to theological work. It is here, in the Church, that there is a union of the quest of the intellect and the heart. In the ‘house of the Lord’ the beauty of God is manifested. Worshipping and praising God with the entire mind protects the student from deviating from a Theo-centric to anthro-centric theological formulation. True worship springs from a mind wholly given over to hearing what God says in His Word. Within the sphere of listening to God and worshipping Him, the believer learns the truths that God has already revealed about Himself. The writing down of those things learned within this doxological context and spiritual exchange is orthodox theology.

A Recent Interaction With Mark Ward

Whether on YouTube or a blog you can always listen to/read what the author has to say and then you can scroll down to the comments. Depending on the topic and the people that make their way to the comments section, sometimes the comments can be helpful and sometimes you can read threats of bodily violence. In short, if the internet is the Wild West then the comments section is the O.K. Corral. You can watch but the longer you do the chances of getting hit with a stray shot or two begin to escalate. Peruse at your own risk.

In a recent post I critiqued Mark Ward’s broader thesis as well as several specifics. First, Ward’s comments are always welcomed here. We disagree and quite sharply on several points, but I am thankful for his interactions. Second, occasionally Ward does make his presence known here in the comments section. Over the last couple days we have had, I think, a profitable back and forth which aptly shows each of our positions and subsequently the differences of our positions regarding his thesis of false friends and the casting off of the AV. The discussion to this point went as follows:

WARD: I am mostly content for people to listen to what I say, listen to what you say, pray, read their Bibles, and come to their own conclusion.

The only place I’d like to offer follow-up is on what you said here:

“The reason why the KJV is archaic is not because it is archaic in itself but because for the last 150 years scholarship and her ecclesiastical acolytes have variously redirected the attention of God’s people to other Bibles and as such the language of the standard sacred text has fallen out of use both in the church and day-to-day living.”

If this is the case, Peter, why did Noah Webster complain of many of the same false friends—in almost precisely the same way I did—way back in 1833, when the KJV was still the universal standard? Webster actually updated the KJV, and he wrote in the preface to his update:

“Some words have fallen into disuse [dead words]; and the signification of others, in current popular use, is not the same now as it was when they were introduced into the version. The effect of these changes, is, that some words are not understood by common readers, who have no access to commentaries, and who will always compose a great proportion of readers. While other words, being now used in a sense different from that which they had when the translation was made, present a wrong signification or false ideas [false friends!]. Whenever words are understood in a sense different from that which they had when introduced, and different from that of the original languages, they do not present to the reader the Word of God.”

A substantially less godly source, Benjamin Franklin, said something similar 50 years prior to Webster:

“It is now more than 170 years since the translation of our common English Bible. The language in that time is much changed, and the stile being obsolete, and thence less agreeable, is perhaps one reason why the reading of that excellent book is of late much neglected.”

Language changes over time, my friend. It isn’t my lack of sanctification or Christians’ past apostasy that led me to be ignorant of the words “fitches” (Ezk 4:9), “flakes” (Job 41:23), and “furbish” (Her 46:4). The reason I did not know these words was that I don’t speak the same English used by the KJV translators.

VAN KLEECK: Mark, as always it is good to have you make your presence known on the blog here.

Unfortunately your appeal to Webster and to a lesser degree Franklin is to really betray your position’s rather myopic approach to history and specifically the Bible in history. I do not doubt Webster said those words and sincerely carried that sentiment regarding the AV. What it seems you have wholly missed is that by the time Webster gives that quote the ground and structure for modern textual criticism was already built by Lochmann and Griesbach. What is more Wescott and Hort’s work is only a couple decades in the future from Webster’s quote. The world at that time was ready to mistreat the Bible. Webster is merely a symptom of that reality.

Furthermore, by offering this historically uncontextualized quote simply to try to leverage an appeal to authority it seems clear to me that you have not read Carl Trueman’s Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self. Else you would have realized that the mid-19th century was the place where the soul of Expressive Individualism came to be. Expressive Individualism regards the Bible and Christianity as a thing to be admired then conquered – a Deathwork. Right around the time you pull this quote from Webster, Marx is writing making the case that religion is a drug and must be overthrown. Rousseau has already laid the ground for Emotivism. The Bible is already under attack by the work of Greisbach and Lochmann and soon by Wescott and Hort. This time also included the work of Percy Bysshe Shelley which popularized the idea of sexual freedom, emancipation from religion, and the rise of Expressive Individualism. Only 20 years after your quote here the world of science was ready to hear Darwin’s theory of Biological Evolution. What is more, because of the men here named, in a generation or so the socio-cultural religious ground would be ready for Freud and his insistence that religion is mere wish fulfillment.

Then you quote Franklin who was at best a Deist who would regard the Bible as a hinderance to certain of his moral choices shall we say. Simply put, he would have an axe to grind with the Bible.

So are we to believe that Webster was untouched by the sinister evil rising up all around him in economics, textual studies, psychology, biology, and poetry? Trueman, a world renowned Church Historian says that all of us, including those in the present day Church are Expressive Individualists and don’t know it. So I infer, “No, Webster did not remain untouched by the evil around him.”

So all you’ve done by quoting Webster and Franklin is show that your arguments are strongly in line with those in the 1800’s who sought to diminish and destroy the power and value of God’s word for the Church and for the West and whose work has indeed done that and caused the Church great harm. And what is worse, you don’t appear to have the slightest idea that you have done so.

I fear your attempt to support your position by “proof-texting” Webster and Franklin has only shown that you neither understand your position nor do you understand mine.

WARD: Here is my published review of Trueman’s book: https://seminary.bju.edu/files/2021/04/JBTW1.2-Book-Reviews.pdf

Now: can I get some clarity? Are you saying that the word “besom” changed to “broom” ultimately because of the rise of unbelief in post-Reformation Europe? That the phrase “by and by” once meant “immediately” and now means “eventually” in part because of expressive individualism? That English would not have changed—we’d all be speaking and writing like the Elizabethans now—if the English-speaking world had remained consistently as Christian as it was in 1611?

How about words and phrases that do not occur in the KJV whose meanings have changed? Were those changes morally licit? To pick an example I noticed recently on a BBC show my wife and I enjoy, was it wrong for some English speakers to start calling a “slaughterhouse” an “abattoir” instead? Or, probably a little more germane, you used the word “enthusiasts” in this post, and you used it (quite naturally, as I would expect) in its contemporary sense: “a person who feels or displays keen interest in, passion for, or enjoyment of a particular activity or subject” (OED). But the OED says that this sense is comparatively recent, that in 1611 the word would have normally been used to refer to “a person who falsely or erroneously claims to receive divine communication or inspiration.” Or perhaps “a person (supposedly) possessed by a god, demon, spirit.” The use of “enthusiast” has changed over time. You used it in a modern sense that came about only after the rise of the various kinds of unbelief you’ve named. Shouldn’t you insist on using it in the historical way, and reject any new sense(s)? With proper time, I feel quite certain I could repeat this exercise dozens of times—probably hundreds—using words from your blog. Language changes, Peter. Sometimes ideological forces push it, but usually not. I read an entire detailed Greek grammar in seminary (Nigel Turner on Syntax) that repeatedly said the same thing: “This construction used to have a more specific meaning in the Attic period, but this meaning had eroded by the Κοινή period.”

Peter, these are honest questions as far as they go. Not honest in the sense that I’m open to persuasion to the view I believe you are putting forward: I find your view of language change to be so baffling, so counter to everything I know about language, that I find it impossible to imagine entering your world. What you’re saying is, frankly, to me, completely bizarre. I don’t think even you can live in the world you’ve created, hence my argument about “enthusiast.” But my questions are honest in the sense that I’m open to the idea that I’m just misunderstanding you.

A final note: I ask that you get into specifics and not generalities. Talk about individual KJV words. I have 57 false friends on my YouTube channel. I talk specifics. To your credit, you’ve done some of that, too—more than almost all my opponents in this debate. And I do still hope to offer some thoughts on your lists of archaic words found in contemporary Bible translations. I think that is a fair argument strategy. And it gets into details in a way this philologist can appreciate. Help me understand you here, Peter.

VAN KLEECK: > “Are you saying that the word “besom” changed to “broom” ultimately because of the rise of unbelief in post-Reformation Europe? That the phrase “by and by” once meant “immediately” and now means “eventually” in part because of expressive individualism? That English would not have changed—we’d all be speaking and writing like the Elizabethans now—if the English-speaking world had remained consistently as Christian as it was in 1611?”

No, I’m saying something far more modest. I’m saying that these old words should still bear their meaning in addition to the meanings they currently have. For example, “by and by” would mean “immediately” and “eventually” depending on the context. Thus the English would become more robust, more diverse, and more beautiful.

On the point of “enthusiast”, I hold all the definitions you mentioned to be viable definitions because such definitions are used regularly in the writings of the translations of the Reformers. Turretin comes to mind here [1]. Again, you seem bent on excluding definitions for a given word while I am for the broadening of definitions. A word can have more than one meaning. The context limits the meaning of a word.

It seems to be a manifest truth that we are closer now to 1984’s Double-Speak than we are to Shakespeare’s English. I attribute this to, among other things, the rise of Rationalism and specifically the Enlightenment and its fruits. Trueman observes such downgrade in the fields of politics, sexuality, economics, biology, and psychology. His conclusions seem equally applicable to Post-Enlightenment textual criticism of which your position seems to be of the same species though more tepid.

Mark, it seems to me that the reason you cannot “enter into my world” is because your entire position is bent on the supposed virtue of truncating the English language. My response is that all the words you have referenced could be and in many places still are used e.g., in pulpits where the KJV is preached out of. Indeed, the real virtue is in retaining the words and in retaining the meaning of the words in the KJV along with the words and meaning of the words currently held.

In the end, my position contra yours has little to do with textual criticism. Rather, my opposition to your arguments is grounded in my philosophy of education. Part of that philosophy is that having less words in the English language is a bad thing. Having more words is a good thing. Less meaning given to a word is a bad thing. More meanings given to a word is a good thing. It is virtuous/excellent to expand our vocabularies, expand our understandings of words. Your position on the other hand recognizes the deterioration of the English language and instead of trying to stem the tide you are simply going with the flow which I think is bad enough. But then you ask others to follow your lead and question the reliability of the KJV while your at it.

On another point regarding my philosophy of education, the word for school comes from the Latin, scholae. Scholae means leisure. Only those who have leisure have time to go to school. When you aren’t fighting for your life, constantly hunting for food, or searching for clean water you have time for scholae. The American Church has more scholae than any other Church in the history of mankind. But instead of learning more words and more meaning of words, the American Church finds other more important things to do like calling the Creation story mytho-history, or binging Netflix, or watching hours of every sport imaginable and on and on. Many Christians can hardly use their scholae to attend one church service a week, or hand out one track or say one word for Christ or pray over their food in a public place.

Then comes your arguments which make excuses for why the Church’s misuse of scholae has nothing to do with why they don’t understand the KJV. In fact, anytime myself or Riddle challenge your suppositions with “study more” you treat our challenge with nothing more than a hand wave. In this sense, your arguments contribute to the American Church’s misappropriation of scholae and do so without even touching the breaks.

And why is it that the American Church so regularly misappropriates her scholae? Consumerism, Expressive Individualism, political entities have become her socio-cultural savior [Obama or Trump depending on which side of the isle you affiliate with], church-hopping, pastor-hopping, church services centered on emotionalism, and on and on are all culprits in the degradation of American culture, society, and church. And instead of resisting this degradation, your arguments make way for it with something like, “Hey if the plowboy of this degraded American culture, society, and church can’t understand the KJV the answer is not to employ the plowboy’s scholae in learning it. No, the answer is absorb the plowboy’s degraded American culture, society, and church, and choose a Bible more consistent with that degradation because then he’ll understand the Bible.” Which of course only kicks the can down the road where your kids will have to fight the next downgrade, but such things don’t appear to be on your radar.

There is so much more I have to say on this topic. I am disappointed that “everything you know about language” does not seem to include the broad reaching socio-cultural and ecclesiastical affects of your arguments. The assault on the KJV is more than an assault on a version of the Bible, it is an assault on the very precondition of truth for Western society of the last 400 years.

[1] Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology vol. 1, 71. “Unless unimpaired integrity characterize the Scriptures, they could not be regarded as the sole rule of faith and practice, and the door would be thrown wide open to atheists, libertines, ENTHUSIASTS and other profane persons like them for destroying its authenticity (authentian) and overthrowing the foundation of salvation. For since nothing false can be an object of faith, how could the Scriptures be held as authentic and reckoned divine if liable to contradictions and corruptions? Nor can it be said that these corruptions are only in smaller things which do not affect the foundation of faith.” [Capitalization and italics are mine]

13 Things To Remember When You Do Your Undergraduate or Graduate Work

These 13 things have coalesced over many years of undergrad, grad, and post-grad college and seminary education. After reading what Dr. Van Kleeck wrote regarding young men throwing off their early theological training for their professors’ lectures, I thought this to be a timely list. This is not comprehensive, but it has been very helpful negotiating the academic minefield that is higher education.

  1. The professors owe you an education. You are paying dearly for it. Your family is under time, financial, and personal pressures. They are there to teach you because you have paid them to do a service.
  2. Because they owe you an education because you are paying for it, there should never be a question that they are unable to answer. They are being paid to answer your questions. The notion that they are above this help is an indication of the Professor’s misguided sense of his role in the teaching process.
  3. The syllabus is a contract that is not to be violated. You are going to schedule your life around its content – when tests are given, when papers are due. The professor is not free to change the contract in mid-semester.
  4. Professors are not your friends. They may be gracious, but you are just one student among countless others. To give your allegiance to them rather than to those who really love you (your pastor or parents) is misplaced loyalty. The loyalty they hope to engender in you is to demonstrate that they can extend their ideas through you.
  5. The only difference between you and the professor is time. Given enough time you will be able to read, study, and digest everything they have. Professorship is not another thing; it is just part of the same continuum you are on.
  6. A professor can be just as full of nonsense as anyone else. The degree makes them informed, not wise.
  7. Good students are critical thinkers and would never go along with a lecture simply because it was given by a Ph.D.
  8. Don’t be hesitant to disagree with your fellow students cordially but strongly. Publicly debate with them; test your argument; see if your position holds up under scrutiny; grow in your self-assurance that what you are saying is not only consistent but undefeatable. If your argument holds up under scrutiny in grad and post-grad school, responding to objections after graduation will be to rehearse proven arguments.
  9. Take the good and filter out the bad. Professors and institutions have varying skill sets and capabilities. Not everyone you study under is worth your time. Use the institution to accomplish what you want out of it.
  10. If you’re not echoing the institutions status quo, it is especially important that you are not happy with anything but “A’s.” If you claim to have the truth but your work is deficient, it’s hard to convince others that you know what you’re doing.
  11. If your goal is to be approved of by the Institution, you have already forsaken the critical spirit necessary to get the most out of your education. This is when the term “inbred” is applied to professors who receive all their education at the Institution where they presently teach. Such lectures are predictable, and the student’s response to the lectures are also expected to be predictable.
  12. Never turn in a late paper.
  13. The one truth that can never be forsaken, is that the Bible is without error. This one truth will enable you to thrive in a critical academic environment.

The Emotional Trauma Behind the Textual Confidence Collective

Having watched the first episode of Mark Ward’s Textual Confidence Collective it seemed to me that all those involved, with possible the exception of Hixon, were taught poor Bibliology. That Bibliology could not stand significant scrutiny which led to traumatic experiences for at least Mark, Peter, and Timothy. For the latter two there was familial upheaval where they were accused of apostatizing from the faith by varying degrees.

It seems that their turn from KJV-Onlyism happened just prior to their enrollment in higher-education or at some point during their higher-education experience. Again, this turn left them as Christians exposed to all sorts of theological dangers and uncertainties. To the man, they went to schools that embraced modern textual views on the manuscripts and the version issue but they were without an anchor in Bibliology because the Bibliology they were taught as young men basically disintegrated out from under them as it fell under academic scrutiny.

But while in college or seminary each man found greater stability in the position of their professors and in the modern books that they read when compared to the Bibliology they were taught as young men. Admittedly, modern text-critical arguments have explanatory force and scope in ways KJV-Onlyism does not.

Unfortunately, the members of the Collective now cling to that stability like the KJV position they formerly and desperately clung to. I can’t help but see the comparison between the journey of those in the Collective and that of Bart Ehrman. Ehrman was once an evangelical going to trusted evangelical institutions of higher learning, as Mark Ward likes to prop up.

One day Ehrman’s understanding of Bibliology did not stand up to academic scrutiny, in fact some professing evangelical scholars undermined his understanding of Bibliology, and so Ehrman began to doubt the Bible and naturally began to doubt Christianity seeing that Christianity is wholly based on the Bible. Now Ehrman is a leading scholar in the field of textual criticism and a staunch opponent of Christianity.

Those in the Textual Confidence Collective seemed to have a similar journey, though by God’s grace they did not come to doubt all of Christianity when their Bibliology failed even though “doubting all of Christianity” is the logical next step when one’s epistemological ground [i.e., the Bible] is doubted. Still, instead of building a robust Pre-Enlightenment Bibliology/Reformed Bibliology they embraced much of Ehrman’s position with some Christianity sprinkled in. In short, the Collective went from the frying pan into the fire.

Of course, the benefit of the Collective’s current position is that most academics think what they think so they have more friends and it is also a much safer place for them versus being out on the fringe of KJV Onlyism. The problem is that the place where they landed is equally as wrong but nearer the liberal distinctively non-Christian side of the pendulum swing. In sum, they’ve traded one bad Bibliology for another.

The primary lesson we learn from this is that families and specifically dads need to teach their kids the truth with all of its difficulties and nuances. This means that dads need to take the time to learn all the difficulties and nuances of the things their family needs to know and of the things which come to challenge his family in our current socio-cultural context.

It is interesting, in Paul Vitz’s book, Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism he examines the lives of famous atheists up until modern day and makes the argument that a major contributor to an athiest’s atheism is the fact that he often has a bad relationship with his earthly father which contributes to his rejection of his heavenly Father.

After hearing the testimonies of the Textual Confidence Collective I could not help but see the correlation with Vitz’s book. Certainly we cannot teach our children all they need to know to live a full Christian life but we can lay solid nuanced groundwork while keeping the lines of communication open with our growing children. When we fail as dads it is clear that our failures can and in many ways do adversely affect Christ’s Kingdom.

Dads, stay vigilant. Seek the truth. Buy the truth. Sell it not and by God’s grace neither will your children.