Lancelot Andrewes Institute

I was able to listen to the Textual Confidence Collective today. The episode had some interesting historical facts but overall it was easily the most low energy episode to this point. The one major critique I had was the TCC’s insistence upon scholarship as our epistemological grounding for the text [i.e., the TCC ignores truths like autopistos and the Spirit/word/faith paradigm]. More on that tomorrow.

The point of this post is to introduce you to the Lancelot Andrewes Institute which is a branch of brand new offerings here at StandardSacredText.com. The short of it is that I have an incredible set of notes taken from over 20 classes from my Westminster Theological Seminary days.

The story of how I came to acquire these notes can be found here as well as the class offerings for this semester – Fall 2022. The classes offered are:

1.) New Testament Introduction
2.) Old Testament Introduction
3.) The Theology of John Owen
4.) Introduction to Systematic Theology
5.) The Ancient Church

Our goal at the Lancelot Andrewes Institute is to give you a taste of seminary and to broaden our readers’ minds in the fields of biblical theology, systematic theology, practical theology, and church history.

Dr. Gaffin taught us that the theology of the Church belongs to the Church and so what has come to be my seminary notes are now your notes. In the end, a robust argument in defense of the Bible is one that is broad in scope and deep in substance. What was once mine is now yours. Blessings.

To Find Out More Click Here!

J.C. Ryle on John 10:35

Ryle, writing on the plenary authority of Scripture, admonishes the reader,

“That is, that everything which it says must be received reverently and unhesitatingly, and that not one jot or tittle of it ought to be disregarded. Every word of Scripture must be allowed its full weight, and must neither be clipped, passed over, nor evaded. If the 82nd Psalm calls princes who are mere men ‘gods,’ there cannot be any impropriety in applying the expression to persons commissioned by God. The expression may seem strange at first. Never mind, it is in the Scripture and must be right.”[1]

[1] Ryle, John, 251. (italics added)

If Only Ward had as Much Conviction as Shakespeare Students

A couple of years ago I picked up Shakespeare’s Words: A Glossary & Language Companion by David and Ben Crystal at a huge used book store in Jacksonville, FL. I am fan of Henry V and Shakespeare’s love sonnets. Those last one’s were especially helpful while dating my wife. In any case, when I saw this book I thought it worth the price given its comprehensive nature and its relevance to the English in the KJV.

In reading the preface to this work, written by Stanley Wells, I am surprised by the faithfulness of the Shakespeare scholars in their retention of the original language of Shakespeare’s work. Even with all the supposed False Friends many scholars and readers continue to insist on the use of the Early Modern English. In fact, it looks like such has been the case for centuries. Consider the following observations from the aforementioned preface,

“Throughout the twentieth century anyone concerned with Shakespeare’s language has had to rely essentially on out-of-date works deriving from the nineteenth century.”

That’s right folks, while 20th century students of Shakespeare are willing to study and even limp along on “out-of-date works” taken from the prior century, English-speaking Christians at the same time are told in the academy that the same Early Modern English in which the KJV is written is simply too difficult to understand even with mountains of commentaries, study helps, and hours of preaching – all contemporary.

In sum, Shakespearian academics continue to labor under “out-of-date” sources and while Christian academics can’t stop complaining about the same English as it appears in the KJV.

The major out-of-date source in Shakespearian studies was Alexander Schmidt’s two-volume set Shakespeare-Lexicon and Quotation Dictionary. Wells observes though that both of Schmidt’s works were

“completed without the benefit of the great Oxford English Dictionary.”

Schmidt’s work was finished nearly 50 years before the completion of the OED. In fact, 10 years after Schmidt had completed his work the OED was only to entry “ant”. Again, Shakespeare studies move forward with the OED while it seems Mark Ward, 150 years later and with the power of the internet, can hardly make an argument against the KJV without referring back to the OED. My point is, that neither updated sources nor the OED were necessary to do the work of Shakespeare studies and that without the internet, but Ward and those like him plead with KJV advocates to abandon their version of the Bible even though they have updated sources, the OED, and the internet.

So what has all this done for Shakespearian studies? Wells observes,

In the long period since the origination of Schimdt’s and Onion’s works, attitudes to Shakespeare’s text and to his language have changed, his readership has broadened, and the needs of readers have evolved alongside changes in the English language.”

So instead of shrinking because of that “unintelligible Early Modern English”, we see that the readership of Shakespeare has broadened. So what’s the deal? Why is it that readership broadens in Shakespeare but we are told by most evangelical scholarship that the KJV is simply too hard to understand and will drive people away? Me thinks it is not the language that is the issue but the Christian academic attitude and commentary about the language that is the issue.

But what about translations? Shouldn’t we have a translation of Shakespeare so that the plowboy can understand it? Wells observes,

“Every so often it is suggested that the time has come for Shakespeare to be translated into modern English.”

Yes, that is right folks, even Shakespeare students have their own Mark Wards.

In response, Wells observes,

“Though it is true that those who read the plays in foreign translation have an advantage over modern readers in the part of the work of comprehension has been done for them by the translator, the ambitious scope of the present study should not cause readers to suppose that Shakespeare is a closed book to all but readers who have undertaken laborious study of the language in which he wrote and of his particular use of it.”

Again, the comparison is stark. Ward tells us the KJV is a “closed book” to all but readers who have undertaken laborious study, but Wells here tells us that such is not the case in reading Shakespeare. It’s almost like Shakespeare students are smarter or more committed or more diligent than Christians in their study of the Bible. Either that or Mark Ward is simply off base.

On the point of study, what are we to do about the words we don’t know, or the word’s we don’t know we don’t know? Are we to throw out Shakespeare? Are we to update Shakespeare. What would Wells have us to do?

“As David and Ben Crystal acknowledge, ‘it is perfectly possible to go to a Shakespeare play, with little or no awareness of Early Modern English and have a great time.'”

If you find reading Shakespeare difficult, go hear someone speak it and with little or no awareness of Early Modern English you’ll have a great time. So Wells calls for more study. /GASP And what kind of study should you undertake? Go hear someone use the language in context. As Wells puts it,

“In the theatre, difficulties experienced on the page can melt away in the mediating solvent of the actor’s understanding.”

In like manner, in the church service, difficulties experienced on the page of Scripture can melt away in the mediating solvent of the pastor’s understanding and the Spirit’s teaching.

In sum, Wells resists everyone one of Mark Ward’s arguments regarding the KJV by commenting on the availability and enjoyment of Shakespeare.

Unfortunately, we see again that “the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.” [Luke 18:8]

An Analysis of the Textual Confidence Collective’s Collective Doubt

I have found it interesting over these last couple weeks that the Textual Confidence Collective aims to strengthen their listeners in Biblical confidence. Yet, without exception each episode thus far has keyed off the doubt we all must properly have:

1.) Doubt that the TR is the word of God down to the very words and letters.
2.) Doubt that “jot and tittle” means jot and tittle in Matthew 5:18.
3.) Stories of their own personal doubt [a doubt so strong 3 of the 4 rejected the doctrine of Preservation at some point in their professional journey].
4.) Doubt that anyone’s English Bible is absolutely God’s word.
5.) Doubt that the Bible even teaches Providential Preservation.
6.) Doubt that Psalm 12:6-7 speaks of preserving God’s words.
7.) Doubt that we will ever have every word of God between two covers.
8.) They attempt to cast doubt on Confessional Bibliology.
9.) Doubt that we can understand Early Modern English.
10.) PLUS MUCH MUCH MORE…and all this for three easy instalments of 1 hour and 5 minutes per episode.

This insistence upon doubt is of course completely in line with the current evangelical academic approach. Consider the following quote from two evangelicals regarding the CBGM,

“A second type of textual change is less obvious but still worth noting. Along with the changes to the text just mentioned, there has also been a slight increase in the ECM editors’ uncertainty about the text, an uncertainty that has been de facto adopted by the editors of NA/UBS.”

Wasserman and Gurry, A New Approach, 6.

Not here that the editors of the NA/UBS Greek text have de facto [i.e., as a matter of fact] adopted this posture of uncertainty, or put in positive terms, this posture of doubt.

In the same book the authors observe,

““In all, there were in the Catholic Letters thirty-two uses of brackets comparted to forty-three uses of the diamond and in Acts seventy-eight cases of brackets compared to 155 diamonds. This means that there has been an increase in both the number of places marked as uncertain and an increase in the level of uncertainty being marked.”

Wasserman and Gurry, A New Approach, 7.

In the first quote they claim only a “slight increase” in uncertainty/doubt, but when they give us the actual numbers there is a 33% increase in uncertain/doubtful passages in the General Epistles and nearly over a 100% increase in uncertain/doubtful passages in Acts. Let me know if you would increase a 100% increase in your paycheck as a slight increase.

My point is that the TCC and those of similar academic persuasion sail their respective ships on the winds of doubt. The question now is what kind of doubt.

Over the course of my Ph.D. work I had the privilege of studying under Dr. Gary Habermas, arguably the world’s leading Christian Evidentialist apologist. Years ago Habermas’ wife passed away and this tragedy sent him on a journey of doubt and ultimately a discovery of God’s grace. As part of his offerings at Liberty University he would teach a class on doubt and particularly doubt in the Christian life.

While I never took that class Dr. Habermas would frequently reference his work in that field because of doubt’s presence in the doing of apologetics. I distinctly remember one particular observation of his. He was talking to a room of 12 guys and 2 ladies, all Ph.D. students, and he made the observation that in his experience it is men who suffer most from emotional doubt, or that doubt that arises from “what-ifs”. It is not the data that cause men to doubt generally, but the perceived potential of what the data might entail that causes them to doubt what they believe.

After hearing the testimony of the TCC, I couldn’t help but observe this very thing. They saw the data of manuscript variations. They had no meaningful response to that data. That caused them to consider the perceived potential of what that data might entail, [i.e., Jesus couldn’t have really preserved every jot and tittle, the Bible must not teach the doctrine of Preservation], and so they each endured a paradigm shift epistemologically and theologically.

Habermas observes in Dealing with Doubt,

“It [emotional doubt] perhaps most frequently masquerades as intellectual doubt and hence does not immediately reveal its disguised emotional basis.”

And why is it that emotional doubt masquerades as intellectual doubt? For Habermas there are several reasons, but perhaps the most germane is

“When no amount of evidence (which the doubter admits to be strong) ever brings a person at least some peace, even when these facts are properly applied, and especially when small, “picky” problems are continually raised, such most likely reveals either an emotional basis or the will not to believe (volitional).”

The evidence here is that Jesus said “jot and tittle” without any meaningful hermeneutical cue, unless of course Jesus also didn’t mean literal heaven and earth which is all literal creation. What is more in episode 3 of the TCC, they all agree at [01:01:43] that God has preserved all the literal jots and tittles in the manuscript tradition. The point is that in the face of evidence that their Lord and Savior declares they simply cannot believe their Bible has all the jots and tittles.

In fact the reason why they don’t believe is because of “picky problems.” The entire TCC maintain that no major point of Christianity is affected by the variants they see in the manuscript tradition. This is the very definition of not believing what Jesus said because of “picky problems.”

Habermas quotes Blaise Pascal in order to given an illustration of emotional doubt. He writes,

“If the greatest philosopher in the world find himself upon a plank wider than actually necessary, but hanging over a precipice, his imagination will prevail, though his reason convince him of his safety. Many cannot bear the thought without a cold sweat. I will not state all its effects.”

Blaise Pascal, Pensees: Thoughts on Religion and Other Subjects, translated by William Finlayson Trotter, edited by H. S. Thayer (New York: Washington Square Press, Inc., 1965), 82,

To borrow Pascal’s words, it seems the greatest of the TCC were left merely with the words “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law” they would believe it without reservation that neither a letter nor a part of a letter would pass away from God’s law. Take that same verse and put it over the chasm of manuscript variants and the TCC’s imagination prevailed, a theological cold sweat formed, and fear of perceived potentials overcame them.

This seems similar to that of Peter walking on the water. The words of Christ are easy to trust while in the boat but when the winds and waves of textual variants and robust intelligent arguments began to swirl about the TCC they began to sink beneath the waves. All that is left for them to say is, “Lord, save me.” To which He will respond, “Oh thou of little faith.”

Again, discussing emotional doubt, Habermas employs the words of C.S. Lewis when he writes,

“Our faith in Christ wavers not so much when real arguments come against it as when it looks improbable.”

Lewis, “Religion: Reality or Substitute?” p. 43.

And is this not the issue with the TCC? It is the improbability that their Greek NT is the word for word original that drives them to doubt that their Greek NT is the word for word original. They are in the same boat as Daniel Wallace when he writes,

“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.

Note again the theme of uncertainty/doubt. Their ecclesiastical/academic house cannot be built without it. Elijah Hixon is on the TCC and the Foreward to Hixon and Gurry’s book readily claims that even if we did have the exact words of the original “we couldn’t know it.” Such robust doubt for someone who is supposed to be instilling textual confidence, don’t you think?

The TCC is no different. They trade in doubt in an attempt to buy “textual confidence.”

But I can here the objection now, “No, no it is the TR/KJV folks who are experiencing emotional doubt on the issue. The differences ARE minor and therefore the TR/KJV folks should come to our side. They are the one’s being too picky. They are the one’s who are irrationally uncertain about the features and values of modern textual criticism.”

This is a silly objection. As we have seen in this post alone, modern textual criticism can’t help but be uncertain, indeed, de facto uncertain. The leaders in the field like Hixon, Gurry, and Wallace readily admit increases in uncertainty over the last 150 years, and Wallace plainly admits that “many many places in which the text of the New Testament is uncertain.” For a TR/KJV advocate to doubt the deliverances of modern textual criticism is right in line with modern textual criticism’s confession and creed.

The Bible on the other hand gives no such allowances. No where does the text of Scripture call the Christian to doubt the words of God. In fact that opposite is true. Those who doubt the words of God are called out as Sarah was when she laughed at the promise of a son in her old age [Genesis 18], or struck mute as Zechariah was at hearing John the Baptist, his son, would be born [Luke 1].

In short, the TCC remains quite distinctly within the “tradition of doubt” necessary to be a good modern evangelical in the Slipping 21st Century. We here at StandardSacredText.com have set out to question that tradition of doubt, and to instill a real textual confidence. “Con” meaning “with” and “fide” meaning “faith”, a faith that can only come by the hearing of the word of God as the very voice of God which cannot be doubtful or uncertain no matter the emotional wind and waves that arise.

The Necessity and Theology of the “Inclusive Man”

Ok, so Mark Ward takes a lot of heat here at StandardSacredText.com, largely because he deserves it and partly because he is somehow a Ph.D. that is also an easy target.

One thing that I have challenged Ward to do is to take a look at the modern versions of the Bible and make an assessment of False Friends contained therein. As far as I know he has not taken up my encouragements on this account, so I thought today that I would help him start.

For this post I will use Ward’s definition of False Friend which is roughly stated as, “A word the reader thinks he knows but in the end he does not know.”

The False Friend for today’s post is the word, “man”. In order to demonstrate why I believe this is a False Friend for the modern English reader I am going to employ the work of Anthony Esolen [pictured above]. Dr. Esolen is Writer-in-Residence at Magdalen College of the Liberal Arts, translated the whole of Dante’s Divine Comedy, is about as Roman Catholic as they come, and is no KJV-Onlyist.

In his book, Angels, Barbarians and Nincompoops…and a lot of other words you thought you knew, Esolen offers ~200 pages of entries of words with their etymological and definitional content. It is a semi-scholarly work aimed at showing the reader that the words he uses are far more colorful and full of meaning than the ways we use them today. What is more, the implication is that when the reader uses these words it is better that he know the fuller meaning so as to be a better student and user of his language. One of the entries is, “Man”. Esolen writes,

No other word will do. We need a word that is not just general but universal. Out goes human being, which is singular but not a universal term. Out goes person, same reason. We need a word that is concrete, not abstract. Out goes humanity. We need a word that is singular, embracing all human beings in one, at once. Out goes men and women, human beings, people, we, all, humankind, and even mankind. We need a word that is intensely personal. We need to see all human beings as represented in one, not a collective, not a quality, not a generality, but a singular, concrete, personal, all-embracing representative. In English only man remains. There is no other word, nor any combination of words that can perform that linguistic work. To disallow the universal and genuinely inclusive use of man is to forbid the very thought that all human beings may be represented in one. [83]

Esolen has two points here to make. The first is that “man” is the only word in English which meets all the criteria mentioned above for a singular word which is also universal without being abstract and yet remaining personal. And why is this important?

Because without such a word we would not be able to express the idea of all human beings as represented in one without being abstract and impersonal. One more time, what is that important? It is important because Adam is that one man who represents all human beings while being concrete [therefore not abstract] and is personal. In this man who represents all human beings in a concrete and personal way, we all fell into sin.

In like manner, the use of “man” is important because Christ is also one man who represents all human beings while being concrete [therefore not abstract] and is personal. In this man, who represents all human beings in a concrete and personal way, atonement was made.

So linguistically and theologically “man” means far more than the male gender of homo sapiens. In fact, as far as Esolen is concerned, there is no other word in the English language that can do the linguistic work that “man” can. Put in more concrete terms, “man” is merely the generic thing, the base model. The “wo-” in “woman” denotes a modification to the base model, indeed an upgrade in so many ways. Similarly the words we have for children, like “boy” and “girl”, represent smaller versions of the base model and upgraded model. So “man” in English concretely, personally, and universally encompasses the whole of human beings in a singular word.

And so here is where the False Friend part comes in. People think they know what “man” means but in the end they do not and this truth is clearly evident in many of the modern translations. Observe first the KJV:

KJV: And God said, Let us make man in our image

Now modern versions:

NIV: Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image
NLT: Then God said, “Let us make human beings in our image
NASB: Then God said, “Let Us make mankind in Our image,
CEV: God said, “Now we will make humans, and they will be like us
GNT: Then God said, “And now we will make human beings; they will be like us and resemble us
NET Bible: Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image

My point is that these translators think they understand what “man” means but clearly they do not seeing that they replace “man” with impersonal, abstract, and incomplete terms like humankind as if these have equivalent meaning to “man”. What is more, they have produced Bibles, some of which are very popular, which means that many people reading these Bibles think they know what “man” means but clearly do not otherwise it seems they would protest at the replacement of “man” with “human beings”. As such, it seems that “man” is a False Friend these days among Bible translators and Bible readers. You can thank me later, Mark.

N.B. – With the replacement of “man” with “humankind”, “mankind”, and “human beings” in the Bible, the ground and foundation of a Judeao-Christian society, is it any wonder that we have drifted into terms like, “peoplekind” and “gestational parent”? Just asking. I mean, if Christians can’t get “man” right why should we wonder at “chest-feeding”? This is the part where Ward comes in to remind us all that we need to use language that people can understand like the plowboy whose gestational parent chest-fed instead of going the formula route, like, because of the supply-chain shortages.

Ralph Venning (1622-1674) on Scripture as the Infallible Rule

Of Venning’s style, John Edwards (1637-1716) remarks in “The Preacher ‘”(1705, i. 203): “He turns sentences up and down, and delights in little cadences and chiming of words.”

Of special interest in this short excerpt:

  1. Scripture is “our judge.”
  2. Scripture is “this rule” from which all opinions are judged “to see whether they be of God or no.”
  3. Scripture has a “divine right upon any opinion.”
  4. Scripture is an undoubted, perfect, and infallible rule. The same Scripture will judge the world in the last day.
  5. 1 John 5:7 is quoted as authentic.
  6. Scripture is to be believed “though reason cannot find out the reason of it.”
  7. The content of Scripture is a safeguard against the autonomous reason’s rejection of God.

“Seeing there is nothing to be practiced, believed, or taught, which is not agreeable to the mind of God, Let us make the Word of God our Judge.

The Scriptures (as is granted to all that I write to) are the touchstone by which all religious Principles and Acts are to be tried. To the Law and to the Testimony, if they speak not according to this rule, ‘tis because there is no light in them, Isa. 8:20. Let nothing pass for current coin, which hat not this stamp upon it.

Certainly no Christian will refuse to make the truth of God contained in the Scriptures the judge of all he holds and practices, it being the basis of both, if they be laid on their true foundation; tis the trial which tries all; and therefore bring your opinions to the light; to see whether they be of God or no.

If the Scriptures write jus divium, divine right upon any opinion, ‘tis then authentic; but all other authority is not sufficient to command either faith or practice. The Bereans [Acts 17:11] were called more noble than they of Thessalonica, because they did not take things upon trust, and believe implicitly, but searched the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so. If any man or Angel from Heaven bring any other doctrine, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.

Certainly these are the undoubted, perfect, and infallible rule, for all matters of faith and practice, or God could not judge the world by them in the last day.

Let us therefore as the wise me, when they saw the star, go up to Jerusalem, that is, the Law and the testimony, and willingly acquiesce in the Answer we receive from the Oracles of God….”

“If Scripture speak it, believe it, though reason cannot find out the reason of it. The Scripture saith in Job 26:7 that the earth hangeth on nothing. The Scripture saith, that one is three, and three are one, 1 John 5:7. How can reason think this true? And yet ‘tis true, and speaks nothing but truth, saith ‘tis so.”

Yea, let me add, that could God be comprehended by our reason, we might think it reason to think he were not God.“

Ralph Venning, Mysteries and Revelations of the Explication and Application of several Extra-essential and borrowed  names, allusions, and metaphors in the Scripture (London: Printed for John Rothwell at the Sunne and Fountain in Pauls Church-yard, 1652), 31-32, 39

How Can You Believe in the TR/KJV Exclusively w/o Besmirching the Belief of Christians in the Past?

Chas recently wrote in asking the following question:

My question for the day – I had asked you regarding the faith of Erasmus – I used him because as I understand it he would not have had a perfectly collated TR in his hand thus it was still in need of maturing. Thus if as you have said true faith must have a perfect Bible as its object what would you say regarding his faith in what he had as well as all others before 1611? How do you describe faith in something which was not then perfect?

This is a question we have dealt with in two of our printed works, but I think it would be good to address it here as well.

Often the TR/KJV side is charged with special pleading because we claim the TR/KJV to be special, and to our opponents, we give no reason for making that claim. This objection quickly morphs into, “Well, what about the people before 1611? Did they not have the Bible? Did God all of a sudden just show up in 1611 while leaving the rest of the faithful to languish without a Bible?”

To answer this question I offer a historically viable scenario as an example which goes something like this:

1.) Before the writing of the NT all the 1st Century Church had for Scripture was the OT.

2.) Those who held to the OT as the only rule of faith and practice were moral and biblical in holding that belief mentioned in #1.

3.) Then at some point in the 1st Century Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, which is currently thought to be the earliest written book of the NT.

4.) Believers who held to the OT alone as the rule of faith and practice came in contact with 1 Corinthians.

5.) By the Spirit speaking through His words [1 Corinthians] the believing community accepted by faith the belief that the Canon is now the OT + 1 Corinthians.

6.) Furthermore, those believers came to believe that the Canon was not only the OT.

7.) Arguably there were saints that believed the OT to be the Canon but did not know about 1 Corinthians and yet did know about Ephesians.

8.) So then you could quite possibly have one group of believers that believed the whole Canon was just the OT, another group that believed the Canon was the OT + 1 Corinthians, and yet another group that believed the Canon as the OT + Ephesians.

9.) Each group is morally and spiritually justified in their belief so long as they don’t come in contact with these other books of the NT.

10.) If and when they do, the Holy Spirit will speak to His people through His words and in time all three groups of believers will believe the Canon is composed of 66 books – the 39 books of the OT and the 27 of the NT.

Now apply this not to books of the Bible but to words of the Bible. Erasmus was like the believers who held to the whole OT and some of the NT [e.g. the OT + 1 Corinthians]. I argue that the maturing of the TR’s is like the 1st Century Church coming to realize which books were from God and which were not [i.e., a more “mature Canon”] except for the Reformation Church that realization was on a word-by-word level rather than a book-by-book level.

As a result, Erasmus in Erasmus’ time and place could regard his TR with full confidence that it was indeed the very words of the total and original Canon of the NT, much in the same way the 1st Century saint believed that the OT + 1 Corinthians was the total and original Canon. But when a further refinement of Erasums’ TR was developed, Scrivener’s for example, it is not that Erasmus was morally and theologically wrong for believing what he believed at his time any more than we can fault 1st Century Christians for believing the whole Canon was the OT + 1 Corinthians.

But we can fault the 1st Century Christian after the advent and knowledge of the entire Canon for believing the whole Canon to be merely the OT + 1 Corinthians when really the whole Canon is the 39 books of the OT and the 27 books of the NT. In like manner, we can look back on Erasmus’ text and claim that it is not complete, it is has not matured. Put tersely, Erasmus’ belief was warranted and rational in his time and place, but his belief is not rational and warranted in our time and place.

This is why we construe this change [Erasmus’ belief in time and place and our belief in our time and place] as an act of sanctification of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, a sanctification of the mind in Christ. At one point 1st Century saints believed the total Canon was the OT. At another point they believed that the total Canon was the OT + 1 Corinthians. And yet at another point God’s saints come to believe that the total Canon was the OT + 27 books of the NT.

Never in the moment are the 1st Century saints castigated for their “poor Bibliology.” Only when there is a refinement, and a refinement that the Christian is aware of, do we then look back on prior iteration [e.g., OT only or OT + 1 Corinthians only] do we call that belief into question. Questioning doesn’t come in the moment. Questioning comes after a refinement and the Christian’s knowledge of that refinement.

Take for example those in the 1st Century Church who had received the baptism of John but not the baptism of the Holy Ghost [Acts 19:1-5]. Paul doesn’t blast them and tell them they are not Christians because they had not the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Now, once the Holy Ghost had come upon men at Pentecost and once these saints who had only John’s baptism had come come to know of the baptism of the Holy Ghost, then those saints would be compelled to accept the truth of the Holy Spirit’s baptism, and if they did not then they would be rejecting the teaching of Christ.

In like manner, at one point many believed Erasmus’ text to be the complete words of God in Greek equal to the original, and in the moment we don’t question their belief. Then at a different point in time the Holy Spirit led His people to believe Scrivener’s TR was the complete words of God in Greek equal to the original, at which point we can then look back on Erasmus’ text and question its maturity.

The question now is, “Are the modern versions and critical texts a refinement?” Well, first, who determines what a refinement is? We would say God the Spirit speaking through His words to His people in the pew will determine what is or is not a refinement. Has the believing community determined if there has been a refinement of the TR/KJV? If so, which text is that? Are we not told by our Critical Text overlords that all variants are relatively minor and that no major doctrine is at stake? So what refinement, given their own testimony, have they affected? At best it is negligible and that by their own admittance rather than the admittance of the believing community.

At the moment things are upside down. The academic popes are telling the believing community what they should believe. In this sense they have put themselves in the place of God, truly anti-God where the Greek preposition “ἀντί” means “instead of”. The textual critics stand in God’s stead to tell God’s people which words are God’s words. When it is the reverse that is true. The correct order of operation is God tells the believing community what is or is not God’s word and then the believing community “tells” the academic popes and they submit to that leading and with great humility carry on their work.

The TCC and Psalm 12:6-7

The following was first published on February 18, 2022, in reference to a podcast Mark Ward, Ph.D., where he argued that Psalm 12:6-7 does not teach the verbal preservation of Scripture. It was my hope that the research done while taking a Ph.D. course toward my Th.M. at Calvin Theological Seminary would provide Dr. Ward with a more robust analysis of the passage, but as you may have noticed in the most recent Textual Confidence Collective podcast, it seems that he was under the impression that the interpretation of the passage monolithically refers to preserving the oppressed, which is patently false.

As noted by Dr. Van Kleeck, what we are witnessing is a failure of graduate schools to create critical thinking, research-oriented graduates. The earliest reference in this post for the preservation of words is attributed to Jerome (345-420) by Luther. Also note that this controversy was well known by two leading Medieval Hebrew scholars Abraham Ibn Ezra (1089-1164) and David Kimshi (c. 1160-1235). I suppose, if I were of the TCC tradition, this post would only include pro-preservation research, thus skewing the data. It seems clear that the TCC like neat categories that can be classified, categorized, and easily referenced and find the Divine algorithm of providential preservation throughout history too messy.

But historical research is messy, unless history is merely a foil to confirm a contemporary premise – “There are no verses that teach the providential preservation of words, therefore, there are no historical documents that confirm the Scripture teaches the providential preservation of words.” The manipulation of history to serve one’s own purposes, in the academic tradition in which we were taught, is one of the most egregious. What you will read below does not reflect some “fundamentalist” bent; it is simply researching and reporting on that research. For the purposes of this blog, this is an abbreviation of the larger paper. Of course, we all understand, that if you have already abandoned the doctrine of providential preservation, it follows, that this verse and all the supporting commentary cannot teach providential preservation. Welcome to the scholarly sphere of the TCC.

It will not be enough for Dr. Ward to add more support for the verse teaching the preservation of the oppressed. That argument has been well represented in Church history. The burden for Dr. Ward is to show that the preservation of the oppressed is the sole interpretation of the passage. Such bifurcation of the churchly exegetical tradition cannot be substantiated, a robust argument for the preservation of words is demonstratable, and therefore, the argument from Psalm 12:6-7 for the preservation of pure words stands.

The TCC and Psalm 12:6-7

“The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”

אִֽמֲרֹ֣ות יְהוָה֮ אֲמָרֹ֪ות טְהֹ֫רֹ֥ות כֶּ֣סֶף צָ֭רוּף בַּעֲלִ֣יל לָאָ֑רֶץ מְ֝זֻקָּ֗ק שִׁבְעָתָֽיִם                            

אַתָּֽה־יְהוָ֥ה תִּשְׁמְרֵ֑ם תִּצְּרֶ֓נּוּ׀ מִן־הַדֹּ֖ור ז֣ו לְעֹולָֽם                                                       

“words” אִֽמֲרֹ֣ות: plural, feminine, noun

“keep them” תִּשְׁמְרֵ֑ם: qal impf 2ms, 3mp pronominal suffix — ם

“preserve them”תִּצְּרֶ֓נּוּ :qal impf 2ms, 3ms pronominal suffix (him), with the nun energieum — נּוּ

In a recent podcast Dr. Mark Ward referred to Psalm 12:6-7 in a surprising manner. I do not know Dr. Ward personally, my first knowledge of him was his refusal to debate Dr. Peter Van Kleeck, Jr. after [Ward] publicly offered to debate anyone. After watching his podcast, to help clear up some misunderstandings on his part relating to Hebrew grammar, the following post is submitted. To paraphrase, “he knows of no one that argues that the preservation spoken of in verse 7 refers to the word,” supporting that perspective by noting the antecedent “words” in verse 6 is feminine gender, and “them” is masculine, which is of course correct. He may have other objections, but as the podcast stands, his objections were anecdotal with one grammatical reference to gender distinctions. Gesenius on this gender combination writes, “Through a weakening in the distinction of gender, which is noticeable elsewhere…and which probably passed from the colloquial language into that of literature, masculine suffixes (especially in the plural) are not infrequently used to refer to feminine substantives.” Grammar, 440. Diehl objects to the credibility of this assessment arguing that “many of these cases may be set down to corruption of the traditional text, while the sudden (and sometimes repeated) change in gender in suffixes is mainly due to the influence exercised on the copyists by the Mishnic and popular Aramaic dialects, neither of which recognizes such [gender] distinctions.” To this charge, Gesenius counters, “Such influence, however, is insufficient to explain the large number of instances of this weakening, occurring even in the earlier documents.” Grammar, 440.

            One would have to reasonably assume that Dr. Ward overlooked this one of many irregularities in the Hebrew language. In that he did not offer any other objections, except an anecdotal assessment, this material should be sufficient to say that “words” can properly be the antecedent of “keep them” even with the “weakening in the distinction of gender” in accordance with the practices of Hebrew grammar. If, however, Dr. Ward’s, polemic against “keep them” referring to “words” is in fact more robust, the following material is offered as aid to a fuller and more comprehensive comment on the passage.

            Beginning with the 1537 Matthews Bible microfilm, located at Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI, at Psalm 12:7, John Rodgers, aware of the scholarly discussion swirling around this passage, includes a marginal note at “them” stating, “that is often times, that is, such and such and such men, after Kimshi but after Ibn Ezra words.” In Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra’s, Commentary on the First Book of Psalms: Chapter 1-41, trans. & ann. by H. Norman Strickman (Brighton, MA: Academic Studies Press, 2009), 103: “THOU WILT KEEP THEM. The mem [Heb. “them”] of tishmerem (Thou wilt keep them) most probably refers to The words of the Lord.” (v. 7 [Heb.]). With Rashi (1038-1105), Abraham Ibn Ezra (1089-1164) and David Kimshi (c. 1160-1235) are recognized to be the greatest Hebrew exegetes of the High Middle Ages. The significance of Rogers’ marginal note is that two renowned Hebrew scholars referred to by the Reformation writers differed on the interpretation of “them” in Psalm 12:7. Rogers was obviously conscious of this difference and informed the reader of the variation of interpretation.

            The weakness of the gender/grammatical distinction argument begins to dissolve when faced with the grammars of Kimshi and Ibn Ezra. Since the 11th and 12th c. the rendering of this passage has been divided between the people and the words for the first “them.” We have then answered Dr. Ward’s objections, both the grammatical objection and the anecdotal objection. By doing so, we have also established a grammatical grounding for “them” referring to the antecedent “words” and for the support of 11th and 12th c commentator Ibn Ezra agreement that the antecedent of “them” is the “words.”

            Perhaps these citations remain unconvincing or the research unfamiliar to Dr. Ward, requiring additional clarity. The next time Dr. Ward as the opportunity to speak on this passage, we want to provide a much help as necessary for him to give an informed presentation.

Take for instance the Medieval scholar Michael Ayguan (1340-1416), on Psalm 12 7 commented, “Keep them: that is, not as the passage is generally taken, Keep or guard Thy people, but Thou shalt keep, or make good thy words: and by doing so, shalt preserve him—him, the needy, him the poor—from this generation. Thou shalt keep Thy word, — “Cast thy burden upon the Lord, and He shall nourish thee; “Thy word, — “I will inform thee, and teach thee in the way wherein thou shalt go;” Thy word, — “Fear not, little flock; it is My Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom; and so, preserving him from this generation, shalt hereafter give him a portion with the happier generation, the assembly of the First-born which are written in heaven.” Neale, Commentary on the Psalms, 181. Moving from the 11th and 12th c into the 14th c. Ayguan, again, familiar with the controversy, argues that the antecedent of “them” are the “words.”

            At this juncture, and risking the accusation of name dropping, I am indebted to Dr. Richard A. Muller, P. J. Zondervan Chair of Historical Theology at Calvin Theological Seminary in Grand Rapids, MI, now retired, for his comments regarding the initial essay on this passage submitted to him for a Ph.D. course toward my Th.M. On my original paper, Dr. Muller noted, “Here we do have the use of one option determined by the Hebrew – i.e., the v. 6 antecedent—but the choice of the antecedent is what limits the exegesis, and in fact excludes the broader interpretation of the ‘them’ as a reference to Israel and God’s people generally that is far more frequently (I think) the path of interpretation.”

            Moving from the 14th c. to the 20th c. one of the most accomplished Church historians, especially on Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, states that the Hebrew antecedent,” “words” excludes “them” as a reference to God’s people.

So in addition to the grammar, personal testimony of a renowned 11th c Hebrew scholar, we have added the 14th c testimony of Ayguan, and the recent erudite observation of Church historian Dr. Richard Muller.

            Because at the core of this brief review was a polemic against the use of Psalm 12:7 as a passage that teaches providential preservation, a sometimes-volatile subject, for the sake of bridge-building additional information may be necessary to shore up any apologetic cracks that the debate may have created. Admitted, not everyone has access to Gesenius’ Grammar, University microfilm, books referring to 14th c scholars or Calvin Seminary’s Ph.D. courses, but everyone has heard of Martin Luther.

            It is interesting what Luther has to say in his commentary on this passage. Still arguing for a divided rendering, Luther’s 1519 commentary on this passage contains not only his interpretation but also that of Jerome’s despite the Latin rendering, “keep us,” preserve us.” Luther’s commentary includes three possible interpretations of this passage: the words, the saints, and the ungodly. Beginning with the interpretation supported by Jerome’s Latin text (342-420), Luther’s translation agrees with the Hebrew, “them”: “And he prays God that his words (eloquia) may be guarded, after the manner of protection, that the ungodly might not pollute them. And instead of “thou shalt preserve us,” it is in the Hebrew “thou shall preserve them”; and it refers to the words of God, as Hieronymus (Jerome) translates it.” Noting that “them” is masculine, he includes the alternative reading in reference to the saints, “But it may also be referred to the saints, as it is in the masculine gender servabis eos.”

            Even Luther, with Jerome, at this passage allows antecedent “words” to govern the pronoun “them” I am inserting the following notation in support of Jerome’s 4th c. rendering: See Charles A. Briggs and Emilie Grace Briggs, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms, International Critical Commentary (New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1906–1907), 99: אַתָּה] [Thou] emph.—תִּשְׁמְרֵם] [“shalt keep them”]…J, Aq., Θ [that is, the Latin Version of Jerome, the Greek Version of Aquila, and the Greek Version of Theodotian] agree with H [the Hebrew Masoretic text] and refer [the suffix] of the first [verb] [that is, “them”] to the divine words.

            But Luther did also argue for “people” based on the gender, which is true, but please note that none of these scholars, like Dr. Ward, have forcefully argued that the antecedent of “them” cannot be the “words.” “Words” are just as valid as “people” in the exegetical tradition, and it is this nuanced understanding that Dr. Ward has missed and this post hopes to illuminate. A common familiarity with Luther, but unfamiliarity with Luther’s comment on this passage may be sensed as stretching Luther’s interpretation of Psalm 12:7 further than he would. To ameliorate such fears, the following hymn penned by Luther on Psalm 12 :7 is offered. Note the first line of the second stanza.

Psalm 12

Title: The Word of God, and the Church

The Silver seven times tried is pure

From all adulteration;

So, through God’s Word, shall men endure

Each trial and temptation:

Its worth gleams brighter through the cross,

And, purified from human dross,

It shines through every nation.

Thy truth thou wilt preserve, O Lord,

From this vile generation,

Make us to lean upon thy Word,

With calm anticipation.

The wicked walk on every side

When, ‘mid thy flock, the vile abide

In power and exaltation.

James Franklin Lambert, Luther’s Hymns

(Philadelphia: General Council Publication House, 1917), 52.

Luther’s hymn assures the reader that he accepted as valid the “words” to be the antecedent to “keep them.”

Moving into the 17th c Matthew Poole’s 1685 commentary on this Psalm is quite helpful. Matthew Poole, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1979). Poole’s 1685 commentary reflects the language of the King James Bible which united the historically divided rendering of the verbs between the words and people. Poole acknowledges the two renderings but responds with an unambiguous, united interpretation of the pronouns. Rather than the verse referring to words and people, Poole unites the two commenting that both verbs either apply to the people, or both verbs apply to the words. Poole concludes that the keeping of the words or the promises of God is primary, the basis upon which David’s life and posterity would be preserved. He writes: “Thou shalt keep them, either, 1. The poor and needy, Psalm 12:5, from the crafts and malice of this crooked and perverse generation of men, and for ever. Or, 2. Thy words or promises last mentioned, Psalm 12:6. These thou wilt observe and keep (as these two verbs commonly signify) both now, and from this generation for ever, i.e. Thou wilt not only keep thy promise to me in preserving me, and advancing me to the throne, but also to my posterity from generation to generation.” It is interesting to note that the united rendering in v. 7 referring to the antecedent words in 12:6 is, at the time of his commentary what “these two verbs commonly signify.” It is the v. 6 antecedent that governs both v. 7 pronouns while continuing with the larger theme of the care of Israel. The words or promises will be kept not only for David but for the generations of Israel forever. We see then a further refinement within the English translation tradition in the King James Bible at Psalm 12:7 accepted by Poole, in keeping with the historic effort to maintain a unified rendering and confirmed to be so by the ecclesiastical community of saints.

            Poole’s unified rendering is also taken up in John Wesley’s 18th c. Explanatory Notes upon the Old Testament where he comments, “Thou shalt keep them—Thy words or promises: these thou wilt observe and keep, both now, and from this generation for ever.” For Wesley, the single rendering of both pronouns in v 7 refer to the words. John Wesley, Explanatory Notes upon the Old Testament, vol. 2 (Bristol: William Pine, 1765), 1642

            It is understandable how Dr. Ward overemphasized the significance of irregularities in the Hebrew language that limited his understanding of Psalm 12:7. It is also understandable that without a concentrated study of this passage an elementary assessment and application would be made. For everyone reading this post, Dr. Ward’s bold claim that Psalm 12:7 does not teach the preservation of God’s words is completely without merit. Considering the wide scope of the churchly exegetical tradition that speaks to the preservation of words and against Dr. Ward’s assessment of this passage, one can only assume, considering Dr. Ward’s earned Ph.D., that he was just caught up in the moment, overstated the issue, and will, as every conscientious scholar, make the necessary course corrections for the sake of his ecclesiastical listeners. Blessings!

My Prediction was Right and the Dumpster Fire Continues to Keep the TCC Warm and Cozy

Well, I have finally finished watching the third episode of the Textual Confidence Collective [TCC]. First, as I predicted they wholly ignored or were completely unaware of the Spirit/word/faith paradigm prevalent throughout Reformed Bibliology, and they chose a handful of verses and then told us what they think those verses don’t mean. So A+ there. Second, the TCC’s trauma, a result of the weak Bibliology from their youth, took on a new dimension in this episode.

As in prior episodes, there is so much to talk about but we will focus on more major themes. As an aside, though if they would have simply had Riddle or someone of that stripe on the TCC, he could have helped them get our position right, but alas, the TCC is turning out to be a mere exercise in group-think fumbling their way into their own end zone. But if they want to take the field with an inept team, so be it. So let’s begin.

1.) Just as in the second episode that promised to be “The History of Textual Absolutism” but which actually turned out to be “How We Would Like to Critique Textual Absolutism (With Some History Sprinkled In)”, so too this episode, “The Theology of Textual Absolutism,” turned out to be “How We Would Like to Critique Textual Absolutism (With Some Theology Sprinkled In)”. We are now three hours into their discussion and they have yet to offer a robust argument fairly representing their opponents. Admittedly though that is hard to do seeing they intentionally lumped Ruckmanites and Hills into the same category, textual absolutist.

2.) I have two observations about the trauma of the TCC. First, I find it interesting that when each of the TCC were young they abandoned the KJV because they were faced with questions they couldn’t answer. And to the man, the questions they couldn’t answer revolved around textual variants. They asked themselves something like, “How could I hold to a pure Bible if there are so many variants?” This question, or something like it, caused them to abandon their position and set up shop someplace else that could account for these variants. The interesting thing is that now it is the variants upon which they are still fixated. They have not resolved the existence of variants, they have simply come to live with them. So much so, that they are prepared to blame God for their existence [15:10, 29:43, 30:47]. In sum, the TCC was hung up on variants when they were young and ill equipped and now they are older and better equipped but still hung up on variants.

Now, because they cannot resolve the existence of variants with a belief in a pure text, they then go about a campaign of negative theology. That is, they begin to believe and tell us that the standard passages used to defend the preservation of Scripture throughout Church History do not teach preservation. In sum, their journey has been something like:

Weak Bibliology > They are challenged by variants > They abandon their weak Bibliology b/c of the variants > They cling to a modern and equally weak Bibliology > They fail to reconcile the existence of variants with a belief in a pure text > They go with the existence of variants and abandon a belief in a pure text > As a result they reinterpret the Bible to make it fit their trauma.

This leads me to my second observation. In the span of less than an hour Tim [~32:00], Elijah [40:05], and Mark [54:47] all plainly confess that during this time of trauma over the existence of variants in the face of their weak Bibliology they denied the doctrine of Preservation. At this point, I have to say only people with garbage arguments claim that no major doctrine is at stake given the known variants in the manuscript tradition. Three guys, raised in the Church, professing Christians plainly and clearly say that they had for a time abandoned the doctrine of Preservation. What is more, such an abandonment is right next door to Bart Ehrman who just never came back from it. For Elijah, he denied the doctrine or Preservation even into his Ph.D. work. So the full paradigm to this point is:

Weak Bibliology > They are challenged by variants > They abandon their weak Bibliology b/c of the variants > They cling to a modern and equally weak Bibliology > They fail to reconcile the existence of variants with a belief in a pure text > They then go with the existence of variants and abandon a belief in a pure text > As a result they reinterpret the Bible to make it fit their trauma > They abandon the doctrine of preservation.

3.) Then at [10:19] we get from Peter, “If the Bible taught that it was perfectly preserved it does not tell what it is or how to find it.” This crops up again in the words of Mark at [20:52], “If Jesus is talking about perfect textual preservation, It has to be peerrrfect!” The same theme shows up at [10:55 and 36:46]. This is where the TCC should have addressed the Spirit/word/faith paradigm which looks like,

“As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.”

Isaiah 59:21

See that? God has made covenant with His people, a covenant He cannot break, to put words into the mouth of His people and accompany those words with His Spirit. Furthermore, those words which God put in their mouth and which are accompanied by the Spirit shall never depart out of the mouth of God’s people from that time until forever. It is no surprise then that right thinking theology repeats this very same truth. Consider the following:

According to the Westminster Confession of Faith, “…notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward word of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.” [WCF 1.5] Or Richard Muller commenting on Calvin, “What we have in Calvin’s doctrine is the simple assertion of the absolute truth of Scripture, its dictation by the Spirit, and the inward testimony of the Spirit guaranteeing the authority of the written Word” [Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics Vol. 2, 301]. God’s Spirit/God’s Word/God’s people by faith – the Spirit/word/faith paradigm. Or as we are like to say here at StandardSacredText.com, the Spirit of God speaking through the word of God in the people of God.” This is the mechanism whereby the Church can receive a perfectly preserved text.

The TCC seems utterly ignorant of this theological truth, a cornerstone of orthodox Bibliology and the ground for the doctrine of providential preservation. And it’s not like you have to dig deep to find this truth. If you read less than four pages of the Westminster Confession of Faith you would encounter the quote above. I can only surmise why the TCC has failed to observe such an elementary truth, but one thing is certain. The TCC’s claim to charity and “getting the textual absolutist position right” are laughable and disingenuous given that at least two of the TCC have Ph.D.’s in theology, or at least that is what their Ph.D. title says, and yet they seem entirely unaware of such a basic element of Bibliology and how it works in preservation.

4.) I am a Young Earth Creationist. Furthermore, I think arguments in favor of a standard sacred text are quite congruous with Young Earth Creationism. For one, evidence is not my final authority in either case. That said, I find the juxtaposition of how the TCC treats the Creation story vs how they treat the text of Scripture is quite telling. They all, with the exception of Elijah, seemed to indicate that no matter how much evidence you throw at them, they are going to believe in literal sequential six-day Creation.

So no matter how much evidence there is for an old universe [trillions of stars and their light, the size of the universe, the number of Christian and non-Christian Ph.D.’s that disagree with them, and on and on], they are going to believe that God spoke the worlds into existence in six literal sequential days. But, all it takes, by their estimation, is a comparatively small number of manuscript variants which are said not to affect doctrine at all, including the doctrine of providential preservation, and they are ready to believe “jot and tittle” doesn’t mean “jot and tittle” while still believing that ‘day” means “day” even with exponentially more evidence leveled against them that the universe is old.

The TCC on Creation: *Mountain of evidence that the universe old* – “So what, ‘day’ means ‘day.’ I’m following the Bible.”
The TCC on Scripture: *A comparatively small amount of variants as evidence* – “Oh yeah, definitely ‘jot and tittle’ does not mean ‘jot and tittle.'”

I fear their weak Bibliology is leading to an incongruous Cosmology as well. But that should be the case given that the source for all their Christian beliefs is the Scripture which they believe is not pure.

In fact, for the TCC evidence is not the primary mover for their belief in a young Creation, the Bible is. Yet for the TCC evidence is the primary mover for their belief in an impure text, and then they reinterpret the Bible in a novel way to suite their belief. This is no different than William Lane Craig reinterpreting Scripture to turn the Genesis account into mytho-history or to claim that God is logically dependent upon man. The TCC starts with something else [evidence] and then makes the Bible fit. We start with the Bible and make the evidence fit, and we believe it fits like a glove.

5.) Miscellaneous Considerations: I do believe that toil and trust can go hand-in-hand e.g., work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. This is not to say we are to go about doubting our salvation as we grow in sanctification but rather that we are to remain sure in our salvation as we grow in sanctification.

The same, I argue, goes for the text of Scripture. At [1:01:43] the TCC admit that all jots and tittles are preserved in the manuscript tradition, which is hilarious because they first claimed that Jesus didn’t mean literal jots and tittles and by the end of the episode they admit Jesus has kept all the literal jots and tittle for His Church. Like, which is it guys? Did Jesus accidently preserve all the jots and tittle because He didn’t really mean jots and tittles in Matthew 5:18?

Furthermore, simply because I work out my salvation with fear and trembling does not mean I should be in constant fear of Hell as a Christian. Rather John would remind us that we may KNOW that we have eternal life [1 John 5:13]. As a true Christian are we to doubt the efficacy of Jesus salvific work even when we fail at some point? No! In fact we are called to believe in that efficacy even when we don’t see it, for He which has begun a good work in you will perform it [Philippians 1:6]. In like manner the Scriptures.

No where in Scripture is the Christian given leave to doubt God’s words or to do as the TCC does and plainly proclaim God’s word to be impure and that by God’s own hand in history. Does that omit toil from the textual picture? No, it does not. Toil away, but know that, and even by your admission, all of the jot and tittles are present in the textual tradition. Therefore, the fight is not about whether we have all the jots and tittles, but rather which jots and tittles are the one’s God gave, and this is were we diverge sharply.

We wholly and unequivocally deny that textual scholars are the ones equipped to make authoritative choices about what is or is not the right choice regarding which jots and tittles. Yet Peter unabashedly says at [58:00] “The people in the congregation should trust what I say unless I give them reason other wise.” Which is about as Roman Catholic as it comes. If Peter were Pope Peter every Protestant watching would have been up in arms, but because Peter is a Protestant Ph.D. candidate he is accepted without criticism.

Instead, we here argue for the Spirit/word/faith paradigm discussed above and which the TCC seems wholly ignorant of.

But one retort might be, as Elijah says at [58:22], “As a text critic I am not strong enough to mess up God’s word.” Yet, he seems wholly unaware that his observation cuts both ways. If he is not strong enough to mess up God’s word he is not strong enough to “fix” God’s word, and yet he persists in thinking he can. Put the other way around. If he is strong enough to fix God’s word then he is strong enough to mess it up. In context, Elijah and those like him are not “strong enough” to tell us what is not God’s word nor are they “strong enough” to tell us what is. Unfortunately Elijah is only half right on this point.

In the end, the TCC continues to show itself bereft of elementary theological constructs and their application while putting themselves forward as experts. They continue to show their trauma precipitated by poor theological training both when they were young AND when they went to seminary. The TCC has turned out to be a preach-to-the-choir exercise rather than a reach-across-the-isle exercise. They have moved the ball no further down the field. Rather and unfortunately they have shown themselves to possess a shallow Bibliology. And like Ward’s False Friends argument, their call is not to do the hard work of answering the conflict between variants and a pure text. No the answer is to reframe theology to fit their current social, academic, and ecclesiastical frameworks.

The Link Between Regeneration and the Scripture

            The Author of regeneration according to John 3 is the Holy Spirit. John 3:6-7, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh: and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I say unto thee, Ye must be born again.” Demarest writes, “The Holy Ghost is the Author of regeneration: but the truth, word of God, or gospel, is the instrument he uses in imparting this spiritual life.”[1] Ames and Demarest recognize the continuity of the relationship between seed and word, “seed” a commonly used symbol for the natural generation of new life (Psalm 126:6; Luke 8:11; Mark 4:14-15; 2 Cor. 9:10; 1 John. 3:9) and the literal “word of God.”

            Commenting on 1 Peter 1:23 Ames asserts that “The word is the incorruptible seed or principle”[2] for the regeneration the Apostle writes of. He does not separate the message of the Scripture with the words of the Scripture. God’s words are in the words of the text. He writes,

“Because it is the word of God, (as it is in the Text); which liveth and abideth for ever, whose nature it resembleth in this, that the operation is not momentary or temporary, but abideth for ever.”[3]

            The living word used by the Holy Spirit to regenerate a lost soul, to continue to be used to regenerate those who would be saved, must be an eternal word. To eternally save, the word must itself be eternal. Ames’ quote assigns the eternal life-giving power of God’s Word not simply to the substance of the truth but to the words that convey the doctrinal substance he identifies as the “Text.” The apographa (the original language copy – apo, from) as the Protestant Reformers’ exemplar of the autographa (Original) served as the basis of their translation work. Upon translation to a receptor language the authoritas verborum, “the external and accidental authority that belongs only to the text in the original languages,” was lost.[4] That is, the words of Ames text did not look like the Original’s words. They had changed their shape; the Greek and Hebrew being translated into English characters. However, what remained in translation was the authority of the substantia, or res, the “formal, inward authority that belongs both to the text of Scripture in the original languages and to the accurate translations of Scripture.”[5] The substantia doctrinae or the doctrinal substance of the receptor language is what Ames says is the means the Holy Spirit uses to regenerate a lost soul. The substantia doctrinae abideth forever.

In other words, viva Vox Dei, “the living voice of God,” that lives and abides forever in God’s word performs an everlasting operation of bringing lost men eternal life. The everlasting words of God’s voice that perform an everlasting function are in the text of Scripture. Ames so says,

“Because to speak properly, it is the word of eternal life, John 6:68. For the end and use thereof is, to bring men to eternal life.”[6]         

Upon this truth Ames argues for the eternal security of the believer, and serves

“to refute the error of those that they which are truly regenerated, usually fall away from the grace of God, and so are born again and again after they have been regenerate. This is contrary to…the operation of the Spirit in the hearts of the faithful, and to the nature of the life itself, that is communicated unto them, which is incorruptible and eternal, as it is in the text.”[7]

Ames then says that the Spirit and the nature of eternal life is communicated to the believer by an “incorruptible and eternal” word as it is found in the propositional revelation of holy Scripture, the “text.” An incorruptible and eternal written word, because it is the voice of God, produces a believer who possessed eternal and incorruptible life. The nature of the text and the nature of the regenerated life for Ames are inextricably linked. Because the doctrina substantia of the English Bible is incorruptible and eternal, the spiritual life it imparts is also incorruptible and eternal.

            Ames writes, because “the word of God endures forever,” we ought “to have a singular respect unto the dignity and excellency in the word of God, as it is preached unto us by the Gospel.”[8]

[1] John T. Demarest, Translation & Exposition of the First Epistle of the Apostle Peter, 1851, 93.search.ebscohost.com.newlibrary.wts.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=h7h&AN=41239113&site=e

[2]Ames, Commentary, 30.

[3]Ames, Commentary, 31.

[4] Muller, Dictionary, 51-52.

[5] Muller, Dictionary, 51.

[6]Ames, Commentary, 31.

[7]Ames, Commentary, 31.

[8]Ames, Commentary, 32.