Dr. John Cosin (1594 -1672) on Scripture’s Force and Efficacy

John Cosin (1594 -1672) English hymnwriter and Anglican cleric who became Master of Peterhouse College Cambridge, Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University in 1660 and Bishop of Durham.

“For though there be many Internal Testimonies belonging to the Holy Scriptures, whereby we may be sufficiently assured, that they be the True and lively Oracles of God, Rom. 3:2, (such as be, The Height and Majesty of the Things there delivered above all other Conceptions and Writings in the World; The Perpetual Analogy and Conformity of all the several Parts therein contained, one with the other; The Greatness and Dignity of those Prophecies which be there foretold; and the Truth or Certainty of them all, which be there fulfilled; together with the Divine Power and Providence, that hath confirmed and preserved them to all posterity; beside the Spiritual Force and Efficacy, (which is never there wanting unto them who do not willfully resist it,) to move and induce us unto a most certain and firm belief in them). Yet for the Particular and just Number of such Books, whether there be More of Less, than either some Private Persons, or some One Particular Church of late, have been please to make them, we have no better nor other External Rule or Testimony therein to guide us, than the Constant Voice of the Catholic and Universal Church, as it hath been delivered unto us upon Record from one Generation to another.”

As noted in an earlier post, Nathaniel Ingelo in The Perfection, Authority, and Credibility of the Holy Scriptures writes “We acknowledge they [the penmen] did [record and transmit the word of God], received their books, and are satisfied.” The accent was upon the satisfying aspect of Scripture or its affectual impact on the Church. Cosin in this excerpt writes of the “Spiritual Force and Efficacy” of Scripture upon the believer “to move and induce us unto a most certain and firm belief in them.” This describes the summary statement of the self-attestation and self-authentication of Scripture. Scripture moves the will of the saint to a “most certain and firm belief in them.” And, according to Cosin, this in not a Spiritual Force and Efficacy of an individual nature. This efficacy is not dealing with “some Private Persons or some One Particular Church” but the “constant Voice of the Catholic and Universal Church.” The Spirit and Word through the Church is the arbitrator of what is and is not Scripture, and not some sectarian academic or ecclesiastical convocation or individual.

What we gather from this is that there is a common affectual moving of the body of Christ through the Word and Spirit that moves with such force and efficacy as to determine what is and is not Scripture. Cosin moves the discussion forward by arguing that self-attestation and self-authentication is efficaciously forceful within the Church, so forceful and efficacious as to move the Church and convince the Church of a “most certain and firm belief in them.”

In recent times the efficacious forcefulness of Scripture has been degraded or rejected as less significant than the inducements of scholarly reason. The transfer of inducing influence by the Church from the Scripture to the scholar is a demonstration of Cosin’s caveat “which is never there wanting unto them who do not willfully resist it.” Something as powerful as Scripture’s self-attestation and self-authentication is only missed by those who “willfully resist” Scripture’s Force and Efficacy. This is not something easily dispensed with seeing that historically this force and efficacy has moved and induced the Universal Church. How can it be, that during the current epoch of history, the Evangelical Church seems to casually dispense with the historic force and efficacy of the Scripture upon historic orthodox Christianity? And yet, this is where contemporary Evangelicalism finds itself.

While some call for the confession of sin and the need for revival, quoting 2 Chr. 7:14, “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land,” they do so within the context of thinking that this verse does not relate to the prevailing Evangelical attitude toward the Bible. While “willfully resisting” the force and Efficaciousness of Scripture “to move and induce us unto a most certain and firm belief in them,” a terrible comedy of calls for revival are made from pulpits. You know you have hit a spiritual nerve if you stand in the pulpit and say there is only one standard sacred text. The response to that message and return to a standard sacred text of the historic orthodox Church will be the measure of the degree of willful resistance that must be confessed to move 2 Chr. 7:14 forward.

Dr. John Cosin, A Scholastic History of the Canon of Holy Scripture or the Certain and Indubitable Books thereof, as they are received in the  Church of England (London: Printed by E. Tyler and R. Holt for Robert Pawlett, at the Sign of the Bible in Chanecry-Lane, near Fleet-street, 1672), 4-5.

Ancient Mathematics and Ancient New Testament Readings

In a paper published in 2017, William Mansfield and N.J. Wildberger published a paper entitled, Plimpton 322 is Babylonian exact sexagesimal trigonometry. Plimpton 322 is pictured above. The abstract of Mansfield and Wildberger’s paper reads as follows,

“We trace the origins of trigonometry to the Old Babylonian era, between the 19th and 16th centuries B.C.E. This is well over a millennium before Hipparchus is said to have fathered the subject with his ‘table of chords’. The main piece of evidence comes from the most famous of Old Babylonian tablets: Plimpton 322, which we interpret in the context of the Old Babylonian approach to triangles and their preference for numerical accuracy. By examining the evidence with this mindset, and comparing Plimpton 322 with Madhava’s table of sines, we demonstrate that Plimpton 322 is a powerful, exact ratio-based trigonometric table.”

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0315086017300691

Since the publication of their paper mathematicians and historians have questioned whether Plimpton 322 is a full trigonometry table or whether the table was used to teach or record trigonometry, but few seem to object to the fact that something of trigonometry existed over 1,000 years prior to Hipparchus of Ancient Greece. In sum, it is plausible that the Ancient Greeks did not ”invent” trigonometry. The Ancient Babylonians were already knocking on the door and that is if you reject Mansfield and Wildberger’s conclusions. If you accept their conclusions, the Hipparchus was late to the game by over a millenium.

Before the discovery of Plimpton 322, the West claimed Hipparchus as the inventor of trigonometry. It seems thought that such a supposition may be false. What is more, we learn from Plimpton 322 that older does not equal more ignorant. Rather, in this case the opposite may be true. The older [Babylon] may have been more advanced than the newer [Greece] in terms of mathematics.

I bring up this little history lesson in order to make the observation that Hipparchus is credited with the mathematical emendation of trigonometry when in fact, at a minimum, primitive trigonometry tables had existed 1,000 years before Hipparchus.

Oldest is best is not the same as the oldest we currently have is best. Claims that older = more ignorant is simply false and naive especially at a time in the west when many educated people have the hardest time defining what a woman is. Those of the modern west are the ignorant ones even with advancements in medicine and technology. We use that medicine and technology to chemically castrate children and murder other children in their mother’s womb. Only the morally blind and woefully naive would claim that the modern west occupies some obviously superior echelon of human knowledge and wisdom when it comes to truth.

In the last 150 years, the 21st century west has grown closer to superstition than to reason.

This goes for morality, spirituality, and even science. Most evangelical textual scholars ground their arguments in scientism with a good old Presbyterian sprinkle of theological terminology.

In sum, history is in so many sectors anything but an exact science. The best historians merely report the facts. Commentary is left to a minimum because so much is missing from the picture. To simply say WW2 started because of Hitler is to miss all the socio-political, economic, and worldview implications preceding and surrounding the war. That Hipparchus was the father of trigonometry is now in question after finding one artifact.

In like manner, dogmatism that comes from historians and particularly textual historians is largely unwarranted seeing that the vast majority of copied NT manuscripts have been lost. All it would take for scholarship to question their stance on the story of the woman caught in adultery is to find one manuscript which suited their tastes and then their whole argument would be turned on its head. The feasibility of such a discovery does not engender confidence.

History and age are not potent enough to tell the Church what the original words of Scripture were and are any more than the testimony of ancient Greeks were in telling us who discovered trigonometry.

Van Til, Richard Brash, and the Underwater Bridge

In 2018 I was in the midst of my Ph.D. class work. I was living in FL at the time and classes were in Lynchburg, VA. I had classes in September of that year and part of my journey north included traveling through the lowlands of North Carolina just as Hurricane Matthew passed through the day before.

In the picture above you can see how high the water rose over the course of a few days. I came to several bridges like the one shown above. A couple with police telling me I couldn’t cross the bridge because it was under water. And why is that dangerous? Well because the bridge could be swept away as happened to at least one bridge on my journey, but the fact was that I could be swept away or simply get stuck in the middle of the bridge and need rescue at least for my car. So I was turned back by the police twice.

But I was not to be deterred. I kept hunting for a bridge that the police were not guarding until I found one. On both sides of the bridge cement jersey wall hemmed in the road. The water from the river had risen above the bridge and began to flood in around the ends of the jersey wall. Water was pouring onto both ends of the bridge. The only way I knew there was a bridge there was because I could see the jersey walls sticking out of the water on both side. So I pressed on. All the way across the bridge I was pushing water with the bumper of my 2007 Crown Victoria.

I had this experience two more times before I was able to get out of the lowlands. Usually when I tell this story people look at me like I was crazy, or like the risk wasn’t worth it or that I was irresponsible.

In this video Dr. Richard Brash points out and utilizes an analogy proposed by Cornelius Van Til regarding the relationship of the lost original manuscripts and the current manuscript tradition. In sum, the originals are lost to view but nevertheless support the Bible of the Church which is like an underwater bridge. You can’t see the bridge [i.e., the originals] but it is there and it supports your vehicle [i.e., the current manuscript tradition].

Given my experience with underwater bridges, I find Van Til’s analogy and Brash’s use of it inept for the circumstances touching current textual debate. In my experience the police would not allow crossing an underwater bridge because of the inherent danger. Where the police weren’t present, lines of cars would wait at the bridge wondering what to do. In one case there was a long line of cars waiting in front of what looked like minor river rapids. A semi-truck from somewhere back in the line pulled into the oncoming traffic lane and began to plow his way through the water. As soon as I saw him making a wake I pulled out of line and followed close behind. No one else moved.

The point is that people do not cross underwater bridges because they don’t trust them. In like manner, professing Christians do not trust the Bible as I pointed out in this post about the American Worldview Inventory of 2022.

One might be able to understand Van Til’s failure on this point given the influence of Scottish Common Sense Realism at his time, but Brash has no excuse. If the underwater bridge analogy is representative of anything it is representative of the Church’s distrust of Scripture and nothing more.

Video: Dr. Riddle on Variants in the Traditional Text

Recently, Dr. Riddle went on the Dwayne Green podcast to discuss the differences between TR editions, those differences’ impact on the Traditional Text position, and the difference in methodology between the Critical Text position and the Traditional Text position. This video is the second part of that discussion. The first can be found here.

False Friends and the Critical Text

For most of our readership you know about the term False Friends. This is a term co-opted by Mark Ward which is usually used in the context of comparing foreign languages. Still, Ward thought it best to bring the term into a comparison of English with English.

We understand the rhetorical play here in that Ward is using a term which belongs in the context of foreign languages and in so doing begins to construe Early Modern English as a foreign language. 5 points for the idea and 5 points for the effort. But as we have shown on this blog here, here, here, here, and here, Wards application of false friends to the KJV lacks considerable explanatory force and scope.

He has little problem noting the false friends in the KJV but has yet to make a list of false friends in modern versions. It’s almost like he thinks all the denotations of words in the modern versions are easily accessible, commonly used, and regularly understood. You may say, “Well that’s a to quoque fallacy.” No, I don’t think so.

I readily admit that some words in the KJV are words the reader thinks he understands but in the end he does not. But this is not grounds to reject the KJV. In like manner it stands to reason that some words in the multitudes of modern versions are words the reader thinks he understands but in the end he does not. But this is not grounds to reject the modern versions. There are other more robust, reasonable, and academically rigorous points of departure upon which we ought to reject the modern versions. False friends is not one of them.

But while we are talking about false friends let’s consider the crux or pith of what amounts to a false friend – the fact that a person believes they understand a word but in the end do not. In short, the reader thinks he knows but he does not.

Did you know that the modern critical text apparatus expresses this very thing?

Real quick. Anyone who is familiar with the critical text apparatus in the UBS 4th Rev or the N/A 28 knows that the readings in the apparatus are all rated. In the UBS the ratings are A, B, C, and D. According to the UBS 4th Rev edition, A indicates that the text is certain. B indicates that the text is almost certain. C indicates that the Committee had difficulty in deciding which variant to place in the text. D indicates that the Committee had great difficulty in arriving at a decision.

So A = certain. “Certain” like the rest of the text that has no footnote in the apparatus? Most of the critical text does not have a textual footnote in the apparatus which is to say that an “A” reading is less certain than the parts of the text that have no footnote in the apparatus at all. So what, the stuff in the critical text without a textual footnote is super certain while the textual footnotes with an A are only regular certain and B’s are almost certain?

No, the point is that A readings are not as certain as readings which have no textual footnote. And B readings are less certain than A’s. C and D readings don’t even use the word certainty. Rather they speak of degrees of difficulty in knowing what the right reading is.

In all these cases the Committee is doubtful either in their individual understanding of the evidence or of their certainty in their colleague’s opinions regarding the evidence. Either way, the five scholars of the Committee admit that they think they know what the right reading is but equally admit that they may not know.

At one point in the introduction to the UBS 4th Rev edition the Committee announces that

“the Committee selected 284 new passages for inclusion in the apparatus. Meanwhile 273 passages previously included were removed.”

UBS 4th Rev Edition, 2*

Setting aside the fact that the Committee had added 11 new places of doubt to the apparatus, it is obvious that the Committee previously thought 284 passages were not worthy of the apparatus while 273 no longer belonged in the apparatus. That is, they thought they knew the status of 557 readings but in the end they did not, but still printed a text and distributed it to colleges and seminaries.

The problem is the same as with false friends. In both cases the reader thought they understood the nature and meaning of a reading when in fact they did not – the KJV reader when reading the word “apt” and the textual scholar who thought 273 passages belonged in the apparatus but did not.

What is more the textual scholar in grading a reading admits to conflict within the Committee at that moment, especially ratings B, C, and D. Wherever you see these grades in the apparatus it means that the Committee itself disagreed on what reading to include. That is, in the case of a C rating 2 of the 5 scholars chose one reading and the other 3 of the 5 scholars chose a different reading. Either the 2 scholars are right or the 3 scholars are right or neither are right.

However the chips fall, somebody thinks they know what the reading is but in the end they do not know. This is the very definition [to think you know but in the end you do not know] that Ward leans on to call for a revision or abandonment of the KJV. The same substantial event is happening in the textual apparatus to the tune of 1,438 rated readings in the textual apparatus of the NT alone.

Scholars think they know what the reading is but in the end they do not.

Ward’s False Friends argument includes the OT with the NT, and yet in the UBS 4th Rev there are 1,438 variants over which scholars think they know but in they end they do not. Is this not grounds given Ward’s argument to at least consider throwing out or revising the UBS until there are nearly zero textual footnotes.

It seems Ward should put his own textual house in order before he starts throwing stones elsewhere.

Again, Ward’s goal is not scholarly because he does not point his theories against his own side. He only makes analysis of his opponents and not of the same troubles that crop up on his side of the fence.

We have no problem saying that double-inspiration is an untenable position. Ward seems incapable or disinterested in examining the modern versions and taking to task the inherent doubt in the text-critical process. This is the point of scholarly work in general. If your own position begins to crumble under your current investigation then you must admit your position is crumbling and amend your position to either bring it into conformity to the new investigation or to strengthen it to withstand the critique of the new investigation. Ward has done neither.

Charitably put, Ward’s argument on this point is intellectually dishonest and academically incestuous just so he can tell us and others that the TR and the KJV are not the Bible for the English-speaking Church. But before he takes it personally he needs to know that he is not alone in this on his side of the fence.

This Is Why We Don’t Trust Modern Version Onlyism

The above image is a perfect example of why the Multiple Version Only approach is a failure and why we here at Standard Sacred Text cannot advocate for that position. The difference between the two measuring tapes is 3/16ths, a very minor difference. Certainly no major measurement is at stake for something so small, right?

Both measuring tapes are sufficiently reliable standards to determine the distance between inch 1 and inch 2, as well as inch 1 to inch 3 and then to 4 and on and on. But the top tape fails miserably on two fronts: 1.) the measurement from 0 to inch 1 is simply wrong when compared to the rest of the standard 2.) When using the top tape any and all measurements taken from 0 will be wrong. In fact they will be too short, but of course, shortest is best…

The point really is, simply put, the top tape can make a host of accurate measurements that are sufficiently reliable as long as they start at inch 1. The distance between 1 and 2 is 1 inch and the distance between 1 and 3 is 2 inches and on and on. But if you are going to start your measurement at 0 and measure a 9 foot 2 inch section of handcraft cherry crown molding the measurement will come up short every time.

To then turn around and claim that both tapes are sufficiently reliable seems foolish. The bottom tape does everything the top tape does except the bottom tape is more accurate in the first inch. To say these two tapes are the same in accuracy, authority, and reliability is equally foolish and false to boot.

What is more, how are you to tell which is the original tape, the top or the bottom? Well it would stand to reason that you would compare the standard with the standard itself. In theological terms we call this self-attesting, self-authenticating, and self-interpreting.

The tragedy and hilarity of it all though is that modern evangelical textual scholars do not use exegesis and theology as their standard for how they treat the Bible rather they choose a relative standard via the scientific method and declare the CBGM or shortest, hardest, and oldest is best, none of which are substantiated as authoritative criteria for determining which words are God’s words.

As such, modern evangelical textual scholars are merely taking another tape, a third tape, which has a relatively accurate measurement from 0-1 inch and comparing that to the top tape in the image and saying, “Yep, close enough.” Therefore, declaring that the top tape is just as much a standard as the bottom tape by means of a third relatively accurate tape.

In short, modern textual scholarship is using a relative standard [i.e., CBGM and the scholars relative artistic sense of the reading in question] to judge whether the top tape’s first inch is close enough to an inch and if it is, then they declare that inch to be sufficiently reliable and the top tape as a whole to be a sufficiently reliable standard of measurement just like the bottom tape.

On the textual issue though the measuring tape has more than a few doubtful places. The 4th revised edition of the UBS critical text has over 1400 rated readings which is to say that there are ~1400 measurements on the tape that scholars doubt are accurate. Sometimes its one of the five scholars that doubt its authenticity and sometimes is four of the five scholars.

In the end we have Greek texts and subsequent English versions that are unreliable “measuring tapes” and many think if they have more and different measuring tapes that somehow that will make their measurement more accurate.

Try that as a carpenter on the job and see how many work orders come in. Or think of those who work with semiconductors where measurements fall to angstroms [i.e., 0.000000004 of an inch]. The most irksome thing of it all is that we demand far greater precision in making microchips and in cutting trim than we do in recognizing and translating the words of God.

My brother worked in microchips for over 15 years. A tech could burn up/destroy a million dollars worth of microchips in a matter of seconds and would be fired for that one mistake, but textual scholars can toy with the Bible or experiment on it like some kind of science project and the evangelicals will applaud their work. Indeed, sometimes the children of darkness are wiser than the children of light.

Apart from the Holy Spirit, man can measure length in angstroms but apart from the Holy Spirit he cannot measure what are or are not the words of God. Yet modern evangelical textual scholars with their regular inaccuracies and quaint transcendentless tools compass sea and land to make one MVO advocate, and when he is made, they make him twofold more the child of confusion and ineptitude than themselves.

Multiple Version Onlyism and the Deadly Sin of Sloth

The premise of this post is that Christianity has been and is being abandoned in part because the God of Christianity is not understood as being satisfying to the soul of man because Holy Scripture is not satisfying. If the special revelation of God does not fill the soul of man to satisfaction, correspondingly, the God the revelation reveals will seem deficient and unsatisfying. Being unsatisfied or unmoved before the glory of God in His Word is not a static condition and is not without serious ramifications. Indeed, such fecklessness has serious consequences being the very definition of the deadly sin of sloth. Sloth as a deadly sin (or sometimes a deadly condition) is a sad, restless, and ungrateful boredom in the face of spiritual good. It is spiritual joylessness, carelessness, jadedness, hopelessness. As one of the seven deadly sins, sloth is a sin around which other sins cluster. From this we gather that the lack of satisfaction with Holy Scripture is not merely a matter of personal preference or emotional attachment but a profound spiritual void with gravely detrimental implications.

Against the void of sloth, Scripture explains that the believer is to meditate on things that are true, honest, just, pure, lovely, of good report, virtuous things, and things worthy of sanctified praise, (Phil. 4:8). According to verse 9 these virtues bring the peace of God. We are also to meditate day and night in the law of the Lord, (Psalm 1:2) which infers that all the virtues of Phil 4:8 belong to Scripture. Scripture is true, honest, just, pure, lovely, of good report, virtuous and worthy of sanctified praise. And from this meditation, upon God and his Word the believer finds spiritual fulfillment and genuine satisfaction as designed by God. We should expect no less from Scripture as the word of God. A personal fulfillment the world does not know is found in the meditating upon the God of Holy Scripture. In this meditation knowledge of God is gathered which according to Jer. 9:23-24 is man’s greatest privilege. Furthermore, knowledge of God lies at the heart of covenant promise – God is only known by means of covenant relationship, Jer. 31:34. Forgiveness of sin is a means to an end. The end (terminus) is that all men shall know God. The forgiveness of sins is a stepping-stone to the knowledge of God and the Teacher of the knowledge of God is the Holy Spirit. In both the Old and New Testaments, the knowledge of God is at the epicenter of all the Promises of God both prophesied and fulfilled in the Messianic period.

Practically, this kind of doxological, soteriological meditation produces a certain kind of man. We learn “that as a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.” Doxological meditation of this nature produces a true, honest, just, pure, lovely, reputable, virtuous, praiseworthy man. Ecclesiastically or corporately this meditation produces the same virtues in the Church. And these virtues for the believer and church are intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually fulfilling satisfying the souls of the faithful. Not only do they fulfill and gladden the believer’s life, but these God-given virtues put an end to doubt and uncertainty. Psalm 90:14 says, “O satisfy us early with thy mercy; that we may rejoice and be glad all our days.”

An example of the satisfaction of certainty is taken up by Nathaniel Ingelo in his defense of Holy Scripture against the papists. He writes,

“From all which we argue, Christ was in the bosom of the Father, and knew all; he came from thence and told all, his Scholars at his command preached, and, for the benefit of future times, wrote all. We acknowledge they did, received their books, and are satisfied. Only the Papists and some other heretics, that they might have honor and profit to make supply, say they did not.” Nathaniel Ingelo, The Perfection, Authority, and Credibility of the Holy Scriptures. Discoursed in a sermon before the University of Cambridge at the Commencement, July 4, 1658 (London: Printed by E.T. for Luke Fawn at the sign of the Parrot in Pauls Church-yard, 1659), 24.

Note that there is objective satisfaction in the mercy of God revealed in His Word and subjective satisfaction described by Ingelo in what God has done through Christ, His message, the apostolic message, and the written Word. Against his objective and subjective satisfaction is the contemporary cultural and ecclesiastical phenomenon of multiple version onlyism. Though spoken of primarily within an ecclesiastical context, Multiple Version Onlyism’s [MVO] philosophical underpinnings are consistent with cultural schizophrenia that argues forcefully, emotionally, and dogmatically that two different things can be the same. Once the rejection of the Law of Non-Contradiction is accepted as normative, no rational grounds exist for discussion, e.g., men can bear children. MVO is merely an ecclesiastical expression of the broader cultural milieu.

The canonization of MVO is a prima facie example of dissatisfaction with current bible versions. Rather than dispelling doubt and uncertainty, multiple version onlyism fosters ambivalence and draws into question what is true, honest, just, pure, lovely, good report, virtuous and worthy of sanctified praise. It is highly problematic to obey God’s command to “think on these things” when “these things” are compromised by MVO. But uncertainty is only one element of the unsatisfied soul. The god depicted by multiple version onlyism is only capable of providing an unsatisfying bible as evidenced by the modern church’s attitude toward the reconstruction of the text. The god depicted by multiple version onlyism breeds a feckless, care-less ecclesiastical environment of such hopelessness that the close attention to detail of pre-critical exegetical and theological formulation is cast aside and considered the musings of the unenlightened. Sound doctrine is too complicated to study and worry through and so it has been abandoned. Ecclesiastically and personally, it is too much to raise the fork to the mouth to feed oneself, i.e., the King James Version is too hard to read. Not only is there no appreciation for Holy Scripture but there is no appreciation for the codifiers of historic orthodox Christian theology.

The debate can be seen in the contrast and implications of the words “satisfied” and “sufficient.” God, His Word, and obedience to His Word satisfies objectively and subjectively. This satisfaction is derived from meditating upon things that are true, honest, just, pure, lovely, of good report, virtuous things, and things worthy of sanctified praise which through the Scripture and Spirit is the means of knowing God. Sufficiency, however, is a human designation of with an uncertain scope. In relative terms, sufficiency is enough, but used within the context of Truth, the Truth from which all other truths have their grounding, the notion of “sufficiency” is not applicable. The error of the MVO replacement for “true” is not “sufficiently true” but a pusillanimous and slothful disposition of ambivalence and apathy from which Christian orthodoxy is evaluated. If something is not true, but sufficiently true, it may also be untrue to the relative degree of sufficiency. If it is not honest, but sufficiently honest, it may also be dishonest to the relative degree of sufficiency. If it is not pure, but sufficiently pure, it may also be impure to the relative degree of sufficiency and so on. Even the most slothful know that sufficiently true is not the True the Bible speaks of. And if it is not true in the Biblical sense, trying to determine who the arbitrators of this alterative “true” is gets lost in the muddle of multiple voices leaving only a sense of “who really cares anyway.” From this we conclude that the MVO church is thinking or meditating upon nothing of spiritual significance, nor does it want to be bothered. The modern Church is content in its sad, restless, and ungrateful boredom in the face of spiritual good. The Church has always been an imperfect institution, but now, with MVO, the catalyst for mastitisizing this imperfection is hiding in plain sight.

For the God of Christianity to be satisfying, His Word, as the written revelation of Himself, must be satisfying. In a sin-cursed world, if satisfaction cannot be found in God and His Word, there is no where else to look. Hope for the Church is found in a renewed love for God by not hoping for a better Bible but being satisfied with the Bible God has providentially preserved for His Church while trusting the promises of the God contained therein.

Romans 8:26: The Holy Spirit and the Act of Providential Preservation

Last Sunday I had the privilege of hearing a sermon from Romans 8:26 with particular emphasis on the term “helpeth”. The pastor began his exegesis by telling a story. He told of a time when he went to a local farmers market, one of his favorites, where the Amish would bring fresh apples and press them then and there to make fresh apple cider. People would gather around the cider press all day watching the work done and waiting for their turn to try some of the delicious results. This of course meant that there needed to be tons of apples.

As the day wore on and the crowd began to clear it was time for the Amish to pack up shop and head home. Just then the pastor was leaving but in leaving he looked back over at the cider press and notice a young man struggling to get the last basket of apples into his buggy. The basket was full and the struggle was real. Tried as he may, the young man could not get the basket to its destination. The pastor hopped out of his truck and went over to help him make the lift. When he finally got close, the pastor notice a potential contributor to the young man’s difficulty. He only had one arm and so could only grasp one handle of the basket full of apples. At that moment the pastor took the other handle and helped put the basket in the buggy.

The translation of “helpeth” in Romans 8:26 comes from the Greek word, συναντιλαμβάνεται which is the union of three Greek words, συν meaning “with”, αντι meaning “against” or “over against”, and λαμβάνω meaning “to take” or “lay hold of”. The pastor stood with the young Amish man but over against him, that is, on the other side of the basket and then took hold of the basket and they together accomplished a goal that the young man simply could not do by himself.

This is a perfect example of the Holy Spirit’s providential preservation spoken of in the Westminster Confession of Faith 1.8. That is, the Holy Spirit has kept and continues to keep His word pure by His singular care and providence. It is impossible for anyone, saint or otherwise, to keep the text of Scripture pure throughout all ages. The Holy Spirit must συναντιλαμβάνεται. He must be with the saint and his words but on the other side of the equation and there take hold of the preserving process and do that which we cannot in and of ourselves.

This of course is very similar if not identical to the sanctification process where it is impossible for the saint to sanctify themselves. It is the Spirit through the word which sanctifies the believer in body and soul, in mind and affect. In short, συναντιλαμβάνεται is a common function of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church. In the context of Romans 8:26 it is the Spirit helping the saint in prayer. Prayer is common to the believer. Sanctification is common to the believer. Preservation is common to the believer.

But you say, “Textual criticism falls under Providential Preservation, just like Warfield says.” Indeed, textual criticism does fall under the providence of God as do the words of false prophets, the Holocaust, and the murder of Jesus Christ on a cross. But such an admission does not somehow make the act of false teaching or the murder of the Son of Glory somehow good or something that we should continue in.

More specifically given the preceding material, was the Holy Spirit aiding the Jews who yelled, Crucify him. Crucify him? In other words, was the Holy Spirit picking up the other side of the murder-Jesus basket? Or was it the Holy Spirit who lifted the other side of the false-prophecy basket? In these cases it seems the answer is, no. Why then should we conclude that the Holy Spirit is helping to lift the text-critical basket that rejects the Church’s Bible and openly calls God’s people to doubt portions of that Bible whether they be the long ending in Mark or that illusive 1-5% of the text today’s scholars can’t settle on? What is it about modern evangelical textual criticism that makes it distinctively Christian? Where are the robust exegetical and theological groundings in support of the way modern evangelical textual scholars treat the Bible year in and year out?

Sure, textual criticism falls under the providence of God but that does not make modern textual criticism a good thing in submission to Christ. The task ye to be accomplished across 150+ years of modern textual criticism is to show that modern textual criticism is a work of Christ’s Kingdom.

As it currently stands, there seems to be little which differentiates modern evangelical textual scholarship from a secular false religion other than the fact that the Bible is the object of their scientific experimentation. Again, such experimentation comes about under the providence of God but that is not same as saying the Holy Spirit is helping that false secular religion to lift that which it cannot.

On this point of providential preservation is where Warfield failed and it is where the modern evangelical textual critics continue that tradition of failure.

American Worldview Inventory 2022 – A National Worldview Study of Parents and Pastors

Arizona Christian University’s Cultural Research Center directed by George Barna released its findings of the American Worldview Inventory 2022 and had 6 distinct releases. It was broken into two parts, the first regrading parents and the second regarding pastors. In both cases the conclusions where at best discouraging. Regarding parents of pre-teens, the study found,

“New research from the American Worldview Inventory 2022, conducted by the Cultural Research Center at Arizona Christian University, shows that more than nine out of 10 parents of children underage 13 have a muddled worldview.”

They go on to write,

“Two-thirds (67%) of pre-teen parents claim to be Christian, but only 2% of all pre-teen parents actually possess a biblical worldview, according to the new research.”

We could speculate why this is the case but we don’t have to. The study goes on to observe,

“A biblical worldview, of course, emerges from accepting the Bible as a relevant and authoritative guide for life. However, a majority of current parents of pre-teens—almost six out of 10 — dismiss the Bible as a reliable and accurate source of God’s truth. Just four out of 10 pre-teen parents believe the Bible can be trusted as God’s accurate words for humanity. Even so, fewer than half of those individuals (45%) read the Bible at least once a week.”

The primary reason why parents of pre-teens have a muddled worldview? Almost 60% of said parents “dismiss the Bible as a reliable and accurate source of God’s truth.” Additionally, 60% of pre-teen parents do not believe the “the Bible can be trusted as God’s accurate words for humanity.”

Why should they believe otherwise? Evangelicals are proud to proclaim that 1% or 2% or 5% of the Bible is in question. Scholars determining the meaning and scope of “sufficiently reliable” are telling the people in the pew that according to their opinion, the Scriptures are sufficiently reliable and that there are errors in the text but according to scholarship no major doctrine is affected.

Given the numbers above and the fact that modern evangelical textual criticism has ruled the seminaries and divinity schools for the last 150 years, it seems in fact that major doctrine has been affected and particularly the doctrine of Bibliology in the Church.

The Cultural Research Center concluded in the second release,

“Levels of biblical worldview drop considerably when looking at parents’ understanding of the Bible, truth, and morals. Only 5% of pre-teen parents have a consistently biblical perspective on these issues.“

5% of Christian pre-teen parents have biblical perspective on the Bible. Maybe its time for a change in the current evangelical formulation of Bibliology starting with textual criticism and how we know we have the words of God at all.

In the third release showed what Ted Letis predicted decades ago, that the Church would fall prey to Bible-consumerism through expert marketing. The third release reads,

“There has been ample evidence of the nation’s Christian demise, but Church leaders have largely ignored those signs because other indicators (church attendance, Bible sales, donations, etc.) have remained sufficiently robust to feel reassured.”

Christian leaders have largely ignored the signs of America Christian demise in part because of Bible sales. They were sure that this was a sign of Christian health when it was actually the sign of consumerism, a vice. Once the Bible became a product owned by Bible landlords to rent out; the Bible and then the Church and then the pastor became mere commodities. But of course Christian leadership has yet to realize this even while it bites them in the face.

Back to the same trope from the first and second releases, the Cultural Research Center concluded that,

“Another inarguable factor in being Christian is accepting the Bible as the true and trustworthy words of God, yet just one-half of the self-described Christian parents do so.”

And

“Fewer than one in five parents believes that success is best defined as consistently obeying God’s laws and commands.”

And

“Merely one out of every three parents of preteens relies upon the Bible as their primary source of moral guidance.”

I’m sure if we looked back into Pre-Enlightenment conviction and sentiment of Christians regarding Scripture the number would be about the same, right? I’m sure fewer than 20% of Reformation era Protestant Christian parents would define success in terms of keeping God’s commandments or 66% of the same group would seek some other source than the Bible for their primary moral guidance. Are you kidding me!? But remember folks, no major doctrine has been affected. You know doctrines like the Scripture is the sole rule of faith and practice.

When are we going to recognize that “no major doctrine has been affected” is completely absurd? “Sufficient reliability” is leading to total Christian demise. When are we going to realize that “sufficiently reliable Scripture” is not sufficient?

So why is no one panicking? The report concludes,

“If the situation is so dire, then why isn’t the rest of the culture—or, at least, the bulk of the Christian community—up in arms over the sad state of parenting? Perhaps it is because the rest of the culture—including the Church—is syncretistic as well. The ongoing AWVI 2022 results have shown that only 6% of all U.S. adults have a biblical worldview. It is barely better among the self-identified Christian population (9%).”

I have been arguing this for months here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. I have argued that the whole of the Church has succumbed to Expressive Individualism, here the Cultural Research Center concludes the that whole of the Church has succumbed to Syncretism which they define as, “a blending of multiple worldviews in which no single life philosophy is dominant, producing a worldview that is diverse and often self-contradictory.” This is the behavior of an Expressive Individualist.

Moving onto the study’s observations regarding pastors in Release #5 the researchers observed,

“The American Worldview Inventory includes 54 worldview-related questions. Those questions fall within eight categories of belief and behavior, with worldview scores given to respondents for each of those eight categories.”

only to report the dismal finding that the

“Lowest of all is a category that might have been expected to top the list: beliefs and behaviors related to the Bible, truth, and morality (39%).”

The percentage of pastors who have a biblical worldview in relation to the Bible, Truth, and Morals is 39% for all pastors, 43% among senior pastors, 32% of associate pastors, 21% of teaching pastors, 8% of executive pastors, and 18% of Children’s/Youth pastors.

These are the religious leaders, trained among us, the seminary graduates. Taken together they can’t even reach 50%.

Apparently, whatever the problem is it cannot be the fact that we teach doubt about the Bible in our seminaries, that we bracket texts or omit them altogether, that sufficient reliability rules the day, that modern textual criticism is an act of God’s special care and providence, or that the Bible is modified and republished every couple of years. A standard sacred text? No, no, no that can’t be the answer or even close to being an answer.

The study goes on to say,

“Barna offered a note of hope in spite of the data. ‘You cannot fix something unless you know it’s broken,’ he commented. ‘Other recent research we have conducted suggests most pastors believe that they are theologically in tune with the Bible. Perhaps these findings will cause many of them to take a careful look at how well their beliefs and behavior conform to biblical principles and commands.’”

So principles like not one jot or one tittle will pass from God’s word or commands like “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it”? May the Lord grant us such a grace.

As for evangelicals in general, George Barna concludes,

“‘First, the old labels attached to families of churches are not as useful as they were in the past,’ Barna noted. ‘The best example is the term ‘evangelical,’ which has traditionally connoted churches where the Bible is revered and is taught as God’s reliable and relevant word for our lives. With barely half of evangelical pastors possessing a biblical worldview—and that number continuing to decline—attending what may be considered an ‘evangelical’ church no longer ensures a pastoral staff that has a high view of the scriptures.’“

It’s that last line. Barna said the quiet part out loud. High view of Scripture and Evangelical are peeling away from each other. And I’m supposed to believe that the CBGM’s change of focus to the initial text from the original text is going to help reunite a high view of Scripture with Evangelicalism?

Barna goes on to say, “The theological rift between Protestant and Catholic
churches remains intact, though neither segment is doing a proficient job of making the Bible a trustworthy and authoritative guide for people’s life.” Rome never did seeing it insisted on the Latin for so long. Which is to say that Protestants have become more like Rome regarding sola Scriptura and not vice versa. Our side has been predicting this since our first assaults on the validity and authority of Vaticanus, and yet here we are.

It’s not even worth saying, We told you so. The English-speaking Church’s belief in the Bible is in shambles. Seminaries and pastors, if you won’t pull up on the reigns and seriously reevaluate the way you treat the Bible, I mean on a revival-type level, the English-speaking Church’s belief in the Bible will go from shambles to not one stone being left upon another.