Fredson Bowers was first a professor at Princeton University and then became professor of English at the University of Virginia where he founded the Bibliographical Society of the University of Virginia. Today we are going to look at Bowers in his own words as they appear in Bibliography and Textual Criticism [1963]. Bower’s emphasis fell to the works of Shakespeare mostly, but you will notice the commonality of language between Bower’s treatment of Shakespeare and our evangelical brother’s treatment of God’s word. In short, there is no noticeable difference. Quoting J.G. McManaway regarding the works of Shakespeare, Bowers writes,
“‘…a Shakespeare drama is not one, but many plays: the ideal play as the author conceived it; the text as written; the tidied up fair copy, later marked and abridged for representation; the imperfect rendition on the stage; and the printed text or texts, that may represent one or more of these versions, either “maimed and deformed”, or “perfect in their limbs”.'”
Bowers, Bibliography, 9.
Sound familiar? This is exactly the line that Bart Ehrman offers to all evangelical text-critics when they claim that they know what the NT original looks like. Which original? There are many originals according to text-critical scholarship. Is it the one in the writer’s head, the one written down, the corrected one, the copied one, the abridged one etc. etc.?
But at least Bowers is able to admit that searching out such an original even in trying to find the original of a Shakespearian play is out of the question. And given Shakespeare is far closer to us in time than the text of 1 Corinthians, identifying the original of the NT by modern text-critical lights is a greater impossibility for textual criticism. Bowers writes,
“Some of these [the potential originals mentioned above] neither bibliography nor any other form of criticism can recover, for certainly we have no means of knowing what ideal form a play took in Shakespeare’s mind before he wrote it down.”
Bowers, Bibliography, 9.
Instead, Bowers goes on to vie for what we now call the “initial text”. Bowers writes,
“…drawing on what is practicable here, we may say that the immediate concern of textual bibliography is only to recover as exactly as may be the form of the text directly underneath the printed copy.”
Bowers, Bibliography, 9.
Does anyone else find this interesting? Bowers knew the immediate concern of the bibliographer was to recover the “text directly underneath the printed copy.” Many call that text, the initial text. The text directly underneath the printed copy is certainly a definitional referent for the term “initial text” in CBGM circles. To no surprise, it appears NT textual criticism and the CBGM is very late to the text-critical game.
Finally, Bowers offers a conclusion to which we whole-heartedly agree. In fact his critique is a critique we have made here many times. All told, we couldn’t say it better ourselves. Bowers concludes,
“Moreover, no matter how rigorous the logical treatment of evidence, the factual basis for the argument may be incomplete, owing to unknown gaps in the physical evidence or to our defective knowledge of the printing process. Thus if the reasoning depends upon a concealed false premise, quite erroneous conclusions may be reached.”
Bowers, Bibliography, 79.
If only modern evangelical textual critics would be like Fredson Bowers on this point, perhaps evangelicals would stop inflating the capacities of modern NT textual criticism and make room for an exegetical and theological grounded for determining what is or is not the New Testament.
In that famous martial treaties, The Art of War, Sun Tzu makes the following observation,
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
Sun Tzu, The Art of War
While we do not consider the likes of Wasserman, Gurry, Hixon, Ward etc. our enemies, we do consider them our intellectual and theological opponents. And so it is good that first we understand our own position and then seed to understand our opponents, read their books, and interact with their arguments.
Over the years we have accumulated books on textual criticism as part of our educational journey. So perhaps it is best that we allow our opponents to speak in their own words so that those who do not understand modern textual criticism may better understand and those who oppose modern textual criticism may more accurately and incisively dismantle their opposition.
Today we are going to look at J. Harold Greenlee in his own words. According to the cover of Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism: Revised Edition (2003), Greenlee is a professor of New Testament and an International Translation Consultant with Wycliffe Bible Translators.
Here at StandardSacredText.com we have argued and continue to argue that the Textus Receptus and its tradition represents the Greek New Testament recognized and accepted by the believing community, the Church. The book itself represents the movement of the Spirit of God through the word of God in the people of God. It is a monumental artifact which bespeaks the singular care and providence of God in His words to His people. And very much the same can be said about the KJV, but that is not the focus of today’s post.
Given what the TR represents to the Church over time and as a book of ancient origins it seems odd that the TR would be treated with derision even by godless scholars seeking to be objective in their work. Rather it seems the TR should at least be a wealth of scholarly wisdom for generations to come informing the next crop of scholarly professionals in understanding the content of the NT. And is it so outlandish to make these claims? Let’s check in with Greenlee.
“The credit for abandoning the TR is therefore generally given to Karl Lachman. Lachman was a classicist and not a theologian; consequently, he was unaware of how violent the criticism against his work might be.”
Greenlee, Introduction, 69.
And in the wake of “abandoning the TR”
“Lachmann’s great contribution, therefore is that his [Greek text] was the first generally recognized ‘critical text.'”
Greenlee, Introduction, 69.
But merely abandoning the TR was not enough it must be vanquished as if the Wescott and Hort are Beowulf and the Bible of the Church is Grendel himself.
“With the work of Wescott and Hort the TR was at last vanquished.”
Greenlee, Introduction, 71.
And what was the end result of WH’s “heroic feat” according to Greenlee?
“In the future, whatever form an editor’s text might take, he or she would be free to construct it with reference to the principles of textual criticism without being under the domination of the Textus Receptus.”
Greenlee, Introduction, 71.
Finally, that old dragon, the TR was vanquished, never again to have dominion over text-critical principles to this day.
It is difficult to put into words the abject poverty of Greenlee’s conclusion in the above quote assuming a distinctly Christian worldview. His conclusion is godless, transcendentless, and autonomous, or in a word, rebellious. Furthermore, the book is an introduction and as such is material meant to shape the youngest minds in our colleges and seminaries. Greenlee speaks positively of abandoning and vanquishing the Church’s NT and invites us all to do the same because in his opinion the Church’s NT “characteristically fails the test of the basic principle of textual criticism: viz., that the reading from which the other reading or readings most likely arose is generally original” [77]. Such a tactic may prevail today but it cannot win in the end.
To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself. – Sun Tzu, The Art of War
Bishop Edward Wetenhall, 1636-1713, unknown to many, was held in such high esteem that he was buried in the south transept of Westminster Abbey. The inscription reads: “Here lie buried the remains of the Right Reverend Father in Christ Edward Wetenhall D.D. Bishop first of Cork for 20 years, then of Kilmore and Ardagh for 14 years in the Kingdom of Ireland. He died 12 November, year of our Lord 1713 in the 78th year of his age.” Wetenhall (or Wettenhall) was born at Lichfield in Staffordshire on 7th October 1636 and educated at Westminster School and Trinity College Cambridge. After brief preferments at Exeter and Dublin he was consecrated bishop of Cork and Ross in 1679. In 1699 he was translated to the diocese of Kilmore. He was married twice.
In 1688 he authored a book designed to address Rome’s objections against our English Bible, the Authorized Version, of which the following is an excerpt. As you read, note Wetenhall’s commitment to Scripture being by inspiration from God, that Scripture was providentially preserved, his eschatological focus on the saints’ final accountability to God, the privilege of possessing the Scripture and to hold the Scripture’s honorably and with humility, the importance of learning the core of theology early in life and of being able to read.
“Now, to put a due conclusion to this discourse, there are some Christian Practices which the scope of it does naturally recommend and some advices which it may occasion.
And first, let the reflection on what has been discoursed touching the certainty of Holy Scriptures and their Authentic Verity raise in our hearts a due Esteem and Cordial Reverence of them as not being from Man nor merely by man, but given by inspiration of God, and in a peculiar and marvelous manner, preserved and transmitted by his special Providence from age to age, through multitudes of hands down to us, who live probably near the end of time. It was once the great privilege of the Jews that to them were committed the Oracles of God: that privilege is now common to us, with them. Though perhaps therefore we may not keep those Oracles with so superstitious a care and curiosity as they did yet let us both keep and treat them as cordial adherence, and as awful esteem. But especially let us take care that we use not passages out of them in our ordinary discourse flightingly in jest and drollery to create laughter to ourselves and others. Holy things should not be played with, and we are to remember that if we do play with them, we teach people to think we do not believe them to be Holy.
Secondly, let not a Prize be put into our hands, and we such fools as not to have hearts to use it. Have we the Word of Prophecy, surer than other miraculous revelation? Have we the Gospel of Truth too both mutually confirming and confirmed by one another and shall be so idle and gross as to be any of us in a manner uncapable of using either? Why should there be a person in a Christian Church or Nation to whom the Holy Scripture should be a Book sealed, who should know no more by the Book open and laid before him than if fast closed up. I mean who should not be able to read the glad tidings and terms of his Salvation? Good people, deny not yourselves that, which an excellent person has most justly styled, the CHRISTIANS BIRTHRIGHT, the use of the Holy Scriptures. Take care and endeavor that both you and yours be able to read. And being so, whatever Book you read not through or rarely look into, let not the Bible be that neglected one. Rather account such a day lost in which you have not attentively and considerately read some part thereof.
Thirdly, remember him who said, Hold fast till I come, that no man take thy crown. He sists at the right hand of his Father, ready to give it, and will in good time come and give it us if we fainty not.
And lastly, as most excellent means to insure to ourselves a right use of Scripture and to preserve us from misinterpreting or misapplying them, let us be careful of the two following particulars.
First, to furnish our minds with a form of sound Doctrine gathered out of the Holy Scripture. This, it is to be hoped, we had in some degree in our early years by Catechism, and without this both Scripture and Sermons are in a great measure unserviceable. It is the Apostle’s Rule that they who Prophesy (that is in the New Testament notion of Prophesying, interpret Scripture) do it according to the proportion of Faith, Rom. xii. 6. His meaning seems to be that understanding first the several articles of the Christian Faith, we should interpret or take Scripture in consistency therewith. This rule will prevent the abuse of Holy Scripture to error and novelty.
Secondly, to endeavor the honest and impartial practice of what we know in the fear of God, and as we shall answer the not doing according to our Lord’s will when we have known that his will. This most assuredly will prevent Scriptures being useless and besides will both lead us to a higher pitch of knowledge and secure us from dangerous errors. For amongst other parts of the Christian duty, we shall then practice meekness, humility, and a low conceit of our selves. We shall not therefore too much lean to our own understanding, we shall not exceed our own measures. And then (Psalm xxv.9.14.) The meek will the Lord guide in judgment, the meek will he teach his way. The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him, and he will shew them his Covenant.
There are the great uses we should make of this sure Word of Prophesy, Law, and Gospel, to value and reverence it. In testimony thereof, to capacitate not only ourselves but all ours by moderate at least the lowest degree of learning (being able to read) to make use of it, and then diligently to read it and hold it fast. But especially by getting into our minds a form of sound words (a due understanding Catechetical doctrine) and by living according to what we know, to ensure to ourselves the right use of it. And is we thus take heed to this sure word, tis sure we shall do well. We shall be sure not only to our Faith, but to the End of it too. We shall be certainly and unspeakably rewarded in Glory and Bliss everlasting.”
Edward Wetenhall, A Plain Discourse Proving the Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures; wherein bold attempts and aspersions of Jesuits and other Missionaries of the Church of Rome are Confuted; and all their objections against our English Bible are fully and clearly Answered (London: Printed and sold by Randall Taylor, near Stationers-Hall, 1688), 56-63
Wettenhall’s emphasis on an early understanding of Catechetical doctrine should not be overlooked. He argues for the inculcation of a prior theological framework in the minds of young people that will enable the proper dissemination of the Scripture as it is read. Children must have 1. a rudimentary knowledge of Christian theology, “a form of sound words” and, 2. a minimal reading proficiency to value and reverence the Scripture. Without this early training Wettenhall says that “both Scripture and Sermons are in a great measure unserviceable.”
Bishop Wetenhall’s observations are illuminating and something that needs additional exploration. In Wetenhall’s day there were brothers and sisters in the Lord that found the KJV problematic because they lacked rudimentary theological training in the home. They did not receive early in their lives the “form of sound words” and as such were raised in such a state “that both Scripture and Sermons” for them “are in a great measure unserviceable,” or of little help. Because Wetenhall and Standard Sacred Text are speaking of the same English Bible, it seems apparent that the lack of early theological training in the home is a perpetually besetting issue for the spiritual well-being of the saint and church.
In recent days we have seen public school parents catching up with home-schooling parents, asserting their parental authority over the school boards, and rightly taking back the education of their children from the government school. Perhaps its time for parents to expand their God-given authority and rightly take back the theological training of their children from the church and academy in such a way that their families will no longer perceive “both Scripture and Sermons” to be “in a great measure unserviceable.”
Trelcatius listed five points in his polemic against Roman Catholic scholar Franciscus Costerus (1532-1619) and Rome’s emphasis of the superiority of the Church Authority over Scripture. As cited in previous posts, there is a close analogy between Rome’s notion of authority and that of the modern evangelical text critic. Though writing in 1604, Trelcatius provides a succinct discussion, outlining the salient points for demonstrating the Authority of Scripture against externally imposed criteria whether ecclesiastical or otherwise.
I
There is a double consideration of the Church and the Scripture; the one common in respect of the Author; the other singular in respect of the Authority which the Author hath put into them. God is the Author of both, whether mediately or immediately, but the Authority from God is diverse, that of the Scripture is principal and formal, but the other of the Church is secondary and ministerial.
II
The Scripture is in two ways considered, either according to the substance of the Word principally, or according to the manner of writing. Secondarily, in that the Scripture is more ancient than the Church as by the Church was begotten or generated.
[Scripture is considered first, in itself, res or as substantia doctrinae, the substance of the writing or what the word means, and second, as substantia verba, or the accidence of writing, the external shape of the words. Scripture, being more ancient than the Church, birthed the Church and not vice versa. (Note: If the priority of the Scripture over the Church were reversed, the Church’s capacity to generate the Scripture is limited to the accidence of writing not possessing access to the inspired meaning, or substantia doctrinae which comes only from God. That is, the Church cannot beget an inspired text of Scripture, but a God-inspired Scripture can generate the Church.)]
III
Some things are required for the confirmation of a thing absolutely and of it self, and some by accident and for another thing. If the Scripture need any confirmation of the Church, it needeth the same by accident, and not of it self, and therefore the confirmation of the Church belongeth not to the Cause Efficient, but ministerial.
[The confirmation of the authority of Scripture by the Church is not of Scripture’s self-authentication or the Cause Efficient, but only by the accidence of writing. The authority of Scripture resides in the Scripture itself and secondarily the Church recognizes this authority in Scripture’s words.]
IV
In causes coordinate, those which are inferior, and latter cannot obtain force and faculty of others, which are the former. Now every Authority of the Church is subordinate, yet the use is very great of the Scripture as the means principal to believe and of the Church, as the mean outward and ministerial.
[As stated above, God is the Author of both the Authority of the Scripture and the Authority of the Church, the Authority of the Scripture being principal and formal, the authority of the Church being secondary and ministerial. The Authority of the Church is latter and inferior and cannot overrule the Authority of the Scripture which is former. The Authority of the Church is therefore subordinate to the Scripture. The Scripture is the principal to faith and the Church’s use of Scripture the outward standard and ministerial, or for the practice of religion.]
V
There is one corruption of words and certain particular places, through the blemish whereof the principal parts cannot be corrupted, and there is another corruption of the essential parts of the Scripture: the former, if any hath happened unto the Scripture, (for the latter, we utterly deny) is not the corruption of the Scripture, but was caused either by the naughtiness of some other, or through the infirmity of the church, or through the particular ignorance of them that were of the household.
[There are two kinds of irreparable corruption of Scripture. The first can occur only in the accidence of writing due to naughtiness, infirmity, and ignorance. The cause of this corruption is known and can be corrected. The second notion of corruption relates to the essential parts of Scripture or in the substantia doctrinae, or res is denied. The Protestant Orthodox Church in 1604, (unlike many today) was confident that it was in possession of the Holy Scripture.]
Lucas Trelcatius, A Brief Institution of the Common Places of Sacred Divinitie wherein the Truth of every place proved, and the sophisms of Bellarmine are reproved, translated by John Gawen (London: Imprinted by T. P. for Francis Burton, dwelling in Pauls Church-yard, and the sign of the Green Dragon, 1610), 34-36
Please note that Trelcatius places the weight of his argument upon the Scriptures themselves.
The following is a prayer copied from The Valley of Vision: A Collection of Puritan Prayers and Devotions. May we pray in the same spirit for wisdom and understanding to know the Triune God and the content of His revealed Holy Scriptures.
THE SPIRIT AS TEACHER
That which I know not, teach thou me, Keep me a humble disciple in the school of Christ, learning daily there what I am in myself, a fallen sinful creature, justly deserving everlasting destruction; O let me never lose sight of my need of a Saviour, or forget that apart from him I am nothing, and can do nothing. Open my understanding to know the Holy Scriptures; Reveal to my soul the counsels and works of the blessed Trinity; Instil into my dark mind the saving knowledge of Jesus; Make me acquainted with his covenant undertakings and his perfect fulfilment of them, that by resting on his finished work I may find the Father’s love in the Son, his Father, my Father, and may be brought through thy influence to have fellowship with the Three in One. O lead me into all truth, thou Spirit of wisdom and revelation, that I may know the things that belong unto my peace, and through thee be made anew. Make practical upon my heart the Father’s love as thou hast revealed it in the Scriptures; Apply to my soul the blood of Christ, effectually, continually, and help me to believe, with conscience comforted, that it cleanseth from all sin; Lead me from faith to faith, that I may at all times have freedom to come to a reconciled Father, and may be able to maintain peace with him against doubts, fears, corruptions, temptations. Thy office is to teach me to draw near to Christ with a pure heart, steadfastly persuaded of his love, in the full assurance of faith. Let me never falter in this way.
I love education. I’ve spent the better part of my life in school. I go to universities in order to minister to students. My wife and I homeschool our 9 children and we are about to graduate our two oldest this year. I taught at Trinity Baptist College on campus in Jacksonville, FL and now I teach for them online. StandardSacredText.com exists as a means of education. Education has been and is a huge part of my life.
As part of my academic pursuits I enjoy studying and discussing the philosophy of education. My wife knowing this has recently gifted to me a rather large book entitled, The Great Tradition. This book is an anthology of excerpts from the Great Books of the Western World on the topic of education. The dedication of this books reads,
“To Thomas J. St. Antoine, a teacher with the courage to make students unfit for the modern world.”
The Great Tradition ed. Richard M. Gamble, (Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, 2012), The Dedication.
Perhaps the more skeptical reader would consider the above dedication a kind of Backwoods Manifesto. “What do you mean unfit for the modern world?” “Do you mean unfit for modern medicine or modern automobiles or the 24-hour news cycle?” But these questions miss the point entirely. Rather the point of the above dedication and the point of the book as a whole is to expose and remind the reader of the aim of education. And that aim is to cultivate students in the good, the true, and the beautiful. In other words, not that the student be educated in how to possess an excellent skill but that the student be educated in how to be an excellent soul. Education has become a mere means to getting a job whether that be an engineer, a physician, or a pastor.
This we have abandoned in the modern western education in simple point of fact that we have ignored or rejected the existence of a soul in most of our western educational institutions. Man is no longer considered a soul that has a body, but rather a mere body that has no soul. As such, modern western education has abandoned any meaningful attempt to cultivate excellent souls in America’s students via the good, the true, and the beautiful. And while this abandonment is fitting in order to be modern it is not fitting in order to be human.
May we then have the courage to make students unfit for the modern world.
On the point of the Standard Sacred Text, we hope to give you a glimpse into why we don’t believe it is the old words of the KJV that are the problem. Rather, the problem is that many who read the Bible have been made fitting students of the modern world both in private and Christian educational institutions. We believe the primary social problem in the rejection of a standard sacred text is not the words of the KJV but the systemic failure on the part of most western educational institutions, secular and Christian, to build up and foster excellent souls.
The solution then is to be the kind of teachers and students with the courage sufficient to make and be students unfit for the modern world. And in a world which finds moral standards and theological dogmatism unfit let us begin with the Bible and with a standard sacred text of Scripture.
But the word of the Lord endureth forever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you, 1 Peter 1:25.
“The prophet teaches us, not what the Word of God is in itself, but how we are to think of it. Since man has emptied himself of life, he must look for it outside himself. And Peter tells us on the authority of the prophet, that God’s Word alone possesses the energy and efficacy to bestow upon us whatever is solid and eternal. For the prophet knew that our lives have no stability except in God, and except as he communicates it to us by his Word. Since man’s nature is in itself perishing, the Word himself invests it with eternal life, and restores it by new creation.
And this is the word declared unto you. Peter first warns us that when the Word of God is mentioned, we do wrong to imagine something far away, up in the air or in heaven beyond; for the Lord gives us life; what but the law, the prophets, and the gospel? Anyone who wanders away from the revelation will find, instead of God’s Word, nothing but Satan’s impostures, and madness. Therefore, we must keep carefully in mind that godless and devilish men have a crafty way of pretending to honor God’s Word, when they turn us away from the Scriptures; like that dirty dog Agrippa, who praised the eternity of God’s Word to high heaven, and at the same time heaped mockery on the prophets and apostles; in his deceitful way, he covered the Word of God with derision.
In short, as I have already told you, nothing is said here of a Word shut up in God’s bosom. We have to do with God’s Word which came forth from God’s mouth and was given to us. So once again, we are to acknowledge that God’s will is to speak to us by the mouths of the apostles and prophets, and that their mouths are to us as the mouth of the only true God.
Therefore, when Peter says, the word which has been declared to you, he means not to look for the Word of God anywhere except in the preaching of the gospel; and that we cannot know the power of its eternity except by faith. But we do not believe unless we know that the Word was destined for us.”
John Calvin, “Calvin: Commentaries” in the The Library of Christian Classics: Ichthus Edition, edited by Joseph Haroutunian (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1958), 82-83.
It is interesting to note that Calvin speaks of the Word of God in proximity to God. What is solid and eternal is in God communicated by his Word. The Lord gives us life through the Word – the law, the prophets, and the gospel. That God’s mouth, through the mouths of apostles speaks to us as the mouth of God. Theocentricity is the unmistakable focus of this passage on God’s Word. As you read the posts at StandardSacredText.com you will notice the conspicuous distinction between ourselves and other positions. God as both the Author and Subject, to investigate Scripture or formulate theological or philosophical systems that are not Theocentric is to confound and corrupt the entire investigative enterprise. We believe it is impossible to discuss the Word of God freed from the Author of that Word as if the Scriptures were a separate, isolated locus of investigation. What makes the study of Scripture different from all others is that God as its Author tells us about Himself within its pages. Scripture is God’s special self-revelation of Himself.
In this episode Dr.’s Van Kleeck collaborated with Taylor DeSoto and the Restless and Reformed Podcast to talk about the CBGM and its implications in this two part series.
He will teach us his ways, and we will walk in his paths. Micah 4:2
“Here in a few words the prophet defines true worship of God. For it would not be enough for the nations to come together to one place to confess that they are worshippers of one God if they did not show real obedience. True worship depends on faith, as faith depends on the Word. It is, therefore, especially worthy of note that the prophet here sets God’s Word in the center to show us that religion is founded on obedience in faith, and that God can be worshipped only when he himself teaches his people and tells them what they ought to do. When God’s will is revealed to us, we can truly adore him. When the Word is taken away, some form of worship of God remains, but there is no real religion which could please God.
Hence we conclude that the church of God can be established only where the Word of God rules, where God shows by his voice the way of salvation. Therefore, until true doctrine sheds its light, men cannot be gathered in none place to constitute the true body of the church. Clearly, then, where the teaching is corrupt or is despised, there is no religion approved by God.
Men can, indeed, take God’s name boastfully on their lips; but before God, there is no religion except what is measured by the rule of the Word. It follows then that there is no church which is not subject to God’s Word and is not ruled by it. The prophet here defines both true religion and the way in which God gathers his church together.”
John Calvin, “Calvin: Commentaries” in the The Library of Christian Classics: Ichthus Edition, edited by Joseph Haroutunian (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1958), 79-80.
Reading this passage from Calvin in 2022 creates quite a conundrum for the Church. Is the modern church in fact “measured by the rule of the Word?” This would infer that the Word was a standard against which the church could be measured but as countless posts have indicated, the modern church and the MVO position decries a standard and indeed thrives on the absence of a standard. How then is the modern church, according to Calvin, to determine whether or not it is in the Christian faith tradition? Calvin writes that “there is no church which is not subject to God’s Word and is not ruled by it.” Are we then to conclude from this erudite author and theologian that without a rule or standard, the church is without anything to be measured and is therefore “no church” at all? But must a church have a standard to be measured by to indeed be a church? Can a church be measured by something that is not a standard or rule such as by simple proclamation or self-identification? Can a church be a church in the same manner that a man can self-identify as a woman? In this case, the individual has become the standard by which gender is assigned. Under these circumstances is anyone at liberty to say that a man who self-identifies as a woman remains a man based on physiological chromosomal distinctions no matter what he calls himself. If physiological chromosomal distinctions and Calvin’s “measured by the rule of the Word” are logically congruent, then without the standard of the Word, there is no grounds to call a church a church no matter what anyone else calls it. What remains, however, is not nothing. As Calvin writes, “When the Word is taken away, some form of worship of God remains, but there is no real religion which could please God.” And indeed, some form a worship does remain in America on Sundays in Fundamental and Evangelical MVO churches. The question everyone must ask themselves is whether this traditional practice pleases God. How is it true religion? First, God’s Word must be “in the center to show us that religion is founded on obedience in faith.” Advocates of the MVO position have yet to support an argument that the Viva vox dei, the living voice of God can be heard in modern versions. How then can God’s word be said to be “in the center” when there is profound doubt His word is there at all. And if there is a question of His word being present, how can God be worshipped when it is God himself who “teaches his people and tells them what they ought to do.” If it is not God telling the congregants what to do through the preaching and teaching, who is?
What a pickle.
So next Sunday for our MVO friends, when you walk into a church building, ask yourself, “by what standard can I make the claim that I am going to corporately worship God?” Look down at the Red Flyer wagon stacked with Bibles you pull behind yourself up the steps into the vestibule and ask yourself whether this cacophony of Bibles is that to which the church is subject and is ruled by. If you say yes, my wagon load is the standard, then ask yourself how a distinction is made between textual variations and what Calvin calls “corrupt” teaching where “there is no religion approved by God.” For example, if someone says, “the last twelve verses of Mark do not belong in the Bible,” is that speech corrupt teaching or merely an alternative form of self-identifying Christianity? Furthermore, if the omission is true to the facts and that is why it does not belong, why is it there at all? If the version says, “The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20” and draw a dividing line between verse 8 and 9, is this inference that the passage should be omitted a corruption of the text or simply the message of a re-modeled, self-identified Christianity?
How about introducing an ecclesiastical category in the Olympics for MVO churches? It’s a sure bet they would win the Gold Medal.
We are in agreement with our opposition that the revealed word of God has come down to us today in different forms, iterations, and refinements. Where is seems we disagree is on the point that many forms, iteration, and refinements cannot all be the word of God at the same time and in the same way.
At one point all that existed of the written words of God were the first five books written by Moses, but not long after that we get the book of Joshua then Judges and on and on until the whole Old Testament was complete. At the time of Moses, the Pentateuch was the written canon of Scripture but by the time of Ezra it was not. The Pentateuch was only a portion of the canon. To say that the Pentateuch was the whole canon at the time of Ezra would be to reject God’s revealed word in the other 34 books of the OT. Then for the entire intertestimental period, the canon of Scripture was those 39 books of the OT.
Then about half way through the first century AD the first book of the NT canon was written. Most think that I Corinthians was that book. At that point the canon was the OT and 1 Corinthians. Then 20 or so years later we get the Gospels and by the end of the first century all of the books of the NT were written, thus adding to the original 39 OT books, the 27 NT books.
If at any point we are to say that the Pentateuch is the whole canon or the OT is the whole canon or the OT + 1 Corinthians is the whole canon then we would be rejecting the word of God as it appears in the other books of the NT.
We now exist in an ecclesiastical climate where the question is not one of whole books but of whole passages, whole verses, and whole words, but it is still the same kind of animal. We are being told that different forms, iteration, and refinements of the English Bible are equally the whole of God’s canonical word because they are sufficiently reliable for salvation or some such low bar. This is no different in principle than saying, “The Pentateuch alone is the whole of God’s canonical word because it is sufficiently reliable for salvation.” The primary difference between these two statements is merely one of quantity of words.
The point is that we have become Marcionites. Now, we don’t, as Marcion did, remove words from Scripture because we think the God of the OT is not the Christian God. Rather, we remove words from Scripture because scholar’s think the Church should think material like the story of the woman caught in adultery should not be in the Bible.
So we proliferate versions of the Bible in English in order to proliferate the image of intellectual man via syncretism all the while saying that different forms, iterations, and refinements are equally God’s word all at the same time. Most evangelicals wouldn’t dare remove God from the picture but they most certainly would and do come right along side of God and assert their scholarly interpretation of the manuscript evidence while informing us that it is both godly and intellectual to accept their opinion.
In sum, on the one hand, scholarship believes itself to have become the mouthpiece of God. How? They claim to have the power, implicitly and explicitly, to tell the Church what is or is not the New Testament and therefore what is or is not the word of God. We, on the other hand, believe much of the modern evangelical text-critical machine to be in this regard something more approximate to the mouthpiece of Sauron.
Standard Sacred Text.com 