If you ever visit the Nation’s Capital, you will want to visit the Holocaust Museum just south of independence Ave SW. The walk through three stories of exhibits is a sobering and visceral reminder of the unspeakable evil that resides in the heart of man. In a previous post entitled “Time to Get in the Fight” we addressed the endorsement of Hitler as God’s choice to lead the German nation by the German Evangelical church and theological scholars. In this post we want to drill down a little further into the theological underpinnings of this ecclesiastical and academic support.

For over 50 years the historical-critical method was the means of theological formulation. History had replaced the inspired apograph and the new hermeneutic in Germany. Hans Frei, in his book Types of Christian Theology observes of the German theological compromise in accepting Nazism, writes “In dogmatics they asserted the indispensable methodological coherence of autonomous anthropology, the fruit of reflexive analysis of subjectivity and of the contemporary culture, with a biblical doctrine of God’s relation to man.”

Frei notes that two things about the theological dogmatics of that era: the methodological coherence of, 1. “autonomous anthropology;” and 2. a biblical doctrine of “God’s relation to man” or providence. “Autonomous anthropology” speaks to the historical one-dimensional man, who in his autonomy was no longer under the authority of God. Providence speaks of God’s work in history in the affairs of men. The theology of the “contemporary culture” of which Frei writes was one of the abasements of pre-critical Protestant Orthodox theological structures and the adoption of autonomous methods for the formulation of anthropology and God’s providence. Of this “methodological coherence,” Frei continues,

“They then quite logically united this dogmatic compromise to a similar political-theological one for which (again) God made himself known in Scripture but also in the special vocation, culture, and laws of particular nations at particular times.” (Frei calls the compromise “political-theological,” but history bears out the political overriding and crushing of the theological.)

Expanding “autonomous anthropology” to include the realm of the political, Frei identifies a “political-theological” compromise making a theological way for God to speak through Scripture but also through providence which he describes in terms of “special vocation, culture, and laws of particular nations at particular times.” This led to “the Nazi intrusion into the Church,” the “fanatical ‘German Christian Movement’ which envisioned Naziism as the fulfillment of Christianity” and that in 1933 Hitler’s rise to power called the “national renewal was being acclaimed as divinely sanctioned.”

In 1934 Germany, “God making himself known in Scripture” was a rejection of pre-critical categories of a preserved, inspired Word and an attempt to reconstruct the Scripture according to historical critical parameters. The compromise Frei speaks of was between a critically formulated text and a notion of providence in terms of a God’s oversight of a particular nation at a particular time, or the rise of Nazi Germany. While perhaps on an ecclesiastical level this was a compromise, from the academy’s perspective, the text and providence complemented each other. There was no Scripture to stand above the German church to hold it accountable for its misguided notion of providence. Autonomously reconstructed Scripture simply affirmed the church’s autonomous interpretation of providence. As the possession of the Church, the Scripture confirmed a political view of providence.

How treacherous, then, is the historical critical method, when the Scripture becomes subservient to the Church, having lost its transcendent qualities by being subjected to historical limitations and reconstructed according to proportional standards? when the text can be rendered to support the most misguided of political atrocities?

This leads to the question, “Can the Bible you read speak in terms beyond its collation or historical critical construction?” The advocate of the KJV can say yes. In the text you hear the viva Vox Dei, the living voice of God which surpasses all historical limitations. New versions, however, are manmade. Are they able to speak to issues that surpass their origin? The answer must be no. The scientific method confirms the object predicated by the subject. Because the subject, or critic, cannot create something that surpasses his capabilities, the predicate is unable to surpass its source. This is to say, that modern versions are limited to the historical. Distributivity, or there are parts where there is overlap between the preserved Word of God and the critical text, but collectively, or Canonically, the preserved Word of God is the viva Vox Dei, and the critical text is manmade.  

Canonically, the bibles accepted by MVOism are manmade documents limited to the historical. This “autonomous anthropology” in bible creation and acceptance is the first step to repeating history. Next, is moving autonomous anthropology into the political sphere because of some providential cultural or national event. After that, a collective autonomous theological or ecclesiastical declaration is all that remains to affirm that the politics of the day are providentially ordained of God, and that the “national renewal was being acclaimed as divinely sanctioned” no matter how horrendous. When you read “horrendous” think of it in terms of 1934 Germany rendered, “good for us all.” The table has been set. Now we wait for the invitations to be sent and for the guests to arrive.

The teaching and preaching the KJV has kept America free, and now many have forsaken the Bible that has kept us free. If you get to Washington DC, make plans to visit the Holocaust Museum. You will get to know yourself and your fellow man better.

Hans Frei, Types of Christian Theology (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992), 154-157.

Under “The Principles of Divinity,” Trelcatius introduces his two-fold method for the study of Theology. His method of moving from the Cause to the Effect and from the Effect to the Cause in modern terms is both Deductive and Inductive, a priori and a posteriori. Divinity, he writes for both approaches “holdeth the first and principal place.”

The subject of this Theological wisdom are matters divine, both for their nature, and the manner of considering: for whereas a Subject hath two parts, the one that containeth the place of the matter, and is called the thing considered: the other of the form and is the manner of considering it: we observe then both in the explication of the subject. The thing considered is God himself, and all things disposed unto God, that is all things divine, either of their own nature or by revelation unto God. The manner of things considering is proportional to God’s truth, even the whole truth, and every part thereof alike (or equally) infused, fitted to the dignity of the deliverer to the nature of the argument, as also to the condition of those to whom it is delivered.

And this is the nature and verity of Divinity: now we will briefly show the Method of our Instruction concerning the same.

There is a two-fold Method of teaching, the one from the Principle, the other unto the Principles, the one a Priori preceding from the Cause to the Effect, and from the first and highest to the lowest and the last. The other a Posteriori, proceeding from the Effect to the Cause, or from the last and lowest to the highest and first. The use of the former is chiefest and sciences contemplative, of the latter, in the practice (or active.)

Now whereas Divinity in both these holdeth the first and principal place (by reason thereof some have distinguished into Contemplative and Active) and for that it affordeth a faculty both of knowing and doing well, which is the right way of wisdom. It hath fallen out that Divinity hath been handled in a diverse Method by diverse men, yet by all of them profitably and faithfully.

For whereas all order is taken either from the nature of things to be considered, or from the better and easier knowledge thereof, Calvin, Melancthon, Ursinus, have done well who observed an order of their better knowledge in a method, unfolding by way of analysis. I like manner Hiperius Musculus, Hemingius, Zanchius, have done well observing the order of Nature in a Method of composing and couching things handsomely together. We in this Institution [Leiden] will join both together, borrowing from the Method of unfolding in the invention of the same, that from both the full Divinity which we have in hand may arise.

Therefore by an order Synthetical (as we term it) we begin from the first Principles, that by means we may come to the last. But we will set down a declaration such as we call Analytical, of the first, middle, and last things. First we teach the truth by way of confirmation, then in reproving falsehood by way of confrontation: that, by the help and benefit of every point of Divinity, and by the Analysis of the same, through causes thereof: but this is, by the Appendix (or addition) of the general solutions, which we lay under every place (or point) and set against the principal arguments of our adversaries, especially Bellarmine: this is the Method.

Trelcatius hits upon two pivotal issues when discussing Scripture. First, Bibliology as a portion of the larger body of Theology is essentially Theocentric. The study and defense of Scripture is included when Trelcatius writes “The thing being considered is God himself, and all things disposed to God.” Secondly, he deals with the manner of considering of how Theology should be considered. He writes that the way the Scripture should be considered must be “proportional to God’s truth” which would be to consider the revelation of God to be absolutely true.

In this brief excerpt Trelcatius explains his Theological method including deductive and inductive reasoning, first Principles being primary, the topic under consideration, God himself, and the proper manner to consider God and his revelation proportional to what God says about himself, a good method for any theological discourse or Theological writing.

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), 5-8.

In the early 60’s when I was learning to read, it was a big deal when my Dad asked if I wanted to read the Bible for family devotions. That was when the King James Version was just the Bible before we were aware of something as ludicrous as making a new one. Since elementary school, I have been reading the King James Bible, memorizing the King James Bible, doing Bible Drills with the King James Bible, (you have to know all the books of the Bible in sequence) and listening to others preach out of the King James Bible, and I would say, probably most believers in their 60’s had similar experiences.

So along come my sons and daughter in the late 70’s, early 80’s and 90’s and when they were old enough, they read the King James Bible for family devotions. Now my elementary school grandkids read the King James Bible for family devotions. Five generations altogether and four generations of elementary school age kids have grown up reading the King James Bible in family devotions.

I have said many times that reading the King James Bible when I was a kid made me a better reader overall. Reading Scripture in family devotions moved you as a by-stander to an active participant. And not only a participant, but one who shared in providing the most important part of family devotions, hearing what God had to say to us in his word. It was a big deal. Sure, everyone gets help, but in a surprisingly short amount of time, reading the King James Bible was like riding a bike. It’s challenging when you’re young, but it’s the challenge that makes you better. This happened at family devotions after the evening family supper. Everybody’s schedule is different, but this was ours. The Dads are always there to help. There is no earthly influence with more power than a godly Dad.

This bit of reminiscing prompted me to wonder, “Do MVOists sing ‘The B-I-B-L-E, yes that’s the Book for me? I stand alone on the Word of God, the B-I-B-L-E!’” We’ve sung the chorus in Sunday School, Bible School, and summer camp. In the current post-critical milieu, is the popular chorus still in vogue? or has it undergone historical critical clarification and now exists in one of its multiple iterations and revisions. Is “yes that’s the book for me” overly dogmatic and presumptuous? I suspect one iteration might go as follows, The B-I-B-L-E-A-D- I-N-F-I-N-I-T-U-M, Yes, those are the versions for me! I stand on all of the versions I call the word of God, the B-I-B-L-E-A-D-I-N-F-I-N-I-T-U-M!

Blessings!

Those following Standard Sacred Text have noted that our defense is modeled after the Apostle Paul’s instruction to the church in Corinth in 1 Cor. 2 with special reference to verse 14. There are essentially only two methods of argumentation not only for the Biblical text but for all things considered – the Spiritual, or that governed by the Spirit in and by the word and the natural, without the Spirit, man functioning in his fallen, natural state. There is no middle or common ground between the two methods. The present textual debate enigma is that those who would make a personal claim to be Spiritual have succumbed to natural arguments for their flavor of the defense of the Faith once delivered unto the saints.

Since my first venture into the KJV debate in the 80’s certain patterns have emerged coming from MVOists. It is important to note that every objection is limited by the capacity of the opponent to formulate one, but among these variables, one factor remains consistent. For the KJB position the Scripture’s self-authentication confirms the object (Scripture’s authority) predicated by the subject (the KJB advocate). To make the case for the KJB nothing needs to be borrowed from a contrary position to find common ground, because the KJB position is self-contained. Other issues are discussed but not out of necessity. Allowing the Word and Spirit to speak for themselves is consistent with Paul’s admonition in 1 Cor. 2.

This however is not the case for objectors. Because the objection confirms only the object (or argument) predicated by the subject (the objector) it is impossible that the objection remotely relates to the self-contained KJB position unless the objector borrows some common ground between the objection and that which is objected against, or, for the sake of discussion, the KJB defender allows an exchange for some didactic purpose. Standing apart from the Word and Spirit this line of argumentation falls under the paradigm of natural. Because there is no common ground between the Spiritual and natural, the natural argument must borrow elements of the Spiritual argument to enter the sphere of a Biblical discussion. The natural perspective possesses no Spiritual elements.

The critical biblical polemic is like showing up on a baseball field with a football and trying to make the case for the fallacy of homeruns while pressing the point for field goals. To be relevant, with football in hand, some element of baseball is borrowed, such as both football and baseball use balls, to make the natural premise credible. The single point of contact may be similar, but the games are entirely different. This borrowing, no matter how minimal, argues against or at least marginalizes the credibility of the initial objection. The objector must borrow from a self-contained apologetic system he is attempting to prove invalid by utilizing the system he is trying to prove invalid.

But one might protest, how can you claim that it is impossible that the number of paperback books critical of the KJB only remotely relate or do not relate at all to Standard Sacred Text apologia for the KJB? A cursory review of the literature will quickly show a pedantic, redundant, evidential similarity of such consistency that the whole can be lumped into one genre reminiscent of the Byzantine “text type.” There are not a host of arguments critical of the KJB; rather, there is one evidential conglomerate published ad infinitum critical of the KJB with such consistency as to be predictable and with such frequency as to be worn out. The monolithic objection only confirms the object (or argument) predicated by the subject, which in this case is plural subjects. Our answer to claims of success to the overthrow of the KJB is simply, “Of course you end up with that answer if that is where you start” because the scientific method confirms the object predicated by the subject. If you make the rules, you can win the game, as if forgetting God has already given his Rule to which all lesser rules must yield. Any capacity of the critic to relate to the self-contained apologetic system of the self-authenticating text must borrow elements from the system being disparaged. The protest is thus answered.

For instance, manuscript evidence is vitally important to an evidential defense of the quantified canonical collating process but is secondary or tertiary to the self-contained argument of Scripture’s own self-authentication. We greatly appreciate the work but the argument for evidence will only confirm the object predicated by the subject and within these self-imposed limits is merely sectarian and provincial, secondary, and tertiary to Scripture’s claims for itself. Furthermore, there is no common ground between the relativity of the proposed evidence and the absolute certainty of God’s word. The evidence only becomes valid as it aligns itself with the self-authenticating Word. If the critic is to locate common ground, something about the certainty of God’s word must be borrowed to create a bridge to the evidence, because certainty does not exist in the critical world.

This “something” is highly problematic to the critic. Consider the following example, “I do not believe the minority reading can be self-attesting.” In this statement we identify a splendid example of an evidentialist borrowing from the KJB apologetic by using the term “self-attesting” thereby establishing a bridge between the two positions. The relative use of percentages and numbers common to evidential arguments are foreign to the terms the Bible uses for itself, but in this statement the relative use of numbers is tied with the pre-critical argument for Scripture’s self-attestation, which by definition means, it does not need numbers or percentages to validate its Authority. Though the statement was not developed, are we to assume then, that a majority reading is self-attesting? Once self-attestation is integral to the argument, the full weight of Protestant Orthodox theology comes to bear on the evidence, but this is not what the evidentialist asks for. Indeed, if it were, they would cease being an evidentialist altogether. And if not inferring the majority reading is self-attesting why say it at all?

How then should one proceed considering this bridge? The idea of a “bridge” begs the question “A bridge to what?” or “Common ground to what purpose?” As noted above, the bridge is necessary for the critic to have a perceived impact upon the self-contained nature of a KJB defense but does not seem intended to provide the common ground of congruence or agreement as noted in continuing discussion. After all, the critic is standing on a baseball field with a football saying, “Listen to me. I have a ball!” The bridge is therefore only conceptual, a device to borrow apologetic credibility for an evidential system incapable of achieving its goal of determining what is and is not Scripture.

The solution is a change in logical sequence of the critic’s debate. For the critic, the change does not require a change in the strength of the evidence, only a subjugation of the evidence to the self-attesting Word. This change of sequencing accepts the self-contained argument for the self-attesting Word as primary while providing credible secondary evidential support for the self-attesting word. And this change in sequence is not an insurmountable dilemma, having already identified the value of borrowed pre-critical categories, no matter how slight, for objections against the pre-critical apologetic.

Because the scientific method confirms the object predicated by the subject, the scientific method by any definition is incapable of relating to the word of God just as the natural man considers the things of the Spirit foolishness. If you want to call the critical text, the majority text, the XYZ text the word of God, as the word of God, the next line in the discussion must be, the text is the self-attesting, self-authenticating, self-interpreting canonical collation of the preserved apograph. After borrowing these words from the Standard Sacred Text defense of the TR/KJB there would indeed be common ground for additional discussion. But until then, the critic with his football must retire to the bleachers, or head over to the football field, while those who have come to enjoy America’s pastime, cruise over in their Chevy Corvette, enjoy a hotdog at the concessions stand and in the warm summer breeze hear the words, “Batter up!” Blessings!