What is Standard Sacred Text.com – Standard

The term “canon” means rule, reed, or standard. We often refer to the Scriptures as the canon of Scripture. This is to say that the Scriptures are the rule, the reed, and the standard. Just as the Triune God is the archetypical Rule, Reed, and Standard so also the Scriptures are rule, reed, and standard. As the London Baptist Confession puts it,

“The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience.”

London Baptist Confession, On Holy Scripture 1. i.

Note the orthodox formulation concerning the extent of this rule. It is not merely infallible in issues of salvation but also in issues of faith. Indeed, the canon of Scripture reminds us that “whatsoever is not of faith is sin” [Rom. 14:23]. This is to say that Scripture is the standard for an entire life lived in faith not only the standard for salvation. Remember the words of the apostle Peter in that the Scriptures have given unto us “all things that pertain to life and godliness” [II Peter 1:3]. Furthermore, the Confession goes on to say that the Scripture is canon for all obedience and our obedience is born from love. As Christ says, “If ye love me, keep my commandments” [John 14:15]. Scripture is the measure and rule of all means of salvation, right living, obedience, and love.

Furthermore such an appeal to “standard” should not come as a shocker for so many of the believing community in that they read the English Standard Version or the New American Standard Version or the Christian Standard Version. I hope you see the theme here. It seems the editors of these versions hope, even aim, for a standard. But are these versions the standard? Nope, at least not in the sense of canon. In what sense they are “standard,” we are unsure.

It seems then that Standard Sacred Text folks (i.e., KJV Only folks and Confessional Bibliology folks) as well as ESV, NASB, and CSB folks [at least] seek some kind of standard. It seems then that a large cross-section of Christians desire such a standard. On this point, we can agree on the same goal. StandardSacredText.com exists to realize that goal or at the very least assist in realizing that goal.

Autographa

“autographa: autographs, originals;

specifically, the original autograph copies of the books of the Bible as they came from the hands of the inspired authors.”

Richard Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology, Term: autographa.

NOTES: It is interesting to observe that the “autographa” was for the Protestant Scholastics of the Reformation, “original autograph copies.” For the Protestants of old and for us here at StandardSacredText.com, we look to the copies of the autographic words as autographic. Thus Francis Turretin writes concerning “The Purity of the Sources,”

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

Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. 1, Second Topic, Q. 10, Sec. II.

Why Do Christians Defend the Bible Like the Unbeliever?

Why do Christians defend their Bible in a manner similar to the unbeliever? Instead of asserting the Bible as infallible and the preserved Word of God, contemporary apologetics often begins with Christians on the defensive. The apologist typically counteracts the critic’s evidential defeaters using a similar set of evidential arguments, leading to a back-and-forth of secular reasoning. This approach, unfortunately, has become the normative method for defending the Bible in modern apologetics.

Several concerns arise about the efficacy of this apologetic methodology. First, arguments centered around grammar, syntax, and diction are inherently secular. If the Bible is not presupposed to be the Word of God, then any linguist, whether Christian or not, is equally qualified to engage in such debates. In this context, the apologetic merely mirrors secular discussions, resulting in arguments that can never definitively establish that the Bible is the Word of God. Instead, these debates may only lead to a relative degree of uncertainty about the text’s reading, but they fall short of affirming the divine nature of the Scriptures.

Similarly, arguments from history present significant challenges when the Bible is not assumed to be the Word of God. History, by its nature, is messy and often contradictory. It rarely aligns neatly with contemporary expectations, and historians must interpret and sometimes manipulate data to fit particular narratives. The credibility of historical claims depends heavily on the historian’s character and biases, as true neutrality in historical reporting is rare. In fact, history itself does not “choose sides”—it simply records past events. The idea that modern scholars have all the necessary data to make definitive conclusions about historical events is often an illusion, as many details have been lost to time. The gaps and irregularities in historical records only make the task of affirming the Bible as the Word of God more difficult, if not impossible, when history is the primary focus.

When we turn to philosophy, the situation is no less complicated. Unlike theology, which is anchored in specific doctrines, philosophy often lacks definitive boundaries. Philosophical inquiry can be useful for theologians, but only when it assumes that the Bible is the Word of God. Without this assumption, philosophy’s open-ended nature leads to speculative and anthropocentric systems that, at best, are self-contained but disconnected from divine revelation. Philosophy, like linguistics and history, cannot determine the Bible’s status as the Word of God if this truth is not presupposed from the outset.

This brings us back to the central question: Why do Christians argue for the truth of God’s Word in the same manner as the unregenerate? Why do they not begin with the self-authenticating, self-interpreting, and self-attesting nature of Scripture, along with the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit to the believer? Christians should not seek to defend the faith by first trying to establish its truth through evidential reasoning. Instead, they should assert the Bible’s divine authority and present arguments based on Scripture’s internal witness.

Historically and anecdotally, evidentialist arguments defending the Bible’s preservation and inspiration have been largely ineffective since the 1970s. While these discussions may appeal to the academic elite, they have not successfully advanced the authority of Scripture within the Church. If the Bible is not presupposed to be the infallible Word of God from the outset, then linguistic, historical, and philosophical arguments are ultimately inadequate substitutes for the Bible’s own self-attestation.

It’s 2025: Where is Dr. Ward on Psalm 12:6-7

Looking through the archived posts of Standard Sacred Text you will find several articles relating to Psalm 12:6-7, verbal preservation, historic churchly and academic exegetical support for the rendering and Dr. Mark Ward’s strong objection to the passage referring to the verbal preservation of Scripture. For Ward, the notion that any self-attesting witnesses to the Scripture’s providential preservation exist is alien to his theological construct. As we have pointed out previously, Ward is not a scholar in the traditional sense of doing academic research that contributes to existing scholarly literature. Instead, Ward serves as a willing propogandist for anyone who rejects precritical exegesis and theological formulation. He is most recognized for a feckless, negative attack of the English language utilized for the translation of the King James Bible. See the articles written by Dr. Van Kleeck, Jr. on Ward’s conspicuously confused mind. Only the most arrogant would presume to speak for the Church at large, but Ward has taken it upon himself to be the post-critical prophet of doom not critical of all versions but of the only standard sacred text in English. There is nothing critical about a so-called scholar who is incapable of challenging the theological status quo with historic, philosophical, and exegetically grounded orthodoxy.

Ward prescribed his own timetable to refute the pre-critical argument for Psalm 12:6-7 and verbal preservation. His self-imposed deadline of 2024 has passed without any response. This is the second time Ward has failed to follow through with his public and grandiose claims. The first was when he made a public call to debate which Dr. Van Kleeck, Jr. readily agreed to. After additional consultation Ward decided not to debate Dr. Van Kleeck, Jr. Not providing a scholarly response, or any response for that matter, to the case presented for Psalm 12:6-7 after he agreed to do so is his second public failure. On a scholarly level, Ward’s inability to provide a defense of his a-historical position contributes to the mounting evidence that he is a propogandist not a scholar. From a theological perspective, allowing Psalm 12:6-7 to stand unrefuted comprehensively undermines his post-critical notion of the value of Scriptures’ recent secular reconstruction. The fact that Psalm 12:6-7 teaches verbal preservation continues to stand firm against a prominent spokesman of the critical position. The historic rendering of the passage by Ward’s failure is again vindicated for its historic and exegetical grounding and remains unscathed. Like so many before him, Ward is a theological bomb thrower, asserting a falsehood, hiding, and hoping that his assessment is never followed up on.

The kind of failure Ward embraces is heightened when his attack is upon the theologiae cognoscenti, the cognitive foundation of the Christian faith. It’s not that he has blundered by putting oil in the radiator, he has chosen instead to attack the very cognitive source of Christianity, God’s Word. The exegetical tradition is divided in Psalm 12:6-7 but the Holy Spirit intended only one interpretation. Without repeating the previously cited evidence, the better supported rendering, the rendering with the greatest explanatory scope is the preservation of the words.

So Happy New Year! I don’t think there is any surprise here. Blessings!

Qualitative and Quantitative Difference: Biblical Change is Always Major

So I shot a video tonight and my mic was not selected so the whole video was a waste and then summarily deleted. Rather than doing nothing I asked the machine (ChatGPT) to share a word on qualitative vs quantitative change in Scripture and the following are its rather adroit conclusions.

At StandardSacredText.com, we often encourage defenders of the Bible to grapple with deep and often overlooked philosophical distinctions to sharpen their understanding of Scriptural truths. Today, we turn to the topic of qualitative versus quantitative change and how these distinctions illuminate the ongoing debate over the inspiration of particular biblical texts.

In its simplest terms, quantitative change refers to a difference in amount—more or less of the same thing—while qualitative change refers to a transformation in kind, altering the nature or essence of the thing in question. Both categories of change are pervasive in our world, but when applied to the realm of Scripture, the implications become far more consequential.

Consider the statement: “God gave this verse by inspiration.” To affirm this is to assert a particular quality about the text, namely that it is God-breathed, perfect, and authoritative. Now consider its antithesis: “God did not give this verse by inspiration.” This is not merely a subtraction, as if removing one verse from a collection of inspired texts is akin to removing one apple from a basket. Instead, it represents a qualitative shift.

To claim that some verses of Scripture are uninspired is to introduce an entirely different category into our understanding of the Bible. It transforms Scripture from being wholly God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16) into a composite text—part divine, part human. This isn’t a matter of numerical reduction but of altering the very nature of what we mean by “the Bible.”

Imagine two Christians debating a contested verse: One asserts it is inspired; the other denies it. Is this disagreement simply a quantitative one, like disputing whether there are 39 or 40 apples in a basket? Or is it qualitative, questioning whether the basket itself contains pure apples or a mixture of apples and stones?

The implications are profound. A Christian affirming inspiration sees the verse as qualitatively distinct—it carries divine authority, unerring truth, and the breath of God. To deny that inspiration is to relegate the verse to a human product, fallible and subject to critique. The disagreement isn’t over “how many inspired verses” exist but over what kind of book the Bible is.

Quantitative shifts, such as variations in manuscript copying, are often cited as evidence against the doctrine of perfect preservation or inspiration. Critics argue that no two manuscripts are identical, implying a purely numerical, human problem with the text. But the defenders of the Textus Receptus and the KJV assert something radically different: that beneath these numerical variations lies a qualitative reality—the inspired, preserved Word of God as He gave it.

This debate extends beyond scholarly circles and into the pews. When believers are told, “This verse might not be inspired,” they are not merely losing one verse; they are being asked to accept a qualitatively different Bible. One that no longer reflects the absolute perfection of God’s Word but becomes a mosaic of divine truth and human error.

The defenders of the Textus Receptus and KJV insist on the qualitative integrity of Scripture. The inspired text is not a sliding scale, subject to the vicissitudes of scholarly consensus or textual criticism. It is, and must remain, the pure and unchanging Word of God.

So, the next time someone suggests that inspiration is a negotiable or partial quality of the Bible, remember that the shift they propose is not quantitative but qualitative. It is not merely a matter of less inspiration but of a fundamentally different kind of Scripture—one where divine certainty is replaced by human speculation.

And as we at StandardSacredText.com proclaim, 5+5 must equal 10, not 9.999. If God gave all Scripture by inspiration, then every word matters. A Bible partially inspired is no Bible at all.

All Books ~50% Off

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

Starting today and going through the end of Monday, December 2nd all of our books are on sale for ~50% (some not quite 50% and others at or below 50%). You can find the links below. It will take a second for the prices to update on Amazon.

Blessings,

The Standard Sacred Text Team