What are the most potent objections to the CT/MVO position?

In like manner to a prior post, what are the most potent objections to the critical text/ Multiple-Version onlyist position? Certainly, there may be objections in general, but which objections serve as defeaters? That is, what objections either rebut their claims to the point of crippling the whole system which can only be maintained at the expense of being reasonable or undercut their position to the point of disintegration or collapse? If the goal is to locate God’s divine inspired words, I believe some such objections may be:

1.) Engaging in the enterprise of textual criticism without allowing one’s Christian presuppositions to guide the process. Modern textual criticism done by Christians is not a distinctly Christian enterprise. As such it is subject to the same rebutting and undercutting defeaters leveled against atheism, naturalism, and secularism [e.g., diminishing probabilities, provinciality of abduction, no objective standard for good, ungrounded epistemological standards, etc.].

2.) Operating as if there was not/is not a standard sacred Greek and Hebrew which the believing community has affirmed over the centuries and using that standard text as the starting point for supposed further developments. Christian textual critics should have a bias toward the text used by God’s people. A-biblical Archimedean Points are inherently self-refuting, self-defeating.

William Perkins, 1604, on the Inspiration, Preservation and Canonicity of Holy Scripture as the foundation for Preaching

CHAP III

Of the Word of God

The perfect and equal object of Preaching is the Word of God, (or, the word of God is the whole and only matter, about which preaching is exercised: it is the field in which the Preacher must contain himself). Luke 16:29, They have Moses and the Prophets, let them hear them. Matt. 23:2, The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses chair, that is, they teach the doctrine of Moses which they do profess. 3. All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do.

The Word of God is the wisdom of God concerning the truth, which is according unto godliness descending from above. James 3:17, But the wisdom, which is from above is first pure, etc. Titus 1:1, Paul a servant of God – according to the acknowledging of the truth, which is according to godliness.

Admirable is the excellency of the Word, which is evident partly by the nature thereof, partly by operation.

The excellency of the nature is either the perfection thereof, or the eternity.

The perfection is either the sufficiency or the purity. The sufficiency is that, whereby the word of God is so complete, that nothing may be either put to it, or taken from it, which appertaineth to the proper end thereof. Psalm 19:7, The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. Deut. 12:32, Whatsoever I command you, take heed ye do it: thou shalt put nothing thereto, nor take aught therefrom. Rev. 22:18, 19.

The purity thereof is, whereby it remaineth entire in itself, void of deceit and error. Psalm 12:6, The words of the Lord are pure words, as silver tried in a furnace of earth, fined seven times.

The eternity of the word is that, whereby it abideth inviolable and cannot pass until all, which it commandeth, be fully accomplished, Matt. 5:18.

The excellency of the operation is that, whereby it is endowed with virtue; first to discern the spirit of man, Heb, 4:12, For the word of God is lively, and mighty in operation, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and entereth through even to the dividing asunder of the soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and discerneth the thoughts and intents of the heart. James 4:12, There is one Law-giver, who is able to save and to destroy. Isa. 33:21, The Lord is our Judge, the Lord is our Law-giver, the Lord is our King, he will save us. To bind the conscience is to constrain it either to accuse us or excuse of of sin before God.

The Word is in the holy Scripture.

The Scripture is the word of God written in the language fit for the Church by men immediately called to be Clerks or Secretaries of the holy Ghost. 2 Peter 1:21, For prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as there were carried and moved by the holy Ghost.

It is called Canonical, because it is as it were the Canon, that is to say, a Rule or Line, of the Master workman, by the help whereof the truth is both first and to be found out, and also afterwards to be examined. Gal. 6:16, And as many as walk according to this Canon or Rule. Therefore, the supreme and absolute determination and judgment of the controversies of the Church ought to be given unto it.

William Perkins, The Art of Prophesying: A Treatise Concerning the Sacred and Only True Manner and Method of Preaching (Imprinted at London by Felix Kyngston for E.E. and are to be sold in Pauls Church-yard at the sign of the Swan, 1607), 4-7.

Charles Drillincourt, 1658, on Scripture’s Self-Interpretation

Papist: That the Word of God contained in the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testaments, is not the rule of all Verity, since you yourself confess that you hold many things which are not found in the Divine Books.

Protestant: You have already made this objection, and I think I have sufficiently answered it, but seeing it pleaseth you so much, I will (to satisfy you) examine it once more. To demonstrate the vanity of your argument, I take notice, that you cut off the essential words of the Article. For it is thus, that the Word of God contained in the Canonical books of the Old and New Testament, is the rule of all verity, containing all that is necessary to the service of God and our salvation. But it is clearer than the sun, that the Word of God must regulate all sorts of truths; and that all that of which it makes not mention, is false and a lie. A man must be more than distracted of his wits, who should have such a foolish and extravagant thought. There are many things of which we are assured by the senses; some things we learn by histories, which have been written from age to age and some things we know by the report of others, and by our own experiences.

In fine. There is a multitude of things, whereof the Word of God makes no mention at all, either explicitly, or implicitly. Therefore, we say in the Fifth Article of our Confession of Faith, That the Word of God is the rule of all truth, we understand it of every Gospel truth, and of the very truth which concerns the Faith, and is necessary to Salvation. As the same Article clearly explains it, by adding immediately after that, it contains all that is necessary to the service of God, and our Salvation.

Moreover, (as I have already observed) you must carefully distinguish betwixt the rule and the thing regulated thereby. The rule is the Word of God, and the thing regulated, is the Doctrine of our Salvation and the service of God. All that is squared by this rule; all that is contained in this Divinely inspired Scripture, or may be drawn thence by evident and necessary consequence, we embrace in with the entire Obedience of Faith. On the contrary, we reject whatsoever is not squared by this rule, whatsoever is contrary to, or that no conformity or agreement with the Word of God. And we value it not at all, how fair a show soever it may have of piety and devotion….

Whatsoever is necessary to salvation, clearly and expressly in the holy Scripture. If there be any thing of this nature, which is less clear in one place, it is sufficiently explained in another. And Scripture is interpreted by Scripture itself. God hath provided for our salvation in such sort, and hath disposed his Oracles with such admirable wisdom, that not only the precepts of faith and piety, but also those of Regeneration and Holiness of life are clear and easy to understand.

Charles Drillincourt, The Protestant’s Self-Defense or a Discourse Between a Papist and Protestant wherein the disagreement of the Popish Religion, and the agreement of the Protestant with Scripture, is plainly proved to the meanest capacity, 2 Edition, (London: Printed for Tho. Parkhurst, at the Bible and Three Crowns near Mercers-Chappel, at the lower end of Cheapside, 1685.), 159-161.

It’s Time for New Christmas Songs

The following Christmas songs come from the Trinity Hymnal save the last three which come from the Baptist Hymnal. Songs have served as a source of tradition for the church over the centuries. And not only have they served as a source of tradition, but that tradition has given to us a cultural language. Wherever the church is, and until the coming of Christ, the church is a subculture of the greater culture, whether national or global. And like every other subculture the church has its own language, its own lingo.

As of late though there has been a call to change the language of our ecclesiastical parlance because it is not like the words we regularly use in day-to-day interactions. What is more, some of the words found in the traditional language of the church are hard to understand or are thought to be understood but are not. As a result, there has been a call by few to change the churches version of the Bible. Advocating for such a change not only asks for a new version of the Bible, which is worthy of robust discussion in itself, it is also attempting to change the language of the ecclesiastical subculture of the English-speaking world. Which is problematic in itself, but what makes matters worse is that the state of the Bible in America is one that is constantly shifting to this or that version so there really is no longer a common parlance among English-speaking ecclesiastical subcultures.

All that said, most of us are still going to sing or hear sung, if you haven’t already, one or two songs listed below. I love Christmas songs. I think we should sing some of them all year. But the fact is that they are full archaisms, false friends, and in one case, we have the beautiful yet translationally unadorned Latin. To demonstrate this fact, I give you 14 songs from the hymn book which have the very things so many complain about in the King James Version. In America we complain about the Bible but not about our songs.

The format below is: Name of Song – questionable word, x + number of times it appears in the song [which verse it is found in]

1.) O Come All Ye Faithful – thee x2 [4] 
2.) O Little Town of Bethlehem – met [1]
3.) While Shepherds Watched Their Flocks – meanly [4] 
4.) It Came Upon a Midnight Clear – cloven [2], bards [4] 
5.) Good Christian Men Rejoice – ye x3 [1, 2, 3] 
6.) God Rest You Merry Gentlemen – affright [3], afeeding [4], tidings [2, 4, chorus] 
7.) Silent Night – yon [1], tender [1] 
8.) Angels From the Realms of Glory – yonder [2], natal [3] 
9.) Hark The Herald Angels Sing – hark [title, 1, chorus], herald [title, 1], hail x2 [2, 3], mild [1, 3] 
10.) O Come to My Heart Lord Jesus – dost [1], camest [1], didst [2],  commest [5], callest [5] 
11.) All Glory Laud and Honor – laud [title, 1, 3], comest [1] 
12.) The First Noel – Noel 
13.) Angels We Have Heard on High – Jubilee [2], strains x2 [1, 2], tidings [2], excelsis Deo [Latin] x2 
14.) Joy To the World – prove 

Two last notes. 1.) Some or many of these words may be known to some and some or many of you may not. Who is to decide when too many people misunderstand too much of Angels We Have Heard On High and therefore we need a new translation? 2.) There is a bit of sad hilarity here in that our Protestant song services are more standardized than the Bible we read. Whether it be a screen, a song page, or a hymn book we all read the same words, but not with the Bible. What song leader would hand out multiple hymn books with different words and different numbering? What song leader would put one set of words on one screen and then a slightly different set of words on screen two and then on screen three put a dynamic equivalence translation of screen one? Thus we conclude, don’t touch my songs or my song service, but you may play with the Bible at will so long as you are trained and have a Ph.D.

Blessings and Merry Christmas.

Scripture Is Its Own Interpreter

“Scripturam ex Scriptura explicandam esse: Scripture is to be explained from Scripture

one of several forms of a maxim employed by both Lutheran and Reformed orthodox to indicate the normative authority and self-authenticating character of Scripture over against the Roman Catholic contention that the church has absolute authority to explain the text.”

Richard Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally From Protestant Scholastic Theology, Term: Scripturam ex Scriptura explicandam esse.

Muller goes on to say on this point that

“Since Word, as such, is authoritative and effective, it must be its own standard of interpretation.”

Muller, Dictionary, Scripturam ex Scriptura explicandam esse.

The point for today’s brief article is that many Christians accept that the Scriptures interpret themselves as to their meaning. What seems to be of significant dispute or neglect is that the Scriptures as self-attesting, self-authenticating, and self-interpreting speak for themselves as to what is and is not Scripture as well. The Scriptures do not merely attest to and verify their meaning; they attest to and verify their very being or propositional substance. The Scripture itself in real and present time explains its meaning as you hold it in your mind and its very imminent existence as you hold it in your hand.

Merry Christmas Sunday

“And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.” Matthew 1:21

Christ became a man in order to fulfill all the OT law. Romans 8:3-4, “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.”

Christ became a man so that he could be our compassionate High Priest – Hebrews 2:17, “Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.”

Christ became a man so he could be our substitute — die in our place on Calvary – 2 Cor. 5:21, “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” Hebrews 2:14, “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;”

Christ became a man so that a race of men could rise from the dead – 1 Cor. 15:23, “But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.”

Church History: Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian, 2nd century church fathers according to J. Gresham Machen concludes that these men considered the virgin birth “as one of the essential facts about Christ which had a firm place in even the briefest summaries of the Christian faith.”

Ignatius,110: Argued the virgin birth of Christ against one type of Gnosticism known as Docetism as designation derived from the Greek word meaning “to seem.” This heresy taught that Christ only seemed to be corporeal.

Apostle’s Creed, 2nd century: “born of the virgin Mary.”  Confessing that Jesus Christ was virgin born was part, with other essential doctrines, of the minimum of the Christian faith.

Apostle Luke: Luke has no doubt regarding the veracity of the account. See Luke 1:1-4, the certainty.

Weekly Question – What are the most potent objections to the TR/KJV position?

For an upcoming work by Dr.s Peter Van Kleeck, we would like to know what you think are the most potent theological and philosophical objections to the Confessional Text/Standard Sacred Text position on the Scriptures – the more complex and broad-reaching the better. Certainly, there are objections but what are those which wholly defeat our position or cripple it. This question is open to those who agree and those who disagree with our position.

Please be as thorough and as precise as possible. There are in the main two kinds of objections you could argue: 1.) there is some proposition asserted by us to which you have a defeater – undercutting or rebutting 2.) there is something we failed to address which is integral to the greater system touching the originals and version issue.

The reason for putting this question out to the public in this way is because we would like to address these objections considered to be the most potent without presenting them as a strawman. We would like to address these proposed objections as presented in their greatest force and precision.

Thank you for your assistance and input in these regards,

The StandardSacredText.com Team

The Perspicuity [i.e., Clarity] of the Scriptures

As we continue our Bibliology Primer drawn principally from Francis Turretin’s Institutes of Elenctic Theology we come now to the perspicuity or clarity of Scripture. The objection here raised by the Roman Catholics is that the Scriptures are not in themselves clear enough to profitably nourish and grow the Christian. As a result, it is necessary that Church teaching/tradition come alongside the Scriptures in order to assist the word of God in the shepherding of the Christian in grace. To this affect Turretin writes,

“The papists, not satisfied with their endeavors to prove the Scriptures insufficient in order to bring in the necessity of tradition, began to question their perspicuity…in order to have a pretext for keeping the people from their perusal. Having concealed the candle under a bushel, they reign in darkness more easily.”

Turretin, Institutes, vol. 1, Second Topic, Q. 17, Sec. I.

Turretin then goes on to clarify what exactly is at stake in this question. Again, he writes,

“The question then comes to this – whether the Scriptures are so plain in things essential to salvation…that without the external aid of tradition or the infallible judgment of the church, they may be read and understood profitably by believers. The papists deny this; we affirm.”

Turretin, Institutes, vol. 1, Second Topic, Q. 17, Sec. VII.

As was discussed in the prior post on the point of perspicuity, “things essential to salvation” include the certainty and authority of Scripture; that the Scripture is trustworthy in itself. And before someone out there tries to press the point that all the Reformed have in view here are those passages which speak directly to salvation [e.g., the “Romans Road”], Turretin notes this as a known Catholic argument to besmirch the clarity and therefore authority of Scripture.

After quoting Ps. 19:8 – “the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes,” Ps. 119:105 – “thy word is a lamp unto my feet,” 2 Peter 1:19 – “a light in a dark place,” and Prov. 6:23 – “the law is light,” Turretin observes the following

“Nor is Bellarmine’s [a prominent Roman Catholic apologist] first objection of any force, that only the precepts of the law are meant and not the whole of Scripture. For the word ‘law’ frequently means the whole word of God, and the effects (consolation and renewal) teach that it ought so to be understood.”

Turretin, Institutes, vol. 1, Second Topic, Q. 17, Sec. VIII.

Turretin goes on in the same vein to say,

“The Scriptures are said to be luminous not only because they illuminate the intellect, but because they are in themselves luminous and naturally adapted to illuminate those who look upon them with the eyes of faith.”

Turretin, Institutes, vol. 1, Second Topic, Q. 17, Sec. VIII.

Note here that Turretin separates the effects of Scripture from what the Scriptures are. Certainly, we say the Scriptures are illuminating because of what they do in the hearts of the saved and lost alike. What is more, the Scriptures are illuminating in themselves. That is, they are not illuminated by some other source as the lesser light is illuminated from the sun. No, the Scriptures are in and of themselves light and light giving. As such, it is not necessary that something be added to make them light.

For those who demur at my and Dr. Riddle’s claim that we must work to know the Scriptures even though they are perspicuous, consider the words of that ignorant KJV-only fundamentalist from the 4th century AD, Chrysostom, when he writes,

“The Scriptures are so proportioned that even the most ignorant can understand them if they only read them studiously.”

Turretin, Institutes, vol. 1, Second Topic, Q. 17, Sec. XII.

How dare he assert the person in the pew be studious!? Still, how is what Chrysostom said any different than Dr. Riddle’s response to Mark Ward’s “Which TR?” or my post when I said, “If you are to be a friend to Scripture and Scripture to you then you must spend time with Scripture, ask questions of Scripture, study Scripture, know what Scripture likes to drink with its steak“?

How about that uncaring 7th century AD Ruckmanite, Gregory the Great who wrote,

“The Scriptures have, in public, nourishment for children, as they serve in secret to strike the loftiest minds with wonder; indeed they are like a full and deep river in which the lamb may walk and the elephant swim.”

Turretin, Institutes, vol. 1, Second Topic, Q. 17, Sec. XII.

My point here is that though the Scriptures are perspicuous/clear the challenge to search the Scripture (John 5:39) and to search for wisdom as for hid treasure (Prov. 2:4) is a fundamental feature of Christianity. Are some words and concepts of Scripture difficult to understand? Indeed, Peter says this of Paul when he writes, “As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:16). Note that the apostle Peter does not here compel Paul to democratize his language. No, instead Peter castigates the “unlearned and unstable” claiming that they twist the Scriptures to their own destruction. Turretin, following this Scriptural theme, writes,

“The ignorance and blindness of man are not to be compounded with obscurity of the Scriptures. The former is often pressed upon Scripture, but it is not so, nor can the latter be legitimately inferred from the former no more than the sun is obscure because it cannot be seen by a blind man.”

Turretin, Institutes, vol. 1, Second Topic, Q. 17, Sec. XIII.

To this day arguments are being made that because of a few instances of difficult/sneaky words like “halt” or “apt” in the KJV it’s time for a new translation of the Bible in English. Meanwhile, the Scriptures, Chrysostom, Gregory the Great, and Turretin all make these arguments for studious diligence among the ignorant without having the advantage of computers, the internet, or Logos Bible Software, but somehow in a world where we have these tools at the ready, “halt” and “apt” are just a bridge too far.

God’s Self-revelation: the Prerequisite of all Knowledge of God

“God is first of all the subject communicating knowledge to man, and can only become an object of study for man in so far as the latter appropriates and reflects on the knowledge conveyed to him by revelation. Without revelation man would never have been able to acquire any knowledge of God. And even after God has revealed Himself objectively, it is not human reason that discovers God, but it is God who discloses Himself through the eye of faith. However, by application of the sanctified human reason to the study of God’s Word man can, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, gain an ever-increasing knowledge of God.

When we us the term revelation, we use the term in the strictest sense of the word. It is not something in which God is passive, a mere “becoming manifest,” but something in which He is actively making Himself known. It is not, as many moderns would have it, a deepened spiritual insight which leads to an ever-increasing discovery of God on the part of man: but a supernatural act of self-communication, a purposeful act on the part of the Living God. There is nothing surprising in the fact that God can be known only if, and in so far as, He reveals Himself….All our knowledge of God is derived from His self-revelation in nature and in Scripture. Consequently, our knowledge of God is on one hand ectypal and analogical, but on the other hand also true and accurate, since it is a copy of the archetypal knowledge which God has of Himself.”

Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1941), 34-35.

So, what are we to make of Dr. Berkhof’s commentary? To be Scripture, it must be “a supernatural act of self-communication, a purposeful act on the part of the living God” who “disclosed Himself through the eye of faith.” This assessment is alien to the modern, empirically driven, textual critic. Empiricism, by definition, eliminates the idea of “supernatural,” and “the eye of faith” has been relegated to the trash heap of theological presuppositions and bias. Connecting the dots, to accept modern textual critical practices is to do away with historic, Christian orthodoxy. The two are wholly incompatible, and yet, the synthesis of two wholly incompatible perspectives, somehow, is held by many as a part of normal Christian living. The Scriptures have been transformed from a “supernatural act of self-communication” into a scientific, or computer driven analysis, a relative, ever-changing work on the part of a committee’s majority vote. If pre-critical historic, Christian orthodoxy is not the answer, post-critical scholarship certainly is not, which leaves us, in the words of Pastor and Defender of the Faith, Dr. David Otis Fuller, “let’s eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die, and go to hell.”