From what source does the divine authority of the Scriptures become known to us? (Part 4)

As you can tell by now Turretin’s treatment of the question, “By what means do we come to know the authority and divinity of Scripture” is quite an extensive treatment, but the show must go on. So, continuing this argument we now turn to section XVIII of Turretin’s treatment of the above question. Addressing again the topic of Scriptural self-attestation and self-authentication, Turretin writes,

“It is not always necessary that a thing should be proved by something else. For there are some things which are self-evident according to the philosophers (as the highest category of things, and ultimate differences and first principles) which are not susceptible to demonstration, but are evident by their own light and are taken for granted as certain and indubitable.”

Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology vol. 1, Second Topic, Q. VI, Sec. XVIII

Note here that Turretin makes his argument from the perspective of natural revelation. He points out that even the philosophers hold to first principles, explanatory ultimates, or axiomatic ultimates. That is, it is not a distinctly Christian belief to hold to such principles any more than it is distinctly Christian to believe in God but apart from Christ and the Trinity.

Note further that such principles are not susceptible to demonstration for if they were then that things which brought about the demonstration would itself be the first principle. Such demonstration includes empirical and evidential demonstration. Our senses and evidence can support our belief in Scripture but they cannot demonstrate that the Scripture is Scripture. If our senses and evidence were capable of such demonstration then the Scripture would be founded on man’s senses and historical artifacts and not on God and His testimony. It seems many Christians do not have an issue with this founding. We here at StandardSacredText.com do along with the standard pre-critical orthodox.

Turretin goes on with particularly strong words for those who question the nature of first principles and that of Scripture as a first principle. He writes,

“If perchance anyone denies them [first principles], he is not to be met with arguments, but should be committed to the custody of his kinsmen (as a madman); or to be visited with punishment.”

Turretin, Elenctic, Second Topic, Q. VI, Sec. XVIII

In another place, Turretin writes of those who besmirch the inspiration of the Church’s Bible,

“If any deny the inspiration of the Scriptures, it is not because the object in itself is not known or understandable, but because they are destitute of a well-disposed faculty. To them the gospel is hid because Satan has blinded their eyes (2 Cor. 4:4); as some deny God (who is most capable of being known) because they are fools, or do not see the sun because they are blind.”

Turretin, Elenctic, Second Topic, Q. VI, Sec. XIX

After addressing the fool, the blind, and the madman for questioning in his mind so obvious a truth, Turretin rhetorically asserts,

“Therefore since the Bible is the first principle and the primary and infallible truth, is it strange to say that it can be proved by itself?”

Turretin, Elenctic, Second Topic, Q. VI, Sec. XVIII

Afterwhich he concludes,

“The Bible can prove itself either one part or another when all parts are not equally called into doubt…or the whole proving the whole, not by direct argument or testimony…but made artfully (artificiali) and ratiocinative (because in it are discovered divine marks which are not found in the writings of men).”

Turretin, Elenctic, Second Topic, Q. VI, Sec. XVIII

In sum, Scripture can prove Scripture if a part is in question but not another part. This would be the case when the Jews accept the OT but not the NT. Because the OT and the NT are the word of God the OT can be used to prove the authority and divinity of the NT. But what if the whole is questioned? Turretin argues and we here at StandardSacredText.com concur, that it is the divine marks found in Scripture [i.e., inspiration and the testimony of the Holy Spirit] and not direct argument of testimony that wins the day. So when the whole of Scripture is under the text critical scalpel depending on the prevailing text critical winds of the day, the answer to knowing what is Scripture and what is not rests in the testimony of God’s Spirit through God’s word to God’s people by faith because the Scripture proves itself to be divine and authoritative being the first principle of theological knowledge.

Weekly Question – How are we to move forward in the translation of Scripture in America?

If we want to get the American Church back on track with a standard sacred text for English-speaking people we would need to do a few of things.

1.) We need to recognize that everyone apparently wants a standard text. We here at StandardSacredText.com certainly do. It also seems the New American Standard folks want one as to the English Standard folks and the Christian Standard folks and the Legacy Standard folks and on and on. According to the most recent data the King James Version is by far and away the Bible most read by Bible readers. Seeing this is the case and the fact that the KJV has served the church for over 400 years, it seems from both a faith-based and evidence-based perspective that the KJV is were we need to start.

2.) Scholarship and the work of the academy is important in the fields of textual work, archeology, and original language work and there surrogates. That said, the academy needs to be repositioned with regard to its sway and authority in the church. The academy and the scholar are the humble servant of the person in the pew and the church at large. As such the scholar’s opinion on this or that passage should be no more authoritative than the plumbers or nurses or business owners. In the end the church does not wish to hear the voice of the scholar. We wish to hear the voice of the Spirit in the word of God by faith.

3.) Building off of #3, while it is true that the church must grow in sanctification and therefore may be pruned or corrected from time to time, it is of the utmost importance that the academy and scholar come to the church with the greatest of gravity if they come to “correct” the text. They are not merely editing a classic like that of Dante or the Illiad. They are making the claim that a word or a set of words held by the Church to be God’s words are in fact not God’s words. If the academy and scholar are right, the church is better for it. If they are wrong then they have committed a grievous sin by questioning God’s word, causing brothers to stumble, and sowing discord among the brethren. As such they must repent of that/those sin(s) and turn from it/them with true godly sorrow.

4.) If the academy and scholar are right and an amendment must be made to the text, it is not the academy and scholar that determine the rightness of their conclusions. It is the church, the pastor and the person in the pew that make that conclusion. The academy and the scholar are the lawyers and the church is the judge and jury led by faith through the the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately the academy and scholar have overstepped their bounds in the last 150 years in this regard and have opened Pandora’s Box and like Pandora cannot put their evil and mischief back in the box. Now the church, the people in the pew, are worse off because of it.

5.) Seeing we can’t rewind time and undo the ramifications of the Scholar’s Box, what are we to do? For the KJV crowd, be encouraged, hold the line, and maintain your post. For those who are unsure, the Scripture teaches that we have one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God, and one Father, why not have one Bible and be one with 400 years of saints in holding to the Bible they held to? For those who believe in your Bible on a merely evidential basis, consider the fact that the KJV remained the standard sacred text of the believing community for over 400 years even though the church was well aware of many textual variants and the scholarship of the Roman Catholic church which questioned the Protestant Scripture at every turn. For those in the same camp who also don’t have a seminary education in New Testament Greek, consider the fact that you trust these Greek scholars in a very similar way Pre-Reformation saints who did not know Latin had to trust the Roman Catholic Priest and/or the Pope regarding what the Bible “really” says. For those who hold to a version other than than the KJV because you believe that a different version is the exclusive word of God for the English-speaking church, let us pray for each other and have vigorous discussions together as the Holy Spirit guides us into all truth.

6.) The Scripture can no longer be the copywritten possession of a corporation. The Scriptures belong to the believing community. Seeing that the Scriptures are the possession of the church, no company, no publisher should have the moral right to discontinue the printing of the Scriptures nor should they have the power to without eternal ramifications. The publishers in the business of printing Bibles are merely servants of the church called to do their duty for Christ’s Kingdom. If they will not then they are no better than the oppressors in Roman Catholic church trying to stamp out Tyndale’s New Testament.

7.) Most importantly, the church needs to read the Bible every day and study the Bible often. Biblical illiteracy in the American church is astonishing, bewildering, staggering, appalling. The Scripture is your lamp. It is your light. It is the source of faith. It is the sword of the Spirit to defend and fight against all that would seek to harm you, your family, your church, and your country. Read it. Know it. Love it. Teach it to your children.

The Prophet Jeremiah and Textual Criticism

Today we return to our short series on Bibliology and the prophet Jeremiah. Taking a look again at chapter 36 we find at least four relevant themes: 1.) inspiration, 2.) transmission, 3.) textual criticism, and 4.) the status of the original. Today we will look at the theme of textual criticism. The Scripture reads in Jeremiah 36:22-23,

“Now the king [Jehoiakim] sat in the winterhouse in the ninth month: and there was a fire on the hearth burning before him. And it came to pass, that when Jehudi had read three or four leaves, he cut it with the penknife, and cast it into the fire that was on the hearth, until all the roll was consumed in the fire that was on the hearth.”

Jeremiah 36:22-23

Why? Why did Jehudi cut Jeremiah’s original text with a penknife and cast it into the fire? We don’t really know. We assume and quite safely so that something was contained therein which displeased his sensibilities or those of the king. Maybe his academic sensibilities, no? What is more, it was not the reason for scarring the text that is abhorant, but rather it is the cutting itself. Jeremiah goes on to read in the next verse,

“Yet they were not afraid, nor rent their garments, neither the king, nor any of his servants that heard all these words.”

Jeremiah 36:24

Jeremiah recounts to us that the most powerful, most educated were not afraid at the destruction of the text. But why should the be afraid? Was it for scholastic reasons, academic reasons? Something like, my goodness that’s poor scholarship to treat Jeremiah’s words that way? No. The issue is that God’s words were cut to bits and cast into the fire because they were now recorded on a piece of ancient paper. Fear and lamentation should have come from seeing the wanton destruction of God’s revelation. But perhaps Jeremiah’s text was not seen as God’s word. Perhaps it was seen as an opinion of a religious political pundit. Think Al Sharpton. In sum, the business of adding or taking away from the document called the word of God is a moral business primarily and not a sterile academic one. Indeed though, there were some who took objection to cutting and burning the Scripture.

Nevertheless Elnathan and Delaiah and Gemariah had made intercession to the king that he would not burn the roll: but he would not her them.”

Jeremiah 37:25

Why would these men make such a plea? Again, we don’t know. What we do know is that they did not rend their garments and express a pious fear for the destruction of God’s word. There are other reasons to keep the ancient documents of Scripture around that have little to do with the fact that they are God’s words to mankind like they are old. But let’s be clear, those reasons are secondary to the real reason for the presence of Scripture in the life of the church and scholar. Those reasons are: for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness. All of which Jeremiah was doing in his writing and all of which was dissected and burnt up by the educated and powerful.

If you are a Christian and you believe for evidential or scholastic reasons that you must take a penknife to the Bible are you prepared to experience a holy fear and lamentation if you transgress in the way described above? If not, know that you may be more like Jehudi and Jehoiakim than you think and that the trying times of Jeremiah may be more upon us than you think.

Scripture as Touchstone

“lapis lydius: Lydian stone, touchstone, standard, or benchmark;

originally a hard black flint used by the ancients to test the purity of gold and silver according to the streaks left on the stone when rubbed by the metals, by extension a standard and invariable test of quality. Scripture is thus frequently referred to as lapis lydius.”

Richard Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholasticism, Term: lapis lydius.

Scripture is the touchstone, the standard, the black flint upon which all theological teaching is tested and found genuine or wanting. Scripture is also the touchstone of Scripture being a first principle. Only God’s words can properly verify God’s words so also Scripture, being God’s words, can only be properly verified by Scripture itself through the living testimony of the Spirit of God.

As the Scriptures teach in I Cor. 2:11, “For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.” In other words, not only is Scripture the touchstone of all theological claims like Jesus was born of the virgin Mary and I John 5:7 is not Scripture, but Scripture is also its own touchstone and therefore able to answer whether 1 John 5:7 is actually Scripture.

From what source does the divine authority of the Scriptures become known to us? (Part 3)

Continuing our Bibliology Primer and specifically Turretin’s treatment of how a Christian comes to know the authority and divinity of Scripture we now turn to the self-attesting and self-authenticating character of Scripture. Turretin writes,

“That the Scripture makes itself known to us is proved: (1) by the nature of Scripture itself.”

Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Second Topic, Q. VI, Sec. 11.

And how is it that Scripture makes itself known itself? Turretin gives a familiar example from his time. Again, he writes,

“For as a law does not derive its authority from the subordinate judges who interpret it or from the heralds who promulgate it, but from its author alone.”

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. VI, Sec. 11.

In other words, the Scriptures make themselves known by themselves because God’s words can only be known by God’s words. There is no authority or grounding prior to or more potent than God’s words. Therefore only God’s words can prove God’s words to be God’s words.

Turretin takes this point a step or two further by identifying the Scriptures as a first principle.

“(2) By nature of the highest genera and of first principles; for those things are known by themselves and are not susceptible to proof which cannot be demonstrated by any other, otherwise the thing would go on into infinity.”

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. VI, Sec. 11.

If there were a more basic, more grounding authoritative principle than God’s words, call it X, then where did that more basic, more grounding authoritative principle derive its basicality, grounding, and authority? And if such a thing did exist, call it Y, then where did Y get its properties of more basic, more grounding, and more authority? Let’s say such a thing did exist and let’s call it Z. Where did Z get said properties? As you can see the list goes on and on into infinity.

This is what is known as an infinite regression of contingent particulars. Such a thing does not and cannot exist because it is infinitely contingent and is therefore infinitely potential and potential things have not yet come into existence, and in this case, infinitely so. Thus there must be a first grounding that is most basic and most authoritative and that grounding is God’s words. Nothing is more basic, more authoritative, and more grounding than God’s words. Therefore God’s words, the Scriptures, are a first principle. Thus Turretin concludes,

“Thus Scripture, which is the first principle in the supernatural order, is known by itself and has not need of arguments derived from without to prove and make itself known to us.”

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. VI, Sec. 11.

And…

“If God has stamped such marks upon all first principles that they can be known at once by all men, we cannot doubt that he has placed them upon this sacred first principle (in the highest degree necessary to our salvation).”

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. VI, Sec. 11.

Turretin’s third proof as to how Scripture is proved by itself is as follows:

“By comparison, as objects of the sense presented to faculties well disposed are immediately distinguished and known without any other external argument, on account of a secret adaptation and propensity of the faculty to the object.”

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. VI, Sec. 11.

For example?

“Light is immediately most certainly known to us by its own brightness; food by its particular sweetness; an odor by its particular fragrance without any additional testimony.”

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. VI, Sec. 11.

In like manner…

“the Scripture, which is set for to us in respect to the new man and spiritual sense, now under the symbol of a clear light (Ps. 119:105), then of the most sweetest food (Ps. 19:10; Is. 55:1-2; Heb. 5:14) and again of the sweetest smelling savor (Cant. 1:3), may easily be distinguished of itself by the sense of the new man as soon as it is presented to them and makes itself known by its own light, sweetness and fragrance.”

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. VI, Sec. 11.

This idea of self-attesting and self-authenticating will be developed further as we continue our way through our Primer and particularly through this sixth question. But for now, suffice it to sum up in the following way. The Scripture’s attestation to iteslf is shown in three ways: (1) God as author of God’s words is the only fit witness to God’s words because they are His words, (2) Scripture is the most basic and most authoritative grounding principle and is therefore in the genera of first principle. As such, it cannot be proven by something more more basic or more authoritative than itself, and (3) the Scripture is known in a basic sort of way. Just as we know we taste baklava at the moment we taste baklava or smell our wife’s perfume at the moment we smell her perfume, so also we known the “light, sweetness, and fragrance” of God’s words when we by faith see, taste, and smell the words of God.

We do not however know our wife’s perfume by snatching 5,700+ molecules from the air, testing them, comparing them, seeing which are older, pass it through the coherence based fragrance method coupled with the “art” of fragrance criticism and finally conclude that the fragrance we are smelling is probably either our wife’s perfume or in the air apparatus.

Thomas Watson and the Doctrine of Scripture

Welcome to the Brickyard. This is a place to find quotes for use in your own research. The bricks are free but the building is up to you. The following quotes are from Thomas Watson’s A Body of Divinity which was first written in 1692 which is 80 years after the translation of the 1611 King James Version. In the preface, C.H. Spurgeon writes of Watson’s work,

“Thomas Watson’s Body of Practical Divinity is one of the most precious of the peerless works of the Puritans; and those best acquainted with it prize it most.”

Watson, Body of Divinity, vii.

The following is a series of quotes demonstrating the aforesaid peerless work. I hope they are a blessing to you.

“We may know the Scripture to be the Word of God by is miraculous preservation in all ages.”

Watson, Body of Divinity, 27.

“God has preserved this blessed Book inviolable to this day.”

Watson, Body of Divinity, 27.

“The Book of God has no errata in it; it is a beam of the Sun of Righteousness, a crystal stream flowing from the fountain of life.”

Watson, Body of Divinity, 27-28.

“All maxims of divinity are to be brought to the touchstone of Scripture, as all measures are brought to the standard.”

Watson, Body of Divinity, 30.

“The Scripture is to be its own interpreter, or rather the Spirit speaking in it. Nothing can cut the diamond but the diamond; nothing can interpret Scripture but Scripture.”

Watson, Body of Divinity, 31.

“Thou are inexcusable, O man, for God has given thee a rule to go by, he has written his law with his own finger.”

Watson, Body of Divinity, 32.

“Till we are above sin, we shall not be above Scripture.”

Watson, Body of Divinity, 33.

“The Spirit of God acts regularly, it works in and by the Word, and he that pretends to a new light, which is either above the Word, or contrary to it, abuses both himself and the Spirit: his light is borrowed from him who transforms himself into an angel of light.”

Watson, Body of Divinity, 33.

“It is a saying of Luther, Quos Dues vult perdere, &c., ‘whom God intends to destroy, he gives them leave to play with Scripture.'”

Watson, Body of Divinity, 34.

“Think in every line [of Scripture] you read that God is speaking to you.”

Watson, Body of Divinity, 35.

“If the Scripture is of divine inspiration, believe it.”

Watson, Body of Divinity, 36.

“Though we should not be of contentious spirits, yet we ought to contend for the Word of God.”

Watson, Body of Divinity, 37

“We are not left in doubtful suspense that we should not know what to believe, but we have an infallible rule to go by.”

Watson, Body of Divinity, 38

“The Scripture is our pole-star to direct us to heaven, it shows us every step we are to take; when we go wrong, it instructs us; when we go right, it comforts us; and it is a matter of thankfulness, that the Scriptures are made intelligible, by being translated.”

Watson, Body of Divinity, 38.

Again, the King James Version had been in circulation for over 80 years at this time Watson speaks of translations.

From what source does the divine authority of the Scriptures become known to us? (Part 2)

Beginning again with Turretin,

“But although we do not deny that the testimony of the church has its own weight (as will afterwards be seen), yet we maintain that primarily and principally the Bible is believed by us to be divine on account of itself.”

Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 1 Second Topic, Q. VI, Sec 4.

Here Turretin plainly states that it the Scriptures itself which is the source of our knowing that the Scriptures are authoritative. But before you charge this eminent Reformation scholar of circular reasoning or begging the question, remember that the Scriptures are a first principle. Indeed, the first principle of theological knowledge and as such are not demonstrated or proven by some prior more basic authority. Put simply, God’s words cannot be demonstrated, substantiated, or proven by some greater authority than God’s words. In this case it is all too natural that the Scriptures authoritatively testify of themselves. That said, Turretin divides our believing the authority of Scripture on account of the testimony of Scripture into three parts. He writes,

“As a threefold cause can be granted for the manifestation of anything (an objective, efficient and instrumental or organic), so a threefold question can arise about the divinity of the Bible.”

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. VI, Sec 6.

The three questions regarding belief in the authority and divinity of Scripture are these:

“the first, concerning the argument on account of which I believe; the second, concerning the principle or efficient cause from which I am lead to believe; the third, concerning the means and instrument through which I believe.”

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. VI, Sec 6.

For the first – the argument on account of which I believe – Turretin writes,

“For the Bible with its own marks is the argument on account of which I believe.”

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. VI, Sec 6.

For the second – concerning the principle or efficient cause from which I am lead to believe – he writes,

“The Holy Spirit is the efficient cause and principle from which I am induced to believe.”

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. VI, Sec 6.

For the third – concerning the means and instrument through which I believe – he writes,

“But the church is the instrument and means through which I believe.”

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. VI, Sec 6.

Finally, Turretin summarizes these three answers in the following way,

“Hence if the question is why, or on account of what, do I believe the Bible to be divine, I will answer that I do so on account of the Scripture itself which by its marks proves itself to be such. If it is asked whence or from what I believe, I will answer from the Holy Spirit who produces that belief in me. Finally, if I am asked by what means or instrument I believe it, I will answer through the church which God uses in delivering the Scriptures to me.”

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. VI, Sec 6.

We here at StandardSacredText.com hold these answer as the paradigmatic answers for how we know the Scripture is authoritative and divine. The interrelation of the word of God, the Spirit of God, and the people God is the primary means whereby the people of God come to know Scripture, to know what is Scripture, and to know its authority and divinity. It is very much the invisible work of the Holy Spirit through His words to His people through faith. And why should this be surprising? This is the same work the Holy Spirit through the word of God does in the life of the believer in sanctification. It is the same invisible work performed by the Spirit through the word in a soul unto salvation.

“The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.”

John 3:8

One final observation, Turretin does not place scholarship or textual criticism within the paradigm when answering the question, How does the saint primarily come to know the authority and divinity of Scripture? Does this mean that the academy has no place in the Christian theological and apologetic enterprise? Certainly not. But what it does mean is that the academy and it fruits are not the primary means whereby the Christian comes to know the authority and divinity of this or that passage of Scripture. The Christian comes to know the authority and divinity of this or that passage by the Spirit of God speaking in the word of God to the people of God received by faith. Such a paradigm include the long ending in Mark and I John 5:7 among others.

Weekly Question – What is the difference between Confessional, Traditional, Ecclesiastical, and Standard Sacred Text?

If you’ve been around the “version debate” long enough and if you have read at least some of the relevant literature or listened to relevant podcasts you most likely have heard of terms like “Confessional Text position,” or “Traditional Text position,” or the “Ecclesiastical Text.” In today’s post I wanted to give a brief summary/definition of each position and then make some comments.

First, it is important to note that each of these terms/positions have the same goal. That goal is to closely adhere to the teaching of Scripture in the things it says about itself and then believe and defend those teachings. So why the different terms?

Second, the reason for the different terms is two fold: 1.) Just as it is currently the minority position in Western thought to believe that homosexuality and homosexual civil unions are immoral so also a desire and a call to believe and defend what the Bible says about itself is a minority position in the Church at large. As such, systematic pre-critical defenses of what the Bible says about itself have cropped up at different times and under different denominations. Dean Burgon was an Anglican. David Otis Fuller was a Baptist. Theodore Letis was a Lutheran. Jeff Riddle is a Reformed Baptist. The Van Kleecks would be Reformed Baptists as well. This diversity of time and denominational disposition has lead to the multiplication of terminology, and for good reason. 2.) The different terms exists because they focus on different aspects of what the Bible says about itself and the Christian’s relation to that Bible.

Traditional Text – The Traditional Text position anchors in the idea that there has been a traditional text and traditional text tradition in the Greek and Hebrew Original of the Masoretic Hebrew and Greek TR as well as an English text/textual tradition for the English-speaking Church found in the King James Version tradition. The focus here is on the tradition that the believing community has handed down to our believing communities from centuries past. To this we ask of our multiple version only brethren, “What tradition do you hand down to us?” “What ecclesiastical Greek tradition, Hebrew tradition, and English tradition?”

Ecclesiastical Text – The Ecclesiastical Text position retains the elements of tradition and the handing down of a Bible across the centuries while at the same time placing a greater emphasis on the notion that the Bible belongs to the Church. The Bible is not a commodity or asset in some publisher’s printing portfolio. The Bible belongs to and is stewarded by God’s people, the bride of Christ, the Church. Nor is the Bible a possession of academia. The Bible does not lie behind gates of a seminary education. The Bible belongs to and is accessible by both the most educated and the least educated Christian. To this we ask our multiple version only brethren, “In what way is the 1972 NASB possessed by and stewarded by the Church seeing it is no longer in print?” “What is the relevant difference between depending on a Roman Catholic priest for the truth of Scripture who reads only the Latin to us and depending on the evangelical textual critic for the truth of Scripture while he speaks in the academese of minuscules, majuscules, P52, internal/external evidence, CBGM, and the like?”

Confessional Text – The Confessional Text position seems to embody both of the above terms in that “Confessional” infers both the traditional and ecclesiastical custody of the Scriptures. Confessional not only speaks of confessing Christian belief in Christian theology and the Christian Scriptures, but in theological parlance, a Confession of Faith is also a distilled body of historical Christian doctrine. For our purposes, the Confessional Text position confesses belief in a distilled body of historical Christian Bibliology. As such, the term Confessional Text embodies the historical/traditional, ecclesiastical, theological, dogmatic, and practical aspects of orthodox Bibliology. Again we ask our multiple version only brethren, “What theological apparatus do you confess in substantiating the claims, oldest is best, hardest is best, and shortest is best?” What is your confessional ground for giving modern textual criticism its privileged position?”

Standard Sacred Text – As the name implies, the emphasis here is to argue for a single sacred text around which the English-speaking believing community can gather. That single text is the standard whereby all other current and subsequent English sacred texts are to be judged. Because it is in English it is a translation and is therefore dependent upon a standard sacred Greek and Hebrew. Here at StandardSacredText.com we regard the Greek and Hebrew to be the first standard from which the English sacred text is derived. The Greek and Hebrew standard are sacred because God providentially preserved every letter of every word of that standard per its own words about itself. The standard sacred English text is sacred in that the substantia doctrinae found in the original standard transfers to the translation – not immediately but derivatively. We hold these original standards to be the Masoretic Hebrew and Greek TR, and the standard sacred text of the English-speaking community is the King James Version of the Bible.

Postscript: Dear Sceptic, I hope you can begin to see that the arguments promulgated here as traditional, ecclesiastical, confessional, and standard sacred are not King James Onlyism or Ruckmanism or Riplingerism in a different dress. Instead, we hope you see it for what it is, an argument for the superiority of historical pre-Enlightenment Bibliology grounded in the self-attesting, self-authenticating, and self-interpreting testimony of Scripture concerning itself.