Home > Brandenburg, King James Only > Multiple Versions Only (MVO): No Scripture, So Invent a Fake History

Multiple Versions Only (MVO): No Scripture, So Invent a Fake History

February 26, 2007

Normally, doctrinal statements start with Scripture. They are a careful presentation of what Scripture says on a subject, topic, or issue, which would in essence be “what the Bible says” about it. If we were to teach on the doctrine of preservation, we would lay out what the Bible reveals on the issue in a contextual and organized way, leaving no stones unturned to find out what God said about it in His Word. That’s what we, the One Bible people, have done. We major on what the Bible says. Only after this will we mention the history and other external evidences.

MVO:  No Scripture

You will not see this with the MVO advocates. They provide no developed, organized system of teaching on preservation, none of them. Their idea of a Biblical presentation is to attack the exegesis and application of the One Bible presentation. This really has become the tradition of MVO and textual criticism. They don’t tell you what the Bible teaches about its own preservation. Despite having no Scripture, they really want you to think that they represent the historical point of view. They want you to think that the One Bible people, who do present Scripture, don’t have any history previous to the middle of the 20th Century.

Mount Calvary Baptist Church of Greenville, SC, where Mark Minnick pastors, put together one of their “histories,” as did Mike Sproul and a cast of MVO advocates (BJU) in God’s Word in Our Hands. I dare you to find anything that Doug Kutilek has written on what God’s Word says about its own preservation. These people do not seem to be interested at all about what the Bible says about it.

Mount Calvary and Mark Minnick did not provide a booklet with exegesis on the Bible doctrine of preservation. They provided you a pamphlet with quotations of men. The Ambassador-Emerald “Translation Committee” wrote an entire volume with no Scriptural presentation and followed it with another 400+ tome, subheaded “The Bible Preserved for Us,” that starts with historical quotes. You won’t find Scripture until p. 83, and again, that is mainly attempting to debunk the One Bible position, that lasts up to p. 117 and that is all, pp. 83-117. God’s Word Preserved, the Mike Sproul book in which within the entire 405 pages he alone is called Dr. Sproul, including on the front cover, has zero Scriptural teaching on preservation. None. You would think he would have been able to find some teaching on preservation for a book called God’s Word Preserved. The way he defended his position is with quotes of men. Just quotes; that’s all.

Our book, on the other hand, Thou Shalt Keep Them, is 315 pages of only Biblical teaching. We exegete several of the passages (not all) that reveal the doctrine of preservation. We could have written something almost double that size, if we included all the passages.

One of the reasons they do not give Scripture is because several of them do not believe Scripture teaches preservation. They admit this themselves. Some of the major, most quoted spokesmen for the MVO side, don’t believe preservation is promised in Scripture. William Combs of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary writes concerning his own side:

In an an article entitled “Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual Criticism,” by Daniel Wallace, we find what is apparently the first definitive, systematic denial of a doctrine of preservation of Scripture.

That is quite an overstatement by Combs. Many liberals have denied preservation. Many do not believe that the Bible teaches inspiration or preservation. He must mean the first denial of preservation by a “conservative.” Denial of preservation and “conservative” go together in this new paradigm. Combs adds W. Edward Glenny, a major contributor to the volume, One Bible Only?, out of Central Seminary in Minnesota.

They are not strong about Scripture teaching the doctrine of preservation, so what is their position on history and preservation? Sadly, they don’t give a historic presentation either. They give you quotes of men mainly addressing the translation issue. The first two quotes by Trusted Voices are also the first for Mike Sproul:

The holy Scriptures viz. the Originalls Hebrew & Greek are given by Divine Inspiration & in their first donation were without error most perfect and therefore Canonical … no translation can possibly express all the matter of the body originals, nor a thousand things in the Grammar, Rhetoric, & character of the tongue. ~~John Smyth

Now though some translations may exceed others in Propriety, and significant rendering of the Originals; yet they generally, (even the most imperfect that we know of), express and hold forth so much the Mind, Will, and Counsel of God, as is sufficient … to acquaint a Man with the Mysteries of Salvation, to work in him a true Faith, and bring him to live godly, righteously, and soberly in this World, and to Salvation in the next. ~~Banjamine Keach

What do these two quotes do to eliminate the Scriptural and historical view on perfect preservation that we represent? Nothing. They only refute a view that says that English has replaced the Hebrew and Greek text of Scripture. These two quotes do nothing to dispel what we believe and what Scripture teaches on preservation. We wholeheartedly agree with them. A large majority of their quotes read like these two. Only close to or after the Revised Version of 1881 do they find quotes that attack the Scriptural position on preservation. This is their so-called “history.”

MVO:  No History

Since the MVO position is not even historical, let alone Scriptural, where did it originate? This is important to understand. Many liberals believed what the MVO advocates teach. When did it become the position of the more conservative? This is easy to see. One would think that the Westminster Confession and Baptist Confessions (London, Philadelphia) would get in the way of changing the historic view of preservation. They have and do. But then came along the well-respected Presbyterian, Princeton (Ivy League) theologian, Benjamin Warfield. Warfield read into the Westminster Confession and into its “providential care,” textual criticism. You’ll find it on pages 239-241 in Vol. VI of his Works:

It (the WCF) admits of no denial that they explicitly recognized the fact that the text of the Scriptures had suffered corruption in process of transmission, and affirmed that the “pure” text lies therefore not in one copy, but in all, and is to be attained not by simply reading the text in whatever copy may chance to fall in our hands, but by a process of comparison, i.e. by criticism (p. 239).

In the sense of the Westminster Confession, therefore, the multiplication of copies of the Scriptures, the several early efforts towards the revision of the text, the raising up of scholars in our own day to collect and collate MSS, . . . . are all parts of God’s singular care and providence in preserving His inspired Word pure.

Warfield reads schizophrenic in that section. In one moment he is espousing the historical position and in the next he does what you read above. The fake history of the MVO began with these writings of Warfield. Warfield inserted a history into the Westminster Confession that contradicted what these men said they actually believed. His invention is much different than the conclusion of the well respected Westminster expert, E. D. Morris, who wrote concerning the divines:

As a Professor in a Theological Seminary, it has been my duty to make a special study of the Westminster Confession of Faith, as have I done for twenty years; and I venture to affirm that no one who is qualified to give an opinion on the subject, would dare to risk his reputation on the statement that the Westminster divines ever thought the original manuscripts of the Bible were distinct from the copies in their possession.

My reading of the Puritan writings mirrors Morris’ assessment. Benjamin Warfield brought textual criticism into a “conservative” doctrine of preservation of Scripture much like evolutionists brought theistic evolution into the Bible.

They have their own fake history, but they are also bold enough to provide us with our history too. They don’t have time to look at what Scripture says, but they do have a lot of time to concoct a new history for the perfect preservation view. Sproul spends a huge chunk of his book (pp. 209-245) creating a fraudulent history of the One Bible view, tracing it back to a Seventh Day Adventist, Benjamin Wilkinson, through David Otis Fuller, all beginning in the 1930’s in the United States. I have no doubt that some have been influenced by these two men, but this is not the history of the doctrine of preservation. Personally, I have never read Fuller or Wilkinson and don’t possess either of their books on the issue. They may have been defending One Bible, but they didn’t originate a view of perfect preservation, a doctrine which is as old as Scripture itself.

Conclusion

God-fearing saints in Baptist churches for centuries have believed in the perfect preservation of Scripture. And they still do. When they open their Bibles to study or to listen to preaching, they believe that they hold in their hands God’s Word, inspired and perfectly preserved. They don’t take that position from any scholars or historians. They have read it themselves in their own Bibles.

As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.  Isaiah 59:21

Advertisements
  1. February 27, 2007 at 7:35 pm

    Is there some way I am discouraging participation? Is this correct or not?

  2. February 27, 2007 at 8:01 pm

    I think everyone is busy right now!

  3. February 28, 2007 at 7:03 am

    I posted this comment under the wrong article. So here it is again:

    Okay, seeing as it’s the end of February, let me see if I can summarize your position. Correct me where I’m wrong:

    1. The Bible teaches inspiration of the autographs.
    2. The Bible teaches preservation through copies.
    3. Preservation is a work of God through the Church(es).
    4. Preservation is for words, not just books and meaning.
    5. We know which manuscript family and which translation are to be considered God’s Word based on which one has had the most usage in the Church(es).
    6. The KJV and the TR are the translation and manuscript which have been used more than any other translation or text, and therefore are to be considered the Word of God – above any other translation or text.
    7. Any update of the KJV can only be considered legitimate if the Churche(es) accept it and use it.

    Is this about right?

  4. Bobby Mitchell
    February 28, 2007 at 8:42 am

    Amen to the article.

    I believe that you are getting little response because (1) this is devastating to the MVO’s, so they like the ignore game and (2) the IFB blog world is made up of a bunch of ADD-type theologues who can’t stick with any particular subject for more than a few days. They are easily bored and in search of “some new thing.”

    I rarely see anything accomplished in blogdom as far as issues being settled. However, it does provide bits and pieces of food for thought that may eventually affect the reader’s understanding.

    This is just a suggestion, but maybe the three of you should think about a new subject every two weeks instead of once a month. You might have faster, thicker participation. It would also help you boil down a lot of what you are writing to the essentials.

  5. February 28, 2007 at 9:07 am

    I agree with Bobby in that issues will not be settled online.

    I will say that some of the arguments seemed mixed in with your key issues- such as preservation and “local church only,” for example- that make it hard to assent to one of your arguments without the other. Yet, for example, Douglas Wilson has been referenced somewhat positively in this series of posts- someone who certainly would not be in the stream of “true churches” I understand you men to hold to.

  6. February 28, 2007 at 9:22 am

    I have some questions on the this topic (KJVO vs. MVO, etc.), but I am waiting for an appropriate thread in order to post some questions that plague my mind. Perhaps Jackhammer would open a strictly Q&A type of a thread seeing that we are in the end of Feb. I hate to see this topic get ‘put on the shelf for now.’ I have gotten educated through just about everyone’s contribution.

  7. February 28, 2007 at 10:08 am

    Bobby said:
    “the IFB blog world is made up of a bunch of ADD-type theologues who can’t stick with any particular subject for more than a few days. They are easily bored and in search of “some new thing.””

    A rather unfair characterization.

  8. Bobby Mitchell
    February 28, 2007 at 12:46 pm

    My apologies, relglerjoe. I should have said MANY in the IFB blog world fit that description. It certainly is not true of all.

  9. February 28, 2007 at 1:20 pm

    Regler Joe, You are close in your summation, but some things need to be tweaked. I will answer in CAPS for clarity.

    1. The Bible teaches inspiration of the autographs. YES. I DON’T THINK WE GOT INTO INSPIRATION MUCH, AND, THEREFORE, WE DIDN’T GET INTO DERIVATIVE INSPIRATION. MAYBE WE CAN LEAVE THAT ALONE FOR NOW.
    2. The Bible teaches preservation through copies. PRESERVATION OF LETTERS AND WORDS THROUGH COPIES.
    3. Preservation is a work of God through the Church(es). YES.
    4. Preservation is for words, not just books and meaning. YES.
    5. We know which manuscript family and which translation are to be considered God’s Word based on which one has had the most usage in the Church(es). NOT EXACTLY, ALTHOUGH CLOSE. THE HOLY SPIRIT WILL GUIDE THE CHURCHES INTO ALL TRUTH, SO THE AGREEMENT OF THE CHURCHES, IN WHICH THEY SETTLE ON WHAT SCRIPTURE IS, BY MEANS OF GOD’S PROVIDENCE, DOES NECESSARILY RESULT IN THAT BEING WHAT THEY USE. YOU CAN’T ADD OR TAKE AWAY FROM SOMETHING IF THERE ISN’T ANYTHING TO ADD OR TAKE AWAY FROM.
    6. The KJV and the TR are the translation and manuscript which have been used more than any other translation or text, and therefore are to be considered the Word of God – above any other translation or text. THIS WAS THE BIBLE FOR 350 YEARS BEFORE THE “SCIENCE” OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
    7. Any update of the KJV can only be considered legitimate if the Churche(es) accept it and use it. YES. AGREEING ON THE TRUTH THAT THE CHURCH IS THE PILLAR AND GROUND OF THE TRUTH, WE SHOULD GET CHURCH APPROVAL PREVIOUS TO A TRANSLATION.

    Bobby, that is something we’ll think about. And Thanks.

    Greg, I think the idea of what “the church” is will only affect a new translation. Churches, the church, however you view it, went with the KJV. It’s sort of like how they counted the votes in Florida in 2000. Chads, hanging chads, whatever method came out Bush. However you look at the church, as is seen by your own example, Douglas Wilson, the Bible is the same. I would subscribe to the Westminster Confession statement; it’s the same as the London Baptist and the Philadelphia Baptist.

    Thanks Greg.

    Thanks everyone.

  10. March 1, 2007 at 1:04 pm

    THE HOLY SPIRIT WILL GUIDE THE CHURCHES INTO ALL TRUTH, SO THE AGREEMENT OF THE CHURCHES, IN WHICH THEY SETTLE ON WHAT SCRIPTURE IS, BY MEANS OF GOD’S PROVIDENCE, DOES NECESSARILY RESULT IN THAT BEING WHAT THEY USE. YOU CAN’T ADD OR TAKE AWAY FROM SOMETHING IF THERE ISN’T ANYTHING TO ADD OR TAKE AWAY FROM.

    (Fred) Was the Holy Spirit guiding the churches to accept with all agreement the Latin Vulgate for 1,000 years? Seeing that the use of the Latin Vulgate was uninterrupted for 1,000 years and served Bible believing Christians well, why would God need to direct the Christians to adopt a newer translation? Sounds rather subjective.

    PRESERVATION OF LETTERS AND WORDS THROUGH COPIES.

    (Fred) Does that include all the variants of those letters and words found in all those copies?

    THIS WAS THE BIBLE FOR 350 YEARS BEFORE THE “SCIENCE” OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM.

    (Fred) The science of textual criticism was practiced in the day of Erasmus when he edited his first editions of what would become to be named the TR. Of course it was textual criticism in its infancy, because the original languages were just being re-discovered by Christians. It took a while for the discipline to develop, but it was with in the 50-75 years after the KJV was published, not 350 years later.

    YES. AGREEING ON THE TRUTH THAT THE CHURCH IS THE PILLAR AND GROUND OF THE TRUTH, WE SHOULD GET CHURCH APPROVAL PREVIOUS TO A TRANSLATION.

    (Fred) Would that be the Anglican Church or the Roman Catholic?
    How exactly would they give their approval?

    Fred

  11. March 1, 2007 at 5:23 pm

    Fred,

    Thanks for your interaction. Your mocking tones parallel what I often hear from those who deny the Scriptural doctrine of the perfect preservation of Scripture. Yours is also no position. It isn’t based on a Scriptural doctrine of preservation. You stagger in unbelief. We start with Scriptural presuppositions and you start with your view of history and your “evidence” (speculations). I will put yours in bold to differentiate my answers from you below.

    (Fred) Was the Holy Spirit guiding the churches to accept with all agreement the Latin Vulgate for 1,000 years? Seeing that the use of the Latin Vulgate was uninterrupted for 1,000 years and served Bible believing Christians well, why would God need to direct the Christians to adopt a newer translation? Sounds rather subjective.

    “The Italic or pre-Waldensian Church produced a version of the New Testament which was translated from the Received Text by the year A.D. 157.” Fredrick Henry Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 1874

    “The Bible translation of the Italic Church came to be known as the Itala translation. The point of all this is that the Itala Bible was translated from the Received Text.” Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, 1859.

    Under constant persecution, for one thousand years the Waldenses, Albigenses, and other groups of Christians rejected the Catholic Church and their Latin Vulgate, and copied the Received Text as used for the Itala Vulgate.

    B. M. Metzger admits copies of the Old Latin were being copied from the fourth through the thirteenth century. Metzger said the Itala was copied and used through the thirteenth century, while during that time the Catholic Church official version was the Latin Vulgate of Jerome. Believers would have been making the copies of the Itala.

    Of the purity and reliability of this version, Augustine, speaking of different Latin Bibles (about 400 AD) says: “Now among, translations themselves the Italian (Itala) is to be preferred to the others, for it keeps closer to the words without prejudice to clearness of expression.”

    The “Waldensian,” or “Vaudois” Bibles stretch from about 157 to the 1400s A.D. The fact is, according to John Calvin’s successor Theodore Beza, that the Vaudois received the Scriptures from missionaries of Antioch of Syria in the 120s A.D. and finished translating it into their Latin language by 157 AD. This Bible was passed down from generation, until the Reformation of the 1500s, when the Protestants translated the Vaudois Bible into French, Italian, etc.

    There was the Syriac Peshitta, a translation into Syrian from the TR in AD150 by the Bible-believing churches around Antioch where believers were first called Christians. Peshitta is a Syrian word meaning “common,” a word parallel with the term “Received Text.”

    It is also important to note that most of the Greek copies that have existed throughout history are no longer with us today. Several well known Christians mention Greek texts that contained 1 John 5:7 that
    existed in their days centuries ago. Among these are Theodore Beza, John Calvin and Stephanus. Beza remarks that the reading of 1 John 5:7 is found in many of their manuscripts; Calvin likewise says it is found in “the most approved copies”; and Stephanus, who in 1550 printed the Greek text that bears his name, mentioned that of the 16 copies he had 9 of them contained 1 John 5:7. John Gill, who also believed in the inspiration of this verse, likewise mentions in his commentary that nine of Stephanus’ sixteen manuscripts contained this verse.

    (Fred) Does that include all the variants of those letters and words found in all those copies?

    It would be good if you read through what we wrote this month. I don’t want to keep repeating myself. We have never denied textual corruption, which is why the need for providential preservation. God ensured that we would have every Word generally accessible.

    (Fred) The science of textual criticism was practiced in the day of Erasmus when he edited his first editions of what would become to be named the TR. Of course it was textual criticism in its infancy, because the original languages were just being re-discovered by Christians. It took a while for the discipline to develop, but it was with in the 50-75 years after the KJV was published, not 350 years later.

    Philip Schaff, certainly no perfect preservationist wrote at least three times, once each during the history of the reformation:  “The science of textual criticism was not yet born…”  You won’t find the words “textual criticism” for centuries after the KJV.

    (Fred) Would that be the Anglican Church or the Roman Catholic?
    How exactly would they give their approval?

    I answered this above.  I have this sense, Fred, that you don’t really care.  Although I’m guessing a major feature of your defense of canonicity comes from Roman Catholic councils.  You would be the Latin Vulgate man.  God’s churches were guided by the Holy Spirit to the exact Words, even as God promised.

  12. March 1, 2007 at 7:42 pm

    Kent,

    Great post and also your response on comment #11 was great. I found it very helpful. I have emailed the pastor (Pastor Webb) who has a copy of the book “Thou Shalt Keep Them.” He is sending it out to me. I am looking forward to reading it.

    This has been an intersesting month here at Jackhammr. All three of you have made some great points. While I agree with most of what was said, I do not believe we currently need another edition of the KJV. That is not say the english speaking churches will not be need one in the future.

    I also appreciated many of the comments by Bobby Mitchell this month. I found his insight very helpful.

  13. March 1, 2007 at 11:30 pm

    Thanks Terry. Glad you were able to be here from there. I’m fine with keeping the KJV. I don’t think people don’t make it because of the KJV anyway. I’ve said for years that the Bible you use and the one you’ll be able to understand.

  14. March 2, 2007 at 4:24 am

    a few points

    1) We have known examples of the Waldensians’ Bibles having been translated from the Vulgate. All the evidence currently extant supports the understanding that Waldensian Bibles came from the Vulgate. There is no extant Waldensian Bibles from which to find that they really were Byzantine in nature.

    There is an Old Latin manuscript (codex c) which is associated with the Albigenses. But …

    2) The Old Latin is not a Byzantine text family. Most everyone associates the Old Latin with the Western text or even the Alexandrian text. There are some individual copies which may support some individual Byzantine readings, but for the most part it is not a Byzantine text. In fact the Old Latin is not unanimous. It is divided into 3 classifications and there is a lot of disharmony even there.

    3) It is argued here that the Peshitta originates in AD 150. Scholarship even at the time of this 1915 article in ISBE on the Syriac Versions, was already favoring a view that the NT text of the Peshitta was very similar to the Vulgate in that it was a later revision of conflicting earlier translations from Greek into Syriac (Vulgate would have been into Latin). In fact that article above claims that the word Peshitta really means “simple” or “easy to be understood” and refers to the fact that it is not “encumbered with marks and signs in the nature of an apparatus criticus“. Today scholarly opinion is all but unanimous that the Peshitta did not originate in AD 150, but rather sometime in the 400s AD.

  15. Sam Hanna
    March 6, 2007 at 4:33 pm

    An excellent post by Pastor Kent – glad to see some uneffeminate Americans taking a stand for truth. I am sick to death of the intimidation tactics of those who want to destroy the preeminence of the KJV. Have you noticed how most so-called Fundys spent half their time telling their congregations what they regard as “mistakes” in the KJV instead of just preaching it – Kevin Bauder is a classic example of this of DBTS.

    It is interesting also that they fill their blogs with example after example of supposed errors in the KJV yet never honestly face up to the problems of the minority text. When was the last time you read of anyone refuting Dean Burgon’s books from a scholarly perspective? Why do they not explain why the five main uncials that make up the minority text in Mark 8:7 for example say 5 completely different readings? Which one is the original? Toss a coin? Why do they not attempt to explain why all the modern translations state in John 3:25 that it was a “certain Jew” in the singular yet translate in v28 “you yourselves” when the context clearly shows this to be an error (eg v32 shows that the “ye/you yourselves” is talking about unbelieving Jews)

    I could fill this blog with examples after example of this kind of blind loyalty to the two most corrupted texts in history.

  16. Anvil
    March 6, 2007 at 6:42 pm

    “It is interesting also that they fill their blogs with example after example of supposed errors in the KJV yet never honestly face up to the problems of the minority text.”

    The fact that the minority text has more problems doesn’t change the fact that there are differences and inconsistencies in the manuscripts behind the KJV. Not everyone who disagrees with perfect preservation in the KJV (or more properly the MT/TR) believes that we should be using the CT.

  17. March 6, 2007 at 6:58 pm

    Sam,

    Thanks for coming over. They really don’t care as long as they can get us to say there are errors in the Bible. If they do, then they believe we are right where they are, involved with textual criticism and without Scriptural presuppositions. You are absolutely right that they attack the Bible, but when they are done, what do we get?

  18. Sam Hanna
    March 9, 2007 at 12:21 pm

    Hi Br Kent

    I appreciate the scholarly yet balanced line you are taking on this issue. I appreciate that space is an issue but there are those of us who are being refreshed and encouraged by your witness.

    Could you do us all a favour and add some references to your statements of fact – it would help us all to refute the constant sniping of the critics of our beloved KJV. So could you give us the references for the following statement:

    several well known Christians mention Greek texts that contained 1 John 5:7 that existed in their days centuries ago. Among these are Theodore Beza, John Calvin and Stephanus. Beza remarks that the reading of 1 John 5:7 is found in many of their manuscripts; Calvin likewise says it is found in “the most approved copies”; and Stephanus, who in 1550 printed the Greek text that bears his name, mentioned that of the 16 copies he had 9 of them contained 1 John 5:7. John Gill, who also believed in the inspiration of this verse, likewise mentions in his commentary that nine of Stephanus’ sixteen manuscripts contained this verse.

  19. March 10, 2007 at 6:35 pm

    I can’t give all Kent’s references, but I just had my e-Sword program open and decided to look up 1 John 5:7. There I have Gill’s commentary, and that is exactly the place where Gill writes of Stephanus’ 16 copies, etc.

  20. March 12, 2007 at 12:50 pm

    Sam,

    Bauder isn’t on the faculty of DBTS (“Kevin Bauder is a classic example of this of DBTS.”) He is the president of Central Seminary in Minneapolis.

    You say that those who do not take the same position as you have a “blind loyalty.” Do you not think this is a bit of an overstatement?

  21. Sam Hanna
    March 12, 2007 at 6:28 pm

    Hi Petros

    Thanks for the correction. One thing that shocks me is the reading list of CBTS for the Spring Semester on their website:

    http://www.centralseminary.edu/studentlife/booklistspring.pdf

    It is riddled with Neo-Evangelicals and apostates like Piper, Bruce, Metzger, D A Carson etc. It is no wonder that most Neo-Fundamentalists of the effeminate variety are the way they are on SI when this is the diet they pour into them at so-called Conservative schools. Fundamentalism is truly de facto Neo-Evangelical today.

    My reference to “blind loyalty” is to those who keep pushing the Minority Text supremacy argument no matter how much evidence is collated against them. I don’t believe that it is hyperbole.

  22. March 13, 2007 at 1:50 am

    There is a strong bias against the TR, Sam. It is unwarranted in every way possible. What’s absurd is that they don’t really have to have anything to replace it. They destroy the TR and replace it with lots of guessing, they say educated.

  23. DH
    March 29, 2007 at 10:27 pm

    Sam,

    That you label Piper and Bruce and Metzger and Carson as “neo-evangelicals and apostates” worthy of repudiation/separation, remains quite foolish and disobedient, though it is not surprising.

    The deep shock and annoyance for me is that through such a statement you seem to imply that any reading of these individuals is positively harmful. Really?! If you believe that, then you have gone far beyond your masculinity mantra and have entered the arrogant, fear-driven, ignorance-based orbit of the Spanish Inquisition.

    Such biblically unfounded nonsense would clearly reveal that either:

    a) you are not seriously acquainted with these authors or their writings yourself (in which case, in bold defiance of 1 Timothy 6:4, you gladly hurl and cultivate “false suspicions” about subjects/books that you remain duly uninformed); or

    b) you remain unfortunately unaware of the truly dangerous authors and theological errors of our day (open theism, arminianism, emergent church, self-help, health/wealth, new perspective on paul, etc.)–thereby fighting the wrong battles all together; or

    c) regardless of any knowledge of the cataclysmic differences between Piper and Pinnock or between Carson and Copeland, you angrily and sinfully insist on dishonest “broad-brushing” to promote your agenda, refusing to copy Jesus’ example of distinguishing between truly fundamental and secondary matters (Matt. 23:23-24).

    Sam, what is your “approved” list for studying Scripture and theology? Would you be so naive and/or intellectually dishonest as to say that no good thing at all could be gleaned by reading the careful and clearheaded Biblical expositions by Piper or Carson or Bruce or Metzger?

    Nothing? They have NOTHING to teach the IFB movement who apparently knows it all and would gladly thumb their noses at any book not itself written by a IFB’s? (with the notable exception of saints from yesteryear, whom, thanks to the welcoming of revisionist history, we can easily re-make into kjvo IFB’s to our heart’s delight).

    Perhaps I’m overreacting. Perhaps this is not at all what you intended by your comment. If so, I apologize (btw, regardless of seeming “effeminate,” we are commanded to be kind and gentle).

    Yet, at the very least, from your cavalier attitude and tone, one can very easily gain the impression that you put NO value on these authors. Sam, please don’t throw out the baby with the bath water.

    Regardless of you or me ever seeing eye to eye on secondary matters of doctrine (defining specific boundaries of separation, TR matters, etc.), can’t you admit of SOME positive educational value in reading the likes of Piper, Carson, Metzger and Bruce?

    If not, I gravely fear for the future generation of Fundamentalist thinkers and teachers and preachers of God’s Word.

    D. H.

  24. March 30, 2007 at 2:19 pm

    The deep shock and annoyance for me is that through such a statement you seem to imply that any reading of these individuals is positively harmful. Really?! If you believe that, then you have gone far beyond your masculinity mantra and have entered the arrogant, fear-driven, ignorance-based orbit of the Spanish Inquisition.

    Wow, DH, you are positively lacking in separation, discernment, and Biblical obedience! God’s Word teaches us to identify (ie. mark) and separate from false teachers, false brethren, heretics, apostates, etc. – that would also include modernists.

    Proverbs 19:27 Cease, my son, to hear the instruction that causeth to err from the words of knowledge.

    In other words, stop listening to those teachers, scholars, etc. that contradict, twist, lead away from God’s Word. And those names you mentioned certainly do! I fear that the little (or a lot!) of leaven that you allow through these people are leavening your whole lump…

    Matthew 16:11-12 How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

    1 Corinthians 5:6-8 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

    Luke 13:20-21 And again he said, Whereunto shall I liken the kingdom of God? It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.

    1 Corinthians 15:33 Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.

  25. March 30, 2007 at 4:50 pm

    Jerry,

    I don’t think DH was saying we should fellowship with Piper, Carson, et al, but he was questioning the criteria by which Sam called Piper an “apostate.” Just because you read someone’s book or listen to them preach on oneplace.com doesn’t mean you’ve violated the doctrine of separation.

    Accusing men like Carson and Piper of “preaching another gospel” is a pretty strong accusation, and maybe some should consider their words a bit more carefully.

    Regards

  26. Sam Hanna
    March 30, 2007 at 8:09 pm

    Greetings DH and Petros

    I am not an IFBer although I think it is a great label. I am from UK so the concept is not so clearly defined. There is nothing to be ashamed of for being a KJV IFBer like Dr Clarence Sexton or Lee Roberson. For guys that are “non-judgemental” and urging us to be careful with our language you sure don’t practice what you preach about the IFB brethren.

    Bruce Metzger does not even believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch and states “Nearly all modern scholars agree that, like the other books of the Pentateuch, [Genesis] is a composite of several sources, embodying traditions that go back in some cases to Moses.” and “out of a matrix of myth, legend, and history, there had appeared the earliest written form of the story of the saving acts of God from Creation to the conquest of the Promised Land.” He is a total an utter APOSTATE of the highest order.

    John Piper thinks it is fine to sing RAP music, slay in the Toronto Blessing Spirit and be “sanctified and saved” like Mother Theresa. Now, the man claims to be a theologian with countless degrees from Fuller, Wheaton etc so I can only conclude he is deliberately perverting the gospel for his own ends. That makes him an APOSTATE by my definition. You may not agree but at the very least you have to admit I have substantive grounds for saying this.

    DA Carson says “Most of these stories [in Genesis 1-11] deal with periods long before writing was invented, so they cannot be ‘history’ in the strict sense of the term or be verified by evidence from outside the Bible. … T. Jacobsen has coined the term ‘mytho-historical’ to describe such literature … ‘Myth’ has negative overtones, so ‘proto-history’ is probably a better way to describe Genesis 1-11.” So clearly he is an APOSTATE too.

    This is not Sharper Iron (thankfully!!) so you cannot intimidate the voices of the faithful remnant here. You would probably be better chatting about your undying love and admiration with the effeminate devotees of the Pied Rap Piper there.

  27. March 31, 2007 at 1:15 pm

    “DA Carson says “Most of these stories [in Genesis 1-11] deal with periods long before writing was invented, so they cannot be ‘history’ in the strict sense of the term or be verified by evidence from outside the Bible. … T. Jacobsen has coined the term ‘mytho-historical’ to describe such literature … ‘Myth’ has negative overtones, so ‘proto-history’ is probably a better way to describe Genesis 1-11.” So clearly he is an APOSTATE too.”

    I don’t get it. How does this make him an apostate, someone who is preaching a different gospel?

    I don’t think anyone is saying that they agree with everything Piper says/does, but how does the things you mention make him a preacher of a different gospel? Piper allows things (music on this point) in his church that I personally do not think is appropriate, seems to be more sympathetic toward charismatics, and used a very poor example/illustration in Mother Theresa of Christian love. I guess I’m still confused as to why that makes him a preacher of another gospel? Because of this he is not preaching the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ? A penal substitutionary atonement? A perfect sacrifice in Christ who died for sinners? I’m not following you Sam.

    btw, I’m with you on Metzger. While his scholarship has been helpful, he is an apostate.

  28. DH
    April 1, 2007 at 12:03 am

    Petros,

    I appreciate your clear-headed, genuine reasoning. I do think such to be a sign of a renewed mind, no matter how much room to grow we each still have (especially me!).

    I would caution you against extended debate with Sam if he refuses to take you seriously. You will only end up frustrated and mystified–and end up wasting a whole lot of time/energy in the process.

    I agree with you and Sam about Metzger’s less-than-evangelical (a.k.a., apostate) positions, but you nailed home my express point in the first place: “his scholarship has been helpful.”

    What about the Masorites? They were certainly sub-Christian and “apostate”…why then do we accept their meticulous work in the preservation of the Old Testament? Well…in this case it promotes Sam’s agenda, so he’ll be okay with their work.

    Do we need to have only solidly evangelical Christians (who aren’t Charismatic and never use rap music) write Greek grammars before we’re allowed to benefit by them?

    Sam needs to settle down the rhetoric and actually explain/defend himself. Again, is he saying that there is absolutely NO value in reading these (and other) folks?

    I’m sure Sam differs from Spurgeon at some crucial points…so is Spurgeon roasting in Hell also? What about John Bunyan or John Gill? Oh yeah, I almost forgot my own observation: it doesn’t matter because when it comes to history Sam is allowed to do whatever he wants and re-shape his heroes into actually being his heroes.

    Insanity at best. Willful ignorance and stubborn pride at worst.

    Sorry for coming off so negative and caustic. I’m just not sure at this point how to make the issue any clearer. Gosh, if Sam really believes what he says he believes about Piper and Carson being bonafide heretics, then he (Sam) is the one who needs to be separated from. He is the schismatic! Titus 3:9-11.

    Heresy and Legalism…these are pretty huge things in Jesus’ book. That’s why I feel justified in using Galatians 1 like tone, though I must be careful due to the evident pride in my own heart in addition to my own sinful tendency to misjudge and to skew.

    So I’ll leave it at that for now.

    Blessings from the Cross,

    DH

  1. No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: