Home > Brandenburg, Fundamentalism, Jack Schaap, King James Only, The Word, Truth > Deconstructing Fugate and Schaap and a Conclusion about Ranking Doctrines

Deconstructing Fugate and Schaap and a Conclusion about Ranking Doctrines

February 24, 2009

You can buy Oxy 10 (strong zit cream) now that performs two tasks—dries up the pimple and covers it with a flesh tone coloring.  It’s both a medicine and a make-up.  Teenagers, no more need for those unsightly bandaids waiting for a bad blemish to heal.   This essay will also multi-task by delivering my break-down of the Fugate-Schaap fight and finish up the actual topic of the month—Ranking Doctrines.  The first will surely bring the largest crowd (fitting for Fugate and Schaap) and the latter will draw the most commentary.   This month our blog has had more readers in its bathroom than other blogs have had in their auditoriums.  Jeff Fugate and Jack Schaap are google gold.

Fugate and Schaap

I still get The Church Bus News, once printed by Wally “Mr. Bus” Beebe, and since his death, the domain of Jeffrey Fugate of Lexington, KY.  I get the major mailings, including The Voice, from First Baptist in Hammond, now headquarters for Jack Schaap.  Like most of you, first I received the special edition of the Fugate magazine (23 pp) and a little later Schaap’s answer (16 pp).  The same day as Schaap’s reply to Fugate, I got the surreal letter to Jack Hyles written by Russell Anderson.   I’ve never been in the Fugate/Schaap loop, but I was happy to have them tell me what they thought about the doctrine of preservation and the King James Version.

Fugate and Schaap represent the Hyles’ branch of fundamentalism.  Schaap took the mantle from Hyles.  He refers to the moment on p. 2:

On his (father-in-law, Jack Hyles) deathbed he took my hand and stated pointedly, ‘I love many people, but I don’t trust them all.’  He paused, squeezed my hand, and continued, ‘I trust you, Jack, with everything I have.’  It was a holy and sacred moment for me.

Schaap has done a phenomenal job in keeping the Hyles’ circus going.  I would not have thought anyone could do it.  He has.  Fugate had to settle, it seems, for getting Russell Anderson, which is a feather in his Hyles cap, but he is a simple Hyles’ grad with a Hyles honorary doctorate, which can’t compare to being in Hyles’ family and getting the Hyles’ death bed handshake.

Synopsis

For those who haven’t seen the mailings, let me start with the Fugate one.  Around a huge, half page picture of himself, Fugate explained and justified his mailing on pp. 2-3.  On pp. 4-5 he presented quotes from Jack Hyles on the subject from Hyles’ book, The Need for an Every-Word Bible.  Fugate printed a chapter from a recent Ms. Gail Riplinger book from p. 6 to p. 12.  Fugate wrote a chapter called “The Inspired, Preserved Word” from pp. 13-17, and then reproduced his “Open Letter to Dr. Schaap” from p. 18 to p. 23.

On the top fold of the newsprint style Special Pastor’s Edition of The Voice read in giant red letters, “Dr. Jack Schaap Speaks on Inspiration and the King James Bible.”  On the top 1/3 of the first page, but numbered p. 2, in about 25 pt. font, Schaap stated what he believes, and after that an open letter to no pastor in particular, p. 3 an answer to eight different questions that he said he had received from various people, pp. 4-5 his Jack Hyles pages, quoted for his own defense, pp. 6-7 excerpts from two different booklets in which he deals with this subject—Why Stand against the King James Bible? and Dr. Jack Schaap Answers, p. 8 the doctrinal statements of seventeen different Baptist schools to support his position, and pp. 9-11 letters from deacons, staff, Charles Colsten, Wendell Evans, and Ray Young in full support of Schaap.   The last three pages were miscellaneous defenses of the Schaap position—one the letter to the readers by the KJV translators, dictionary definitions of “inspiration,” lexiconal entries for theopneustos, and ending with observations and conclusion.

Both of them quote Hyles for their own purposes.  Ironically, I believe that it was possible to defend more than one position with Hyles’ words.  Hyles would say that he always took the same position, but if you read his early Revelation commentary,  you’d see that he commonly corrected the KJV in that book.  Then later he turned to the position that said someone could not be converted except through the KJV.  In between there, he made many varied and contradictory statements on the subject, so much so that men with different positions both use him to defend themselves.

Schaap Mistakes

Fugate and Schaap make convoluted or inaccurate statements.  In the large font on p. 2 Schaap wrote what is his official position:

I believe the King James Version of the Bible is the divinely preserved translation of the inspired Word of God for English speaking peoples.

What’s wrong with that?  It isn’t easy to understand.  I can’t tell what he believes about the underlying Greek and Hebrew text by that statement.  I don’t know what he believes about inspiration or preservation from the statement.  Someone asked Schaap this question:  “If we believe in divine preservation, don’t we then believe that the inspired words were preserved in their inspired state?”  As part of his answer, he made this statement:  “We have copies of an English translation that came from copies of other translations, etc., etc.” By the time he was done, I couldn’t tell what he believed.

When you read the official position of the church and college, you find the same indecipherable type of statement (p. 9):

Furthermore, we believe the Scriptures were translated, copied, and preserved under the watchful care of divine providence and that the English speaking peoples of today have in the King James Version of the Scriptures an accurate, reliable, divinely preserved translation of the Scriptures.

It says the Scriptures were translated, copied, then preserved.  Isn’t copying the way they were preserved?  Wasn’t the copying or preservation of Scriptures done before they were translated?  Nothing else that was written by Schaap or any others from Hyles-Anderson cleared this up.

Fugate Failings

Gail Riplinger took up the bulk of the space for Fugate, carrying the doctrinal water for him.  She wrote on p. 6:

The actual ‘originals’ have not been the recipient of the promise of preservation, as they have long since dissolved.

I haven’t read anything that Riplinger has written until this paper.  She made the above inane statement in the second sentence of her presentation.   She said there was no “promise of preservation” of the ‘originals’ because they have long since “dissolved.”  How does a promise of preservation relate to whether we still possess the originals or not?  The absence of originals doesn’t change what Scripture promises or doesn’t promise.  And how do the “originals” receive a promise anyway?  God wrote promises to people, not to manuscripts of the Bible.  The next sentence brings confusion to what she even means by “originals”:

As is demonstrated in detail in the previous chapters of Greek and Hebrew Study Dangers, all currently printed Greek and Hebrew editions contain errors.

From that statement you can see where we’re headed with Riplinger, but you can also see that when she says “originals,” she doesn’t mean “original manuscripts” but “original languages.”   So she is saying that Scripture doesn’t promise original language preservation.  So what does it promise about preservation?  We’ll get there.

On top of that, how does Riplinger know that every Hebrew and Greek text has errors?  She doesn’t possess the original manuscripts, so she doesn’t know that.  She can’t compare any of the editions of the Hebrew and Greek text of Scripture with their original manuscripts, so she can’t even come to that conclusion.  What she should conclude, based upon a biblical view of inspiration and preservation found in God’s promises in His Word, is that we do have all of the Words without error in the Hebrew and Greek text of Scripture.

But that isn’t where Ms. Riplinger is headed as she teaches us her bibliology.  She claims to know that we don’t have a perfect original language Bible, but what we do have is a perfect translation of the Bible.  So a perfect translation came from a corrupt text.  And she based that upon what?

The answer to the question, ‘Where is the living word of God’ lies in God’ s promise given to Isaiah 28 and fulfilled in Acts 2.  “With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak . . . saith the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:21) [bold hers].

What do you think of that exegesis?  She concludes that God is telling us in 1 Corinthians 14:21 that His Word would come with men of other tongues—not Hebrew and Greek ones—and we know now that they are English ones.  We’re supposed to read that out of that verse from Paul in 1 Corinthians 14 (I wish she had read a little further down to 1 Cor 14:29-35 and practiced that instead).

She has many more errors, crazy ones, as you continue to read her.   Her writing should be respected by no one.  What you can see that she believes  is that we didn’t have a perfect Bible from the moment those original manuscripts “dissolved” until we got the King James Version (1611 or 1769?).  She is a living example of why women shouldn’t be teaching doctrine to men (1 Timothy 2:9-15).  When Schaap challenged Fugate on the phone about learning theology from a woman, Fugate’s comeback was (p. 23):

Gail Riplinger is a woman who holds an honorary doctorate from Hyles-Anderson college for her work on the KJB.

Somebody should tell her that her career in doctrinal mangling is over.

What kind of respect does Fugate hold for Riplinger? This really shows you the caliber of these types of men.  Not only is half his presentation a chapter from her book, but then he writes his section and plagiarizes paragraphs of her from the very chapter that he printed.  Some editor should have stopped chewing his bazooka and informed him of this.  On p. 15 in the first column and on p. 16 at the bottom of the first column and top of the second, Fugate plagiarizes almost word-for-word two paragraphs of Riplinger’s chapter located at the bottom of the last paragraph on p. 6 and then the last paragraph on p. 7.

Trying to be the diplomat, Schaap wrote this on the back page of his paper:

I don’t think any one of us could slide a piece of paper between our differences.

I want to go on record to say that there is far more than paper-thin differences between the scriptural position and what most of the Hylots have written.  Try a boulder.

An Aside

As an aside, the new filing director at Sharper Iron, Greg Linscott, linked to Dave’s last article on Schaap-Fugate.  It is presently the most visited thread of their filing section and heavily commented.  One of their moderators, a “Larry,” wrote this about Dave:

The irony of this article is that someone who does not have a biblical doctrine of preservation is complaining that someone else who doesn’t have a biblical doctrine of preservation doesn’t have a biblical doctrine of preservation.

That’s all he said.  Clever, huh?  He didn’t say how it was unscriptural, just that it was.  It’s throwing raw meat to the MVO (multiple version only) crowd.  He knows it.   Classic fundamentalism.  What is truly ironic is a person with no biblical doctrine of preservation, Larry, saying that Dave doesn’t have one.   I’ve never ever heard an MVO advocate, someone like Larry, ever start with the Bible to come to his position on preservation.  As a matter of fact, they believe that you start with textual criticism and then restrain your doctrine from keeping the “evidence” from leading you to the “truth.”   Larry’s view of preservation is the new post-enlightenment position that all of the doctrines of scripture have been preserved, not the words.  You won’t find it in the Bible.

Final Comments about Ranking Doctrines

In the previous three posts of mine about reducing scripture to essentials and non-essentials, I haven’t presented much of a scriptural argument against that position and practice.  In my first installment, I linked to a five part series that I had already written, that did give a biblical basis for an every teaching is essential approach.  I also argued against the defense mounted by the other side.  I would like to spend a little time dealing with their main arguments.  I contend that their main point isn’t in the Bible at all and it is invented only to maintain a type of fake unity between all believers.  However, here are some of the passages to which they refer to state their case.

1 Corinthians 15:3

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

Those who rank doctrines see this verse as inferring this practice.  They understand “first” (protos) as “first in importance.”  They explain that Paul is saying that the gospel is foremost of all the doctrines, based on this text.  This is how the New American Standard and the English Standard Versions translate protos.  Protos more often means “first in time.”  If it does mean “first in importance,” then Paul could be saying that the gospel is foremost in this chapter.  With such relative ambiguity, we shouldn’t base a doctrine on the understanding of this one word.  Even if it does mean “most important,” then it is an even further stretch to say that it is the only doctrine or one of the few doctrines worth separating over.

Matthew 23:23

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

Essential or non-essential people infer their practice from the use of the word “weightier” (barus).  The Pharisees paid tithe on certain small herbs, but didn’t accomplish the “weightier” matters of the law, like mercy, etc.  What are “weightier matters?”  Barus carries with it the understanding of “difficulty.”  The Pharisees chose to do the easier things, tithing their little herbs.  Jesus is refuting the ranking of doctrines.  They had voided certain practices and replaced them with other easier ones.  Why?  The easier ones they could do on their own.  This is a major reason why men will rank doctrines–because they don’t see how they can keep everything that God said.  They’re right.  They can’t do it, which is why they need justification by faith.

1 Corinthians 16:22

If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.

Certain violations come with severe punishment.   Those ranking doctrines  say that this indicates that these issues are essential, rated ahead of other doctrines or practices.  If someone doesn’t love Jesus, then he isn’t saved.  That’s why he is cursed.   It is ironic that people who do love the Lord Jesus will keep everything that He says (John 14:21-24).  In other words, “Anathema Maranatha” if you won’t do everything that Jesus says to do.

1 Corinthians 3:11-13

For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.  Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.

Jesus is foundational to everything.   No one is arguing with that.  We must believe in Jesus Christ or all other doctrine or practice won’t matter to someone’s life and eternity.  In 2 Peter 1, believers will add virtue to faith and knowledge to virtue.   That doesn’t mean that faith is more important than virtue.

Romans 14:5

One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

Romans 14 applies to non-scriptural issues.  Colossians 2:16 says that we shouldn’t judge one day above another because they are merely shadows of Christ.  1 Corinthians 5:7 says that Christ is our passover.  Days are not a doctrinal issue.  You can’t apply this to scriptural doctrine and practice.

Philippians 3:15

Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.

This verse has been used for ranking doctrines.   It isn’t remotely about that.  What is the “same mind” that Paul wanted the Philippians to have with him? It was the same mind or attitude of this pursuit of Christlikeness that he just talked about in the context. Paul uses sarcasm with the term “perfect,” because he himself had just said that nobody had reached perfection until they reach Christ. If they weren’t going to have that mindset of pursuing Christlikeness, then his hope was that God would expose this wrong way of thinking and help them change it.

I’ve already made arguments for not having the essential/non-essential teaching over at my blog in a five part series.  I’ve only dealt with the other side here.  I’ve found that this is all they’ve got to offer.

Defining What Fellowship Is

In the comment section, one brother asked me about fellowship, to define what it was.  I thought it would be worth doing here.   I’m not fellowshiping with someone at the park with whom I’m playing pick-up basketball.  I might take an unsaved person out to lunch.  That isn’t fellowship if I have the purpose of evangelism.  I’m on the board of two orchestras.  That isn’t fellowship, even though there are other Christians on one of the boards.  Winning an election and joining Congress isn’t fellowship.

Fellowship is an association with a common spiritual purpose and goal.  I may talk to another professing believer who believes differently than me.  We can sit down for coffee or a meal with the attitude that we are attempting to be in fellowship if possible.  This may take many visits.  I know that these two paragraphs don’t deal with every situation.

Conclusion

Sometimes the word “core” is used. I see it spreading.  Core values. And then fancy words like triage, which puts people in such a daze that they refuse to keep thinking about it. Taxonomy is another one. None of these are taught in Scripture. “Fundamental” is very much like “foundational.” I have no doubt that certain doctrines are “foundational.” For instance, who cares if you practice complementarianism when you are not saved. Being saved is foundational. It could also be fundamental in that sense.

But let’s be clear. We know why “core” and all these exciting new theological terms are being used. Men want to be able to water down belief and practice and not be punished for it. The world loves minimizing and reducing, so these same churches will be more popular with the world. And then all the churches that love being popular will also be popular with each other. It’s like a big peace treaty that we could hand out a Christian version of the Nobel Peace prize. We can all smile at each other and get along while we disobey what God said. Then you’ve got a guy that says everything is important, and that’s, you know, an attack on unity. It’s a fake unity like what people have at a family reunion.  Real unity is based on what God said.

Advertisements
  1. reglerjoe
    February 24, 2009 at 5:34 pm

    On p. 6 of The Church Bus News , Riplinger writes:”Toads’ lungs are living breathing things. Why would God continue to make them perfectly, to breathe out only a croak of a toad’s breath, and not make the vernacular Bibles as alive, which speak his very words? Or did the Bible croak?”

    Would somebody explain this to me?

    She goes on to say:“New versions are buried when their copyright owner dies, since they are no longer propelled by the hot air of advertising campaigns.”

    Are we to be thankful, then, that the British Crown holds the copyright on the KJV, since the Crown will never “die”? Have any modern versions gone into oblivion because their copyright expired?

    Riplinger continues to stress the need for Bibles in vernacular languages: “[God] is still speaking today. Today’s Holy Bibles, be they English or Korean, are notjust preserved museum words or accurate but lifeless equivalencies, they are his very ‘spirit’ and ‘life’.”(p. 6) Also:“We have a living God who speaks to living people. God now speaks in pure vernacular Holy Bibles which are a direct product of the intervention of the Holy Ghost recorded in Acts 2, as foretold in Isa. 28:11, 13. and 14.”

    First of all, it seems that in her effort to denigrate the Greek and Hebrew texts (because the languages are “dead”) she has actually trashed the KJV. The King James english is over 400 years old…hardly “vernacular”.

    Secondly, and I think Kent was referring to this, 1 Cor. 14:21 and Acts 2 are referring to the miraculous gift of tongues, not Bible translations.

    Kent said, “Her writing should be respected by no one.”Amen and amen.

  2. February 24, 2009 at 7:13 pm

    The “croak” thing, Joe, I’m afraid is a lame joke, like a knock-knock joke, supposedly in a serious doctrinal work. It’s a play on the word “croak,” that I don’t think has any inherent message or authority. I think it is intended to humanize, or least frogize, the book.

    The rest of it needs no explanation. The frog illustration probably didn’t need any either. I think you knew what it meant. It’s just that nobody would think that she could have actually meant that.

  3. February 24, 2009 at 8:05 pm

    This really shows you the caliber of these types of men. Not only is half his presentation a chapter from her book, but then he writes his section and plagiarizes paragraphs of her from the very chapter that he printed.

    Classic, Kent! Great job on this.

    I had noticed what Larry said, but I wasn’t sure whether he was (a) quoting something I said in an earlier piece (I checked but could not find a similar quote; (b) referring to Fugate and Schaap; or (c) referring to me.

    If Larry was referring to me, I’ll not be surprised at all. Nor will I be surprised if he carefully avoids commenting over here to explain himself. But if he does feel up to it, I would be more than happy to oblige him with a challenge — I’ll put up my position next to his and show him who, in fact, is missing out in the “Biblical position on preservation” department.

    If Larry was referring to Fugate and Schaap, of course, then I agree. And Larry is more than welcome to come by and tell us so.

    But of course, if he won’t correct Kent’s perception, then I guess we know the answer.

  4. February 24, 2009 at 8:37 pm

    I have read through the special edition of the church bus news, and as a graduate of Commonwealth Baptist College (A ministry of the Clays Mill Road Baptist Church where Pastor Fugate is the pastor), I thought that I would be strengthened by my former pastor’s position. But instead of that, I was faced with the same setbacks that you all saw.

    The impression that I got from Riplinger’s position was that the Greek and Hebrew is corrupt and that God had not preserved them, therefore when the King James Bible was translated, it was a new inspiration rather than a divinely preserved, inspired work being translated into a divinely preserved and inspired translation. In other words, a the God’s preservation had diminished to some level until the King James was translated and the inspiration was renewed at that time. Did anyone else get that sense from this article or am I perhaps looking at it wrong?

  5. February 24, 2009 at 9:23 pm

    Hey Nicholas!

    You read it correctly. She and he believe that the Bible wasn’t preserved, but through re-inspiration we got fresh breath from God in the King James Version.

    I’m sorry that his article wasn’t correct.

  6. February 24, 2009 at 9:29 pm

    Some editor should have stopped chewing his bazooka and informed him of this.

    I actually did LOL when I read this. My wife even asked what was going on. Thanks for the humor.

  7. February 24, 2009 at 10:10 pm

    Riplinger’s “scholarship” sickens me. The only thing worse is “Gail Riplinger took up the bulk of the space for Fugate, carrying the doctrinal water for him.”

    By the way, here’s the link to Schaap’s publication.

  8. February 24, 2009 at 10:44 pm

    Dave,

    Larry wrote, “The irony of this article,” when you were writing about two papers full of several articles. The file linked to an article. Your article. If Larry wasn’t writing about you, he had a strange way of saying it.

    I liked reading your articles too—it was genius in the way of bringing in viewers.

    Jeff,

    I LOLed at Dave’s too. And YW.

    Jack,

    I agree. Thanks for the link.

  9. Jackson
    February 25, 2009 at 2:44 am

    Riplinger clearly is referring to the autographs.

    And if you read the history portions of her In Awe of thy Word she clearly doesn’t believe God didn’t preserve His Word until 1611.

    You guys need to play a round of 3 on 3 basketball or something before you write anything about or in response to Gail Riplinger.

  10. Jackson
    February 25, 2009 at 3:08 am

    And you say, in so many words, this is why we shouldn’t learn doctrine from a woman? And yet here we have a sister in Christ who not only can see the corruptions of the Alexandrian texts but also the effects of the corruption, and not only that was the one person who produced a book that stung the Critical Text industrial complex to their core, exposing them by provoking the reaction she provoked. No other writers or speaker on these issues was able to do that. She is bold and direct and unafraid. Now…on the other hand how many males unable to discern the truth do we see on the Critical Text side? How about this: don’t learn doctrine from unregenerate women *or* men. Once regenerated by the Word and the Spirit there is no male or female in Christ. (Note: this is not what you know of as the egalitarian/complimentarian debate. It is the common mistake Christians make who treat all as if all are currently unregenerate. There is a dividing line among Christ’s people: the regenerate and the currently (forever or not, God knows) unregenerate.)

    Paul doesn’t want womanish men speaking in a church (think, liberal theologians) any more than unregenerate women. The reason why men are to take the lead has to do with the practical necessity of keeping natural order, but a man leading a church can be as unregenerate as any woman, and we *kind of* witness that all the time now don’t we…? But to say a woman can’t even teach via a book or lecture is to twist Scripture rather crudely.

  11. artdunham
    February 25, 2009 at 5:55 am

    Jackson,

    What?

    First of all, women are not permitted to teach men at church, period. That is the only sane way to interpret the KJV on this issue.

    Secondly, divorced men are not even supposed to be pastors or deacons in the local church.

    Thirdly, Ms. Riplinger’s past is well-known, and her very Fundamental brethren seem to have no problem with it.

    Fourthly, her works are Scholastic disasters.

    Fifthly, if you knew anything about the men who run this forum, you would know that they also believe the “Alexandrian” text to be corrupt.

    Sixthly, your interpretation of why men are to take the lead in church is interesting, but not what the Bible teaches solely. The Bible says that all submission from the woman to man is tied to her being deceived in the Garden.

    Seventhly, – I’m sure you’re a big Bible numerology person, too, – This “grasping” on to this woman’s teachings as truth is pathetic, and the true enemies of Bible preservation love it.

  12. reglerjoe
    February 25, 2009 at 6:40 am

    Jackson, you said Riplinger “was the one person who produced a book that stung the Critical Text industrial complex to their core.” How, exactly, has she stung them to their core? Have they made retractions? Have they halted new Bible version production? Hardly. If you drop Riplinger’s name in any serious textual discussion, people snicker. She has zero academic credible. And she’s not the only one in that genre either.

    Jackson said:“You guys need to play a round of 3 on 3 basketball or something before you write anything about or in response to Gail Riplinger.” Instead of being cute, perhaps you should show us exactly where Kent’s (and others’) refutations are in error.

    Jackson also said:“And if you read the history portions of her In Awe of thy Word she clearly doesn’t believe God didn’t preserve His Word until 1611.” I think she made it pretty clear in her article that she doesn’t believe God preserves His word through “dead” languages. She twists Scripture to make a connection between God’s living words and their preservation through “vernacular” language…which is ironic coming from somebody who believes the 400 year old KJV English is a modern vernacular.

    FROM dictionary.reference.com:
    ver⋅nac⋅u⋅lar
       /vərˈnækyələr, vəˈnæk-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ver-nak-yuh-ler, vuh-nak-] Show IPA
    –adjective
    1. (of language) native or indigenous (opposed to literary or learned ).
    2. expressed or written in the native language of a place, as literary works: a vernacular poem.
    3. using such a language: a vernacular speaker.
    4. of or pertaining to such a language.
    5. using plain, everyday, ordinary language.

  13. Jackson
    February 25, 2009 at 6:52 am

    >First of all, women are not permitted to teach men at church, period. That is the only sane way to interpret the KJV on this issue.

    Writing a book is not being a female pastor or elder. Giving a lecture in a building is not leading a church or teaching as a pastor or elder in a context of worship or what have you (whatever your particular church polity understanding is).

    >Secondly, divorced men are not even supposed to be pastors or deacons in the local church.

    Pastors and deacons you say. As for book writers and speakers…what about sinners? Are sinners allowed in your world?

    >Thirdly, Ms. Riplinger’s past is well-known, and her very Fundamental brethren seem to have no problem with it.

    What should they do? What do you do with a sinner (such rare people, those evil sinners, eh?) . There is something called repentance, and divorce is not the unforgivable sin, it goes without saying. What did Jesus say? He who is without sin…

    >Fourthly, her works are Scholastic disasters.

    Ridiculous. Her works are designed to sound the alarm to the corruption and ongoing corruption of God’s Word committed by critical text scholars in their myriad ‘products.’ In this they are extremely successful and useful. Only those easily intimidated by academia, fallacious rhetoric, mocking, bad will, and the demand to be man-fearing would call her books ‘disasters.’ Yes, don’t have a copy of one of them under your arm when you are being interviewed for Westminster Seminary. Or any seminary for that matter. Very embarassing. And don’t have a King James Bible either for that matter either. Very, very embarassing.

    >Fifthly, if you knew anything about the men who run this forum, you would know that they also believe the “Alexandrian” text to be corrupt.

    I know about the men on this forum, and I also know of the misplaced effort to separate yourselves from anything that critical text delinquents can possibly make fun of like Gail Riplinger. Here, why don’t you just tell them you believe in supernaturalism regarding creation and preservation of Scripture? There, they have enough material to mock you with until the coming return of the King .

    >Sixthly, your interpretation of why men are to take the lead in church is interesting, but not what the Bible teaches solely. The Bible says that all submission from the woman to man is tied to her being deceived in the Garden.

    I covered this in a comment above. We agree women shouldn’t take Scripture warranted roles in leadership in a church. We disagree that this also means writing books or giving lectures in a non-worship context.

    >Seventhly, – I’m sure you’re a big Bible numerology person, too, – This “grasping” on to this woman’s teachings as truth is pathetic, and the true enemies of Bible preservation love it.

    Now, why would you throw in such a snide aside as that? Anyway, numbers do have meaning in the Word of God, do they not? God certainly used numbers symbolically. Why would you feel it necessary to mock the subject if not for critical text scholars intimidating you into doing it. This is called having a fear of man that is stronger than your fear of God.

    And who cares what the true enemies of Bible preservation love? What they love they will continue to love no matter what you or I or any regenerate Bible believing Christian says or does. Don’t be so obsequious towards such fools.

    Let the true enemies of Bible preservation mock whoever and whatever they like. They mock Edward F. Hills too. If Gail Riplinger never existed they would be mocking you and anybody who holds to such ’embarassing’ beliefs as God preserving his Word. Don’t fear them or their mocking. They’ll be doing it until the return of the King.

    One note: your soteriology is bit weakened if you put the blame on Eve in the Garden. Adam was as tempted and deceived. Adam fell. We didn’t all fall in Eve, but in the first Adam. The second Adam – Jesus Christ – is not parallel with Eve but with Adam in the Garden. The devil tempts and deceives all humankind, and we all have original sin equally.

    • artdunham
      February 25, 2009 at 2:41 pm

      Jackson,

      First of all, when a woman takes out to teach men doctrine, she is overstepping her God-ordained role. I’m sorry if you don’t believe that, but it’s true.

      Secondly, I never heard of her until 2 months ago, and I was doing fine knowing which text was the correct one. I didn’t need her, and I still don’t.

      Thirdly, my Soteriology isn’t off at all:
      “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” (1 Timothy 2:11-14)

      If a woman was teaching something with which you disagreed you would probably state that she shouldn’t be teaching at all.

      Fourthly, there is plenty of room in my world, as you put it, for sinners. None of us is perfect, but that does not change anything.

      Fifthly, I apologize for the numerology comment.

      Sixthly, I don’t fear the mocking of the enemies of the truth. But, I am embarrassed for the “silliness” of those who say they are on the right side.

      Seventh, there I go again, your attacks are well-noted and expected.

  14. Jackson
    February 25, 2009 at 7:07 am

    >I think she made it pretty clear in her article that she doesn’t believe God preserves His word through “dead” languages.

    Solely. In God’s plan of redemption, in the history of redemption, God providentially gives us His Word preserved, complete in language that in providence has come to be used widely. This is an example of going out of your way to give zero good will to what a person is saying. Does Riplinger write technically so that no CT scholar can jump on any point and in a sophistic manner turn it against her? No, she doesn’t. She doesn’t care to. I don’t care too. CT scholars are vain and inane. You give them the Word of God, you give them truth, and you let take hold or not. We all know these are matters that are spiritually discerned ultimately.

  15. reglerjoe
    February 25, 2009 at 7:43 am

    Jackson:“In God’s plan of redemption, in the history of redemption, God providentially gives us His Word preserved, complete in language that in providence has come to be used widely.” Where is the Scriptural proof that God’s word is preserved in vernacular languages. You both (you and Riplinger) seem to believe that God’s Word rides this wave of popular language, each successive wave of vernacular trumping the dead languages before it. If this is a misrepresentation, then please show me how it is.

    Jackson:“This is an example of going out of your way to give zero good will to what a person is saying.”Was this directed at me? I’m not sure. Am I supposed to find something I like about Riplinger’s article before I critique it?

    If I followed Riplinger’s vernacular-preservationist argument, I wouldn’t use the KJV.

  16. February 25, 2009 at 8:45 am

    Satan always tries to make the truth odious, and this he has done by raising up a KJV Cult as exemplified by those disussed above.

    Not only is the KJV is the only valid Bible in English today, but it is the Bible that the Holy Spirit has borne witness to more than all the other Bibles in the world combined, including the Hebrew and Greek.

    However, the KJV is not the Lord, which is exactly the level the KJV Cult elevates it to. You can see my article exposing this at —

    http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/kjv_cult.htm

    Also, it is a mistake for Riplinger to call Hebrew and Greek dead languages, if she in fact does so. Modern Hebrew is a direct derivative of biblical Hebrew, and any person who can speak modern Hebrew can easily understand the Hebrew of the Old Testament.

    Moreover, native Greeks have zero problem understanding biblical Greek. Zero. They grow up on biblical Greek, as well as classical Greek. In fact, the Greek language has been extremely stable for the past two thousand years, and other than a few provincial distinctions, up until the past 75 years or so, spoken Greek was virtually identical to biblical Greek. While it is been simplified in the past 75-100 years to a small extent, any native Greek can read the New Testament without the whisper of a problem.

    One of the many myths of modern Anglo-scholarship is the myth that modern Greek is somehow wholly distinct and different from biblical Greek.

    That’s just one of the many reasons why native Greeks who are FLUENT in English have ZERO respect for MODERN Anglo-Greek scholarship, while they have GREAT respect for the translators of the KJV. And of course, native Greeks who are FLUENT in English adhere with virtual unanimity to the KJV when reading the Bible in English, and not just because of the textual issue. Rather, native Greeks who are FLUENT in English will testify that the KJV is accurately translated while modern versions such as the NASB, NIV, ESV, ad nauseam, are not only INaccurately translated, but GROSSLY so.

    For just two examples of this, see —

    http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/monogenes.htm
    http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/indictment_of_ignorance.htm

    At any rate, it is good to see those who trust God to have preserved his written Word perfectly exposing not only the Critical Text Cult, but the KJV Cult as well.

  17. Jackson
    February 25, 2009 at 9:48 am

    >Riplinger’s vernacular-preservationist argument

    Riplinger, according to everything I’ve read and heard from her, holds to the Masoretic and Received Greek Text – the Traditional Text – in sound translation, citing not just the AV1611 but also every other great Reformation era translation in German, French, Italian, etc. If you asked her “which Received Text” as some Critical Text opponent might ask her I would imagine she would say the one refined to the point of being the foundation of the Authorized Version. Which is what I would say. That would be Beza, for the most part. But within the stream of the Received Text the differences are hardly of the same type and magnitude of the various constructed critical texts. These are basics, it would seem to me, for a site like this.

    • February 25, 2009 at 1:51 pm

      Jackson, thanks for commenting here. As far as what you have said in this particular comment, I believe we at JackHammer and you are almost identical in belief. I think I would rather use Scrivener’s text for the Greek, because it is the “reconstructed” Greek text that underlies the KJV. But I’m not a Greek scholar. Kent could comment more thoroughly on that. So, putting aside the Riplinger issue, I think we believe the same as to which text is the preserved Word of God.

  18. February 25, 2009 at 10:25 am

    Jackson,

    Thanks for coming over and commenting. I’m coming quite a bit into this particular thread of commentary, so I’m not going to attempt to break down every sentence. I could only criticize what I read in the one chapter by Riplinger. I could appreciate the fact that in another book she’s written that she says she does believe Scripture has been preserved in original language texts. However, what she wrote in that one chapter included in the Fugate paper, she strongly and unmistakably contradicted that assertion. And then she used untenable theological arguments to defend that position. She twisted God’s Word to defend the incredible. What you are saying, however, is that she meant something drastically different than what she wrote, so we should ignore what she wrote and believe what she intended, which is in direct contradiction to what she wrote. Your own defense of her explains why she shouldn’t be relied upon to understand the doctrine of preservation.

    I understand why this is being made into a role of the woman debate as well, because I brought that into my post several times. All of these books are written for the church and they are doctrinal, theological books. In this case, they are purposefully targeting pastors. It says:
    1. We don’t have men who can do what she does. (I would be thankful if we didn’t have anyone that does what she does, good intentions aside.)
    2. Leading in these exegetical and theological matters is suitable for a woman.
    3. The woman’s role isn’t good enough for a woman and it is inferior to the man’s role.
    4. It is acceptable for women to be teachers of theology to men in the church.

    How poorly she does at theology illustrates perfectly what Scripture teaches about why women shouldn’t be doing what she is doing. And that there are men who are bad at it isn’t a good come-back. I don’t think that we are to the point where there are not enough men to do this. The woman shouldn’t teach men because of creation order and because of her vulnerability to deceit. That’s what we read in 1 Timothy 2:11-15. Adam wasn’t deceived. Eve was. What’s the point? God created the woman with a built-in vulnerability because she was intended to be under male headship. The last reason she shouldn’t teach men or be in authority over men is because she is saved through child-bearing. God designed the woman for nurturing. That isn’t a lesser role, just a different one.

    Now, as to her point, we don’t have a scriptural basis to believe that preservation is in anything but the language in which God wrote. He wrote in Hebrew and Greek for a purpose. Those were the words forever settled in heaven. They express what He wanted with the various nuances of those languages—tense, mood, voice of verbs that aren’t even always found in English. We’re thankful for translations and I would argue scripturally for their validity. I will call a translation of Scripture, God’s Word. However, the words that God preserved are the ones that He gave. Those are the ones He promised to preserve. I believe that English preservationism or inspirationism as I read you guys is akin to Roman Catholicism with the Latin Vulgate. I don’t say that to say that you are Catholics. However, I believe that you take the same unscriptural approach as Catholics on this issue.

    Ms. Riplinger mangles Scripture to come to her position. That doesn’t show respect for the scripture that she purports to defend. Just because she isn’t on the Alexandrian side, doesn’t put her on the right side of this issue.

  19. Jackson
    February 25, 2009 at 10:50 am

    Is there a link to what Riplinger has written that is referenced in this post?

  20. February 25, 2009 at 11:55 am

    Jackson,

    I googled The Church Bus News for a link and there is none. You have to get a hard copy.

  21. February 25, 2009 at 8:05 pm

    Greetings, brethren. This is a general comment in relation to the use of the word “inspired” in Scripture. Please note that God inspired words, and thus the entirety of the canonical Scriptures, 2 Tim 3:16. God did not inspire people, including Jeremiah, Isaiah, etc. Since “inspired” means “God breathed,” and Matthew 4:4 states, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God,” we are to live by inspired words. Please note as well that the verb “proceedeth” in Matthew 4:4 is a present tense, not an aorist tense or a perfect tense verb, the breath of God, that is, inspiration, remains upon the Words of the copies of the autographs, and men are to live by every Word of those inspired copies. The fact is that neither 2 Tim 3:16 nor Matthew 4:4 actually refer to “inspiration” as process, rather than product. 2 Peter 1:16-21 does not employ the word “God-breathed” nor any phraseology like “proceedeth out of the mouth of God” like Matthew 4:4 does.
    If we want to use “inspiration” to refer to the process whereby God dictated His Words to the prophets, 2 Peter 1:16ff., I have no problem with that. However, we do well to recognize that the breath of God/inspiration remains upon every Word perfectly preserved in Hebrew and Greek, just as it does upon the original manuscripts. Thus, the Scrivener 1881/1894 TR, the Greek Words exactly underneath the KJV, represent, in my view, a text just as inspired as the original copies dictated to Paul, Luke, etc.
    Recongizing inspiration as equal to the continuing action of “proceeding out of the mouth of God” that pertains to the PRODUCT of what was originally dictated by the Holy Ghost to men moved by Him, 2 Peter 1:16ff., helps to take care of this debate over the propriety of calling the KJV inspired.
    1.) Accurate copies of the Greek and Hebrew words are inspired, since inspiration, Biblically speaking, is product, rather than process.
    2.) Anything that we can properly call “God’s Word” is inspired, because, by definition, if God breathes out some words, He has inspired those Words. “All Scripture is inspired.” 2 Tim 3:16.
    3.) Scripture shows us that accurately translated Words are still Scripture. 1 Tim 5:18 refers to both untranslated gospel of Luke (10:7) and translated Deuteronomy (25:4) as “Scripture.”
    4.) Thus, accurate translations are Scripture.
    5.) Since accurate translations are Scripture, they are inspired, and retain the breath of God.
    Thus, since the KJV is an accurate translation of the perfectly preserved Hebrew and Greek Words dictated by the Holy Ghost, it is Scripture, and it is inspired.
    Otherwise we would need to say that the KJV is the uninspired Word of God, and it cannot produce faith (Romans 10:17), it is not quick, powerful, sharp, etc. and we are not to live by it (Matthew 4:4).
    Two qualifications to the above must be made, however. 1.) Only Greek and Hebrew words are DIRECTLY inspired. Translated words are DERIVITIVELY inspired. The directly inspired Greek and Hebrew cannot be changed, jot or tittle. Translated words can be changed and still have the breath of God. Dropping the “eth” from KJV verbs would not make the translation lose the breath of God. One could, in like manner, say that the KJV is derivitively preserved, sharp, quick, powerful, faith-producing, etc.
    2.) When translations other than the KJV are accurate, in those parts they are also (derivitively) inspired. The NASV possesses the breath of God in the parts where it is not mistranslated nor translating a corrupt Greek/Hebrew text.
    Thus, the KJV is inspired, because it has the breath of God. I don’t believe we do well to shy away from the Scriptural use of terms like “inspiration” because of wackos like Ruckman or Ms. Riplinger, or because of people who preach a false, anti-repentance gospel like Hyles and his people.

  22. February 25, 2009 at 8:45 pm

    Brother Ross,

    Thank you, sir, for that excellent and Biblical statement concerning the terms “inspired” and “Scripture.” I remember being in the mountains with you at camp a few years ago and asking you, “Is the KJV the Word of God?” You responded in the affirmative and then I followed up with, “Is it the non-inspired Word of God?” I have asked the same questions of others and it is interesting to hear the answers they have offered. I don’t know if you had already framed the question like that or if you picked it up from me, but it is a good question and you have answered it well in this forum.

    If I don’t have the preserved, inspired Word of God in English then for nineteen years I’ve been preaching the non-preserved, non-inspired Word of God and all of the Scripture promises concerning the preaching of the Word that I have clung to do not actually apply to me.

    I use a Strong’s concordance and other resources to help me with understanding the Hebrew and Greek words that were translated into English so that I can “rightly divide the word of truth,” but, like John Bunyan, I cannot read Hebrew or Greek, yet I am certain that I have the Word(s) of God and I preach them with confidence. Your statement on the matter is one that I will pass along to others.

    The Riplingers and Ruckmans of the world do not speak for me and I am not with them on this subject. However, I am with the thousands, maybe millions, of simple believers who stand on the KJV as the very Word of God in their mother tongue. We do not claim double inspiration, weird number systems, correcting the TR with the KJV, or any other such nonsense. We just accept what has been received by the NT churches as the Word of God in English.

    To All,

    There are some who are writing/commenting on this site who SEEM (maybe I’m misunderstanding them, and please let me know if I am misunderstanding) to imply that we can’t REALLY have, read, study, memorize, meditate, preach, and keep the Word(s) of God unless we can do all of that with the Hebrew MT or Greek TR. The irony is that some of these men cannot read, study, memorize, meditate on, or preach from any Hebrew or Greek text and could not do so if their very lives depended on it.

    I hope that in an effort to distance ourselves from the wacky side of the TR/KJV movement we do not undermine the confidence of believers who are, because of the promises of the Word and the testimony of history, convinced of the KJV as the Holy Bible, God’s Word in English.

    My simple statement is that I have the inspired Word(s) of God that were originally given in Hebrew and Greek, and preserved in Hebrew and Greek (MT and TR), translated into English in the KJV. So, I have the preserved, inspired Word(s) of God translated into English. Praise the Lord! Does this make me an “English Preservasionist” and am I in error?

    • February 26, 2009 at 8:09 am

      There are some who are writing/commenting on this site who SEEM (maybe I’m misunderstanding them, and please let me know if I am misunderstanding) to imply that we can’t REALLY have, read, study, memorize, meditate, preach, and keep the Word(s) of God unless we can do all of that with the Hebrew MT or Greek TR. The irony is that some of these men cannot read, study, memorize, meditate on, or preach from any Hebrew or Greek text and could not do so if their very lives depended on it.

      Bobby, as far as I am concerned, you are absolutely misunderstanding me if you are referring to me. And it has been made clear enough in the past. You seem to insist on believing I believe something other than what I have said I believe because I use different words than you do. You state yourself that we have the inspired Word(s) of God in Greek and Hebrew—that’s what I say. You say they have been translated into English—that’s what I say. You say you use Strong’s—my point is that you wouldn’t need Strong’s if the English words were the ACTUAL Words that God gave us. He gave us Greek and Hebrew. He has preserved and protected every single one of them, and we have them translated in our King James Version (translation).

      • February 26, 2009 at 8:33 am

        So, can you say that the KJV is the preserved, inspired Words of God in English?

      • February 26, 2009 at 8:35 am

        Absolutely, and I’ve never believed or hinted otherwise.

  23. February 25, 2009 at 11:31 pm

    I’ve got one request for both Thomas and Bobby.

    Name one person who has disagreed with what you have said in either of your posts, and then give the quote that shows the disagreement.

    The way both of you have written I would assume that this has been done by someone. I know it wasn’t me, but perhaps you could point me to the culprit.

    Now I’ve got one request for Thomas.

    You wrote: “I don’t believe we do well to shy away from the Scriptural use of terms like “inspiration” because of wackos like Ruckman or Ms. Riplinger, or because of people who preach a false, anti-repentance gospel like Hyles and his people.”

    The request is this: Name one person who you have seen shy away from the Scriptural use of the term “inspiration” that you have read here at the blog.

    Since I believe that I have coined “English preservationist” and now have defined it several times, let me define it again. An “English preservationist” believes that God preserved His Word perfectly in an English translation since in light of errors in the Hebrew and Greek text. Since I coined it and I defined what I coined, is this what you believe, Thomas or Bobby? I’ve never heard either of you call yourself “English preservationists” before I coined the term to describe a particular group of people. I don’t think there would be any reason for you to desire to be called an “English preservationist” now that you know what it means. If you want to come up with the proper label for those who believe this, be my guest. I’m fine with another title.

    I call on all brethren not to be afraid of or shy away from pointing out the wrong understanding of inspiration and preservation, even if it means that English preservationists and double inspirationists might not like it. I don’t think that we need to be afraid of those who choose to believe that the Hebrew and Greek text of scripture is in error in favor of preservation in the English language. They don’t believe in the preservation of Scripture. Scripture didn’t start being preserved in 1611.

    “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”

    • February 26, 2009 at 7:45 am

      Brother Brandenburg,

      I appreciate your response and the clarification of what you mean by “English Preservationist.” I certainly would NOT put myself in any group that thought that the KJV corrected the MT/TR, or that the inspired Word(s) of God are not preserved in Hebrew and Greek, or that preservation didn’t start until 1611. So, based upon your definition of the term that you coined, I am not one. As I said in my post, “it SEEMS . . . ” based on some things that some have written and some of what has not been clarified to this point.

      Again, I appreciate your clarification.

      I would encourage you to not lump Thomas and me together. I think Thomas’ post was much more an encouragement concerning proper thinking on the subject, while mine was more combative. I feel like my post drew fire towards Brother Ross. I doubt that he minds, but I just wanted to point this out.

      Now, in the spirit of quoting great theatre: “Yo, Adrian! I love you!”

  24. Jackson
    February 26, 2009 at 4:24 am

    If by your definition of English preservationist you are calling Riplinger an English preservationist then you are wrong. In that case you’d have to also call her a German preservationist and a French preservationist and a Dutch preservationist, etc.

    One point: I make a distinction between the underlying manuscripts as one subject, and the translation of those manuscripts as another subject (Riplinger does as well). But in truth the two bleed into each other (and Riplinger writes based on this fact, which may be what is making you see her as a so-called English Preservationist), again, in truth the two bleed into each other more than that distinction recognizes, and it is also a concession to dumb, mocking critical text academics to even make that distinction.

    The English language is more at the bedrock of God’s preservation of His Word(s) starting with the Gothic than is being recognized here. The Traditional Text (Hebrew and Greek) and the English language are more intertwined (in terms of carrying the meaning of the words themselves) than it is currently ‘cool’ for you all to even begin to hint at or accept publicly or privately given the fear I see here of seeming ‘non-academic’ in the face of empty, dumb, inane critical text scholars and their mocking.

    What I’m seeing here is people who feel a need to stake out a middle ground between ’embarrassing unwashed non-academic’ believers and critical text scholars (who by default you consider to be less embarrassing even though by your own standards – biblical – they are empty and inane and dangerous fools.

    This is a form of worldly fearing of man.

    Think about this regarding the connection of English with the Traditional Text in terms of carrying the very meaning of the words down through history: critical text scholars unthinkingly and necessarily (and really, actually, shamelessly) use that English document (the English Bible that culminated in the AV1611 that was refined through the history of God’s people from the Gothic) as their ‘base’ and ‘standard’. They would be lost at sea without it. They don’t *just* use it to give themselves and their products derivative seriousness or to actively defile the standard. They really *have* to use it. Their products would be babylonish in a most revealing and extreme way if they didn’t stick to the foundation of the English Bible refined to the culmination that is the AV1611. They are shameless in this sense, and they aren’t called on this enough if ever.

    To make the point of the last paragraph clearer: the Critical Text industry doesn’t just need the English Bible that culminated in the AV1611 to be able to make any translation *at all* that isn’t babylonish, but they *also need it* to have the meaning of the very words themselves. If they didn’t have it for that their bible products would be so doctrinal unorthodox based on the standard of the Reformation that they would be seen for what they are: liberal, unbelieving, children of babel and disobedience.

  25. reglerjoe
    February 26, 2009 at 4:51 am

    ”What I’m seeing here is people who feel a need to stake out a middle ground between ‘embarrassing unwashed non-academic’ believers and critical text scholars (who by default you consider to be less embarrassing even though by your own standards – biblical – they are empty and inane and dangerous fools.

    This is a form of worldly fearing of man.”

    Jackson, I really don’t think you’re very familiar with Kent, Dave, or Jeff. I think you assume that anybody who disagrees with your position must be pandering to elitists.

    This is a form of self righteousness.

    Kent (or Dave or Jeff),

    Ross says inspiration is product not process. Do you agree or disagree?

  26. Jackson
    February 26, 2009 at 5:49 am

    I hope it should be seen from my above comment (just above this one) that Riplinger is on to things that are not currently being seen by people at this site.

    So, back to my original comment in this thread, I would suggest you all basically take a deep breath and pause before you volley forth with the usual Gail Riplinger is an inane woman and an embarrassment boilerplate.

  27. February 26, 2009 at 8:20 am

    I appreciate the above posts by everyone, as well as the article. Without entering into any contest, as it were, let me say this, and take what I say here in context with reading my own personal testimony on my website…

    To wit: if the King James Bible were not inspired, I wouldn’t be born again.

    On the other hand, I don’t believe that God re-inspired the King James Bible. In fact, as Thomas wrote, and as I believe most here would agree, what God did was take words that he originally inspired in the autographa and then held that inspiration stedfast for each and every word he originally inspired by planting those same inspired words in copies of the autographa and in the apographa. That is, God PRESERVED the words he originally inspired by keeping them in play throughout the centuries.

    The natural man gets lost in the details of how God did this exactly, but the born again Christian has the witness of the Holy Spirit that, however God did it in the details, he nevertheless DID it, and did it PERFECTLY, and he has thus preserved every single word — EVERY SINGLE WORD — he originally inspired.

    The words in the King James Bible are every bit as inspired as the words in the autographa. I have the witness of the Holy Spirit on that. I wouldn’t be born again if it weren’t true.

    I agree wholly with Tozer who stated that in order to understand a Bible text it takes an act of the Holy Spirit EQUAL to the act which inspired the text in the first place. Every single person who is genuinely born again can sympathize intimately with that statement.

    Certainly, another man can say he has the witness of the Holy Spirit that I am wrong.

    Fine. But then one of us is FATALLY — and I mean FATALLY — deceived.

    John Bunyan was accosted on this very matter by a scholar of his day. In response, Bunyan stated explicitly that he believed that the King James Bible he held in his hand was an exact replica of the autographa.

    I believe the same thing. I also read the Bible in a number of other languages, such as Greek, Hebrew, German, Latin, et cetera, so those who call me a KJVO in the pejorative sense are refuted on the very face of their ignorant assertion.

    However, if you ask me which Bible I would want to get stranded on an island with, it would be the King James Bible hands down, and not only because English is my native language, but because I believe preservation was continued by God with the invention of the printing press, and I believe that Scrivener’s reverse engineering of the Greek TR is not an entirely accurate representation of the Greek text that underlies the King James Bible.

    Nevertheless, the actual text of the TR, i.e., the Textus Receptus, is what God actually inspired in the autographa, and the King James Bible is a product of the Textus Receptus. The minor differences in the Textus Receptus pale to complete and utter insignificance compared to the abominations in the Critical Text. See my aforementioned article for a short demonstration of this —

    http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/indictment_of_ignorance.htm

    What makes the final difference in determining which text and which words God actually inspired?

    The Holy Spirit.

    As the King James Translators strongly asserted, they undertook the work of translation with the “GOOD HAND OF THE LORD UPON US” and then “BROUGHT THE WORK TO THAT PASS THAT YOU SEE.”

    Those who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit gravitate to the works of the Holy Spirit. Those who are not indwelt by the Holy Spirit gravitate to the works of men, which is WHOLLY what the Critical Text is.

  28. February 26, 2009 at 8:43 am

    Great. It appears that you and I are of one mind on this.

  29. February 26, 2009 at 8:44 am

    My “Great. So it appears you and I are of one mind on this is in reference to Brother Voegtlin’s “Absolutely, and I’ve never believed or hinted otherwise.”

    For some reason my response did not follow his.

  30. February 26, 2009 at 10:23 am

    Thomas probably won’t be around to answer for awhile. I pretty much know how his schedule works. Bro. Mitchell, you may fear for his and my relationship in light of our combative tones, but there aren’t too many people on earth I’m as close to as Thomas. Knowing him so well, I move straight to full throttle as I know that he is already pressing the pedal to the metal. It might look uncomfortable in public, and I apologize for that. Thomas and I believe exactly the same on this, but perhaps he doesn’t think I’m communicating clearly or that Dave or Jeff don’t take the same position as we do. Perhaps he’s attempting to be diplomatic in not saying who he’s talking about. When I say “English preservationist,” as I’ve defined it, Bobby, I don’t think of you. You’ve explained yourself well. You and Thomas don’t want to give up the word “inspiration” or “preservation” as it applies to a translation. Most of our church members won’t be reading Hebrew or Greek, so they want to know that what they hold in their hand could be called “preserved” and “inspired.” I’m with you on that.

    Jackson,

    I’ve read few chapters that had as many scriptural difficulties as the Riplinger chapter in The Church Bus News. Do you really want pastors continuing to rely on her? You think this is appropriate when what she has written is full of false doctrine. I applaud her opposition to the critical text. I would be happy if Charles Manson were anti-critical text. I’m not happy to prolong her career as a writer and apologist for the anti-critical text side, however.

    I believe it is sad and tell-tale that men read her with so little discernment. The content and style of her writing attracts a certain type of person who can see things in the Bible that are not there, as well as a few who see computer chips in their cornflakes.

    We’re not impressing the elitists, Jackson. I do believe we please God by faith. Faith comes by hearing the Word of God. We focus on accurate scriptural and historical arguments that will persuade someone of faith. I believe Riplinger uses carnal weaponry. You don’t do well to keep defending her.

    Lamblion,

    You say some good things. I like reading your material.

    Reglerjoe,

    It is the product that is inspired. When the word “inspiration” is used (2 Tim 3:16-17), it relates to the product. God breathed out every graphe, every writing. The Words themselves were inspired, not the men. We do believe holy men of God were moved by the Holy Ghost, and that might be part of the inspiration process, but it doesn’t say in 2 Pet 1:20-21.

  31. February 26, 2009 at 10:42 am

    Thanks, Kent. And your comments on Riplinger are the best comments I’ve seen in relation to her and the Church militant.

  32. Jackson
    February 26, 2009 at 10:42 am

    The only explanation for the fact that you are missing a love for the brethren (a mark of regeneration) when it comes to Gail Riplinger is you are either ignorant of what she’s written or you are embarrassed, or your crude reading of Scripture regarding women (“women are not even to write a book or even talk to a man in a manner where she may happen to teach the man something!”) has warped you. We Christians don’t look for perfection in our brothers and sisters, and you ought to keep this in mind because something tells me you consider yourself to be in the perfection realm, and I’d like to point to your vulnerability regarding your dispensationalism (something I suspect you share with Riplinger actually, though I have tended to see her moving closer to Reformation era doctrine over the years somewhat) that you supposedly find in the Bible alone, for instance. When I see and hear Gail Riplinger I understand her and I respect her and admire her effort and completeness and energy in going after the devil and his followers regarding the most foundational thing for a Christian: the Word of God. I recognize one of our own. A soldier of Christ with the discernment that comes from the Holy Spirit. Others who hold to the Traditional Text, or say they do, see her and hear her and get all bent out of shape and call her names and squirm and go out of their way to explain to the Critical Text scholars that “she’s not one of us!” Meanwhile I’ll tell you the truth: God prefers Gail to the embarrassed man-fearers. God doesn’t like the lukewarm. And God doesn’t like the devil corrupting his Word. Riplinger’s main argument in all her books is consistently ignored by her critics from both sides. And just *saying* you are not embarrassed man-fearers regarding the dumb, inane, dangerously foolish critical text scholars doesn’t get you off the hook. Your words give you away.

  33. Jackson
    February 26, 2009 at 10:54 am

    Go to the PuritanBoard – Critical Text proponents are in the majority there – and see how a Steve Rafalsky who can debate any critical text scholar under the table will quote from even a *Ruckman*, saying, as he does so, “You guys [critical text scholars] quote theological liberals all the time, why shouldn’t I quote Ruckman when he is right about this point and articulates it better than anyone else I’ve come across?” See, he is not afraid of the mocking and the fallacious, sophistic rhetoric Critical Text scholars pull out of their bag as a matter of course. Rafalsky is interested in truth and being bold to state it.

    Keep in mind: I am – as the Traditional Text defenders at the PuritanBoard are – a Calvinist. Ruckman probably considers me to be evil or something related. I don’t know. I don’t care. Truth is truth, and when its presented boldly by anyone, Gail Riplinger included, you don’t brush her aside. She’s done more to wake Christians up to the ongoing corruption of the Word of God than anyone else I can think of living in these times. Does that mean she is the first? or original? of course not. It does mean she stung the devil and his conscious and duped followers to their core. You make a mistake to spin her effect on the critical text fools by saying they just wanted to jump on an easy target. No, *they recognized a real threat.* The first real threat to them they had encountered up to that time. They were exposed and challenged effectively for the first time. They reacted like a kicked hornet’s nest.

  34. February 26, 2009 at 11:15 am

    Jackson, are you the woman who is the administrator of the Plain Path Pilgrim board at —

    http://electofgod.blogspot.com/

  35. Jackson
    February 26, 2009 at 11:16 am

    Wow, the last line of defense: “Are you a woman?”

  36. February 26, 2009 at 11:19 am

    No answer, huh? I can understand that, because the woman who is the administrator of that blog has misrepresented herself as a man on the Puritan Board and other venues, as well as having a propensity for using extremely foul four-letter word; which of course the Holy Spirit and the Word of God both utterly condemn, and that’s just for starters.

    If you are not the woman, my apologies, but if you are, it will help everyone with your context.

  37. February 26, 2009 at 12:46 pm

    Brother Brandenburg,

    I wasn’t worried about you and Thomas being combative with each other. I just didn’t want you mixing up some of my thoughts with what Thomas said and then seeing him get flak for my stuff.

    You are right that I don’t want to give up the words “inspired” and “preserved” when it comes to the KJV. The same goes for other faithful translations of the MT/TR in other languages. BTW, when I say MT I am referring to the Masoretic Text, not the Majority Text.

  38. February 26, 2009 at 3:07 pm

    Well, while I’m here, why not?

    Nobody in the solar system in his right mind would consider me as anything other than a fierce defender and supporter of the Textus Receptus Greek & Hebrew Text and the King James Bible that is based on it.

    However, when I read Riplinger’s “New Age Bible Versions” I was absolutely, utterly flabbergasted, overpowered, floored by the OCEAN of cultism/occultism I encountered in that book. Not to mention, as Kent noted, the unending parade of false doctrine.

    And Kent is totally on the mark — the number of men and women who are deceived by her are legion, and this is a great benchmark in discerning just how small the true remnant truly is.

    Of course, one who is indwelt by the Holy Spirit is protected from the cultism/occultism and false doctrine of Riplinger’s book (Matthew 24:24), while the unregenerate can be easily swayed by her, especially, as Kent notes, because her spirit appeals to the spirits of those who are susceptible to cultism/occultism.

    As I wrote in my article on the KJV Cult, (see link in my first comment above), Satan has very effectively negated the true written Word of God for all but those who are especially protected by the Spirit of Jesus Christ, both the elect called and the elect uncalled.

    Also, another of the basic errors of the unregenerate is to assume that if somebody speaks words that are forensically true then they are necessarily speaking truth itself. Of course, that is a complete falsehood, which I also dealt with in my article here —

    http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/where_have_all_the_preachers_gone.htm

    Satan can speak ninety-five percent truth and still tell a total lie. The unregenerate and simple-minded are easily deceived by this modus operandi.

    But alas, that is what Jesus meant when he stated — “At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight. All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.” Matthew 11:25-27

    In short, Kent’s remarks on Riplinger were like a breath of fresh air. Thanks for sharing them.

  39. Jackson
    February 26, 2009 at 4:19 pm

    What exactly in Riplinger’s book do you consider satanic and occult. You didn’t mention anything. We all know she doesn’t (and doesn’t pretend) to write as a textual critic. She’s not that vain. This fact embarrasses you, but what in it is actually satanic and occult and something that forms or gathers a cult around it? And if your response is things like “built-in dictionary” then, oooh. You have quite a threshold there for cultiness and satanicness. Really, what is occult and satanic about her book? List some things. Give me an opportunity to cross examine you. Myself, I’m seeing maturity issues here. But anyway, I’d like to see you list some things. And remember, her book has a main thesis that is dominant. Nobody ever questions it. Critical Text scholars never question it *because they can’t*. The evidence is overwhelming against them and their corrupt texts.

  40. Jackson
    February 26, 2009 at 4:43 pm

    And let me say, I’m a teachable person. When I came to Reformed Theology I had arguments with many things, but was won over (not paedo-baptism). When something is biblical it is biblical. So if there is something in Riplinger’s book that is of the occult that she herself castigates let me know. I’ll give it an honest look. If it’s a worked up case though I’ll say it.

  41. Jackson
    February 26, 2009 at 4:49 pm

    Lamblion, I am reading through your essay on King James cultists, but I had to stop and post this that you wrote:

    “Nevertheless, the King James Bible is NOT the Lord; the King James Bible is NOT the LIVING WORD of God — that title and that TRUTH is reserved for a PERSON, and that PERSON is none other than JESUS CHRIST and HIM ALONE.”

    No context makes this anything but a doctrinally ridiculous and false statement.

    You may not realize it, but among liberal theologians (one just got kicked out of a conservative seminary, surprisingly, but give them some credit I suppose, Peter Enns) it is fashionable to use the two natures of Christ as an analogy for Scripture. They say Jesus as God is the living Word of God, whereas the Bible is like the human part of Jesus, a human construct.

  42. Jackson
    February 26, 2009 at 4:54 pm

    I wonder if others here might like to take a look at your essay, Lamblion:

    http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/kjv_cult.htm

    As an exercise in flogging a strawman into molecular particles it takes first prize.

  43. February 26, 2009 at 5:11 pm

    Well, Miss whatever your real name is, (we wonder why you feel such an insatiable desire to misrepresent yourself as a man so often), those who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit don’t have to have the cultism of Riplinger’s book pointed out. That’s why I said it was so overpowering that I was flabbergasted by it. It would be like asking someone to point out the green in a vast meadow of grass.

    Finally, your assertion that “No context makes this anything but a doctrinally ridiculous and false statement” in regard to my stating that Jesus Christ is true living Word of God, is all the proof that a regenerate person needs to discern the difference between us.

    As I told you once before, you and I don’t know the same Jesus. Nor does Riplinger know the same Jesus as I do.

    Nor do I say that lightheartedly. The Jesus who introduced himself to me and indwelt me bears witness to this. The SAME Jesus who introduced himself to me and indwelt me bears witness to this.

    Thus, one of us FATALLY — and I mean FATALLY — deceived.

    I am content to leave it there between you and I.

  44. Jackson
    February 26, 2009 at 5:30 pm

    >Finally, your assertion that “No context makes this anything but a doctrinally ridiculous and false statement” in regard to my stating that Jesus Christ is true living Word of God, is all the proof that a regenerate person needs to discern the difference between us.

    The above response is very dishonest. You know that is not the content of the portion of your essay I posted.

    You write many good things, LambLion, but you do seem to have become a bit unhinged.

    And, please, don’t say something is satanic and occult and provide zero evidence. I was making a genuine request for examples of what you are getting at. I have to conclude you have no examples. Have you ever heard Riplinger in interviews? I’ve heard her in long interviews, and nothing about her or what she says comes across remotely as satanic or occult-like. I also have her two main books, and, again, unless you are going to go the way of the Critical Text mockers and say “acrostic algebra” or ‘Built-in dictionary” is ‘satanic’ or ‘occult’ then so be it. That’s like promoting the devil himself, then pulling back the curtain to reveal your pet Chihuahua.

    Many Christian are freaked-out by the subject of spiritual warfare, it is my experience to see this. Riplinger’s books are really in the category of spiritual warfare.

  45. Jackson
    February 26, 2009 at 5:39 pm

    I want to go on record as saying I admire LambLion’s spirit. I’ve read his site before and found helpful things. But I have to say he (or you, Lamblion) is sounding a bit like the ‘Outside the Camp’ people. If you havn’t heard of them they are Calvinists who basically turn on everybody, including Calvin. They say Calvin is in hell. And just about any other Calvinist one can think of. And they are Calvinists mind you.

  46. February 26, 2009 at 5:41 pm

    I really do wonder about you Miss ???

    Your exact quote is between the asterisks —

    **********************************************
    Lamblion, I am reading through your essay on King James cultists, but I had to stop and post this that you wrote:

    “Nevertheless, the King James Bible is NOT the Lord; the King James Bible is NOT the LIVING WORD of God — that title and that TRUTH is reserved for a PERSON, and that PERSON is none other than JESUS CHRIST and HIM ALONE.”

    No context makes this anything but a doctrinally ridiculous and false statement.
    ***********************************************************

    In addition to having some serious issues about gender and a whole host of other matters, I have also noticed that you don’t seem able to read with any comprehension at all. This is the same observation that others who have conversed with you have noticed as well.

    Now, one more time with regard to the cultism of Riplinger’s book — the reason you don’t get it is because you and her are of the same spirit.

    As I said, one of us is FATALLY deceived.

  47. Jackson
    February 26, 2009 at 5:57 pm

    Lamblion, you’re now calling me satanic. And once again you give no evidence of anything satanic or occult in Riplinger’s book, or of me now for that matter.

    Did you read the part of my comment where I mentioned how liberal theologians use the same analogy you have fallen into regarding the two natures of Christ and Scripture? That was new to you, I will take it. Something you should look into. To say the Word of God is in fact not the Word of God is a doctrinally ridiculous statement coming from you. It is worse coming from a liberal theologian, but from you I’ll just say it is ridiculous because I think you were just grasping a bit too passionately for a hammer to strike at somebody or something you had in mind, whatever that something is, because it didn’t resemble any KJV people or groups I’ve come across.

  48. February 26, 2009 at 6:04 pm

    I’ll entertain your, ahem… I really don’t know how to phrase it without being overtly insulting, so let me just do this. Your exact quote between the asterisks is —

    **********************************
    “To say the Word of God is in fact not the Word of God is a doctrinally ridiculous statement coming from you.”
    **********************************

    Please provide the quotation where I said this.

    And examples of this nature on your utter inability to read with comprehension could be multiplied exponentially.

    You have a remarkable habit of false projection. You read the thoughts of your own mind, not what somebody actually writes. That’s classic cultism. Classic. And I’ve seen it before, but rarely in your extreme.

  49. Jackson
    February 26, 2009 at 6:19 pm

    LambLion, what you don’t realize is I’m familiar with the doctrinal implications of the analogy your are hammering away with. I know doctrine. We Calvinists tend to really know doctrine. When you place Jesus Christ and the revealed Word of God against each other you are on doctrinally unsound ground. The theological subject is special revelation. Jesus was special revelation when He incarnated as man (Theophanes are special revelation). Direct communications to prophets and miracles were also special revelation. Now the written Word of God is special revelation par excellence. There are even Trinitarian issues involved. Aside from that your essay is a massive strawman. Certainly it doesn’t describe this defender of the Masoretic and Received Text and the Authorized King James Bible. It doesn’t describe Riplinger. It doesn’t describe even a Ruckman, that I’m aware of (I know less of him). Because you are saying there are people who place the King James Bible above Jesus Christ. That is a ridiculously overplayed hand. If you want to criticize people who hold the King James Bible as the most perfect representation of the Word of God in existence you can’t do it by saying they consider pages, ink, and two covers to be greater than Jesus Christ Himself. Again, you probably should’ve provided an example or two of what you were saying. It sounds like you were just ranting against a strawman otherwise.

  50. Jackson
    February 26, 2009 at 6:26 pm

    And again, liberal theologians have adopted the analogy of the the two natures of Christ (God/man) to attack the divine nature of Scripture. The very analogy you adopt to attack whoever you are attacking (you give no examples, so one can’t say exactly who you are attacking in your essay). Liberal theologians say that just as Jesus is divine and human it is the same with the written Word of God. Only they major on the ‘human’ and say the Bible has mistakes (because it is human, i.e. it isn’t Jesus, it isn’t divine you see). All the ‘mistakes’ in the Bible (and these liberal theologians will provide you with lists upon lists of mistakes in the Bible) are there because the written Word of God is a gloriously human and fallible document (isn’t is refreshing and wonderful that it is human just like us?). Jesus is divine and human and Scripture is divine and human because Jesus Christ is the Word of God! And the human part of Scripture is why Scripture is fallible and has a lot of mistakes. See the beauty of the analogy?

  51. February 26, 2009 at 6:38 pm

    Your penchant for diversion is still dominant in the extreme. You can’t provide the quotation you accuse me of making. Instead of fessing up to it, you speed off in another direction. This is not merely par for the course for you. Rather, your habit of false projection is pervasive. It is ingrained in you.

    You can’t represent who you are truthfully, not in name or gender. You have explicitly represented yourself as a man under false names numerous times, as well as disobey the written Word of God even in simple basics, which I won’t go into here, other than the one I’ve already mentioned, to wit, your filthy mouth, which no woman or man born of the Spirit would dare to do while claiming to represent Jesus Christ.

    And again, that’s just one example of your dissonance with those who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

    The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of TRUTH, not the spirit of deceit, nor does the Holy Spirit use foul language, especially in a genuinely born again woman who claims to represent Jesus Christ. As uncomely as foul language is in a man, it is exponentially so in a woman.

    I don’t know what your name is or why you have these very serious issues, but one thing I do know —

    Jesus Christ can deliver you from them. I’m talking about the Jesus I know, because the Jesus I know doesn’t know you, nor does he act the way you act.

    At the bottom of my webpage there is instruction on how to be born again. I earnestly advise you to read it carefully, and then follow it.

    Finally, I’ll say this one last time, one of us is FATALLY deceived, and I am confident about which one of us it is.

  52. Jackson
    February 26, 2009 at 6:58 pm

    >You can’t provide the quotation you accuse me of making.

    I provided the quote and the link to your essay it is from. What more do you want? What more is needed? Hello?

    Language police is part of parcel of what John Bunyan termed the Village of Morality. Nominal Christians more concerned with outward behavior than with truth. If I use language to shock those who need to be shocked who are you to complain. Stay away from my writings. That should be simple for you.

    I remember when you came to my website and left comments. You were friendly until I referenced something and I can’t quite recall what it was. Perhaps the German poem Parzival? I don’t remember what it was or the context, but you huffed and puffed and made a drama queen exit. Fine with me. Now I’m on your list of satanists and what not.

    What’s happened in this thread is I’ve written some things about Riplinger that none of you were aware of, and so I get nothing but Stravinsky-esque feedback.

    For the record, even though I am one who is not afraid to tell someone they are currently unregenerate, I don’t think you are unregenerate. We can’t know, of course, God knows, but I am unafraid to broach the subject since it is made a ‘third rail’ on most all Christian sites, usually to protect people from being stung with the subject. You have no evidence other than legalist standards of language (you’ll have to speak strongly to the apostle Paul about that too when you get to Heaven). Morality isn’t relative, and truth and the ability of language to represent truth is not relative, but language itself certainly is. There are many ways to say ‘sir’, for instance, not all of them respectful. And not all uses of ‘dung’ are worthless. You’ll just have to agree to disagree with me on that one. But that is yet another side subject to this thread.

  53. February 26, 2009 at 7:21 pm

    Not that this will register with you, but in the off-chance God will use it to awaken you, you said with regard to regeneracy, “We can’t know, of course, God knows.”

    Not one genuinely born again Christian on this planet would make that statement. Not one.

    http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/great_gamble.htm

    I’ll let the others, if they so desire, expose all your other fallacies, although it wouldn’t surprise me if they see any further discussion with you as fruitless.

    I want you to know, though, that it is not possible for me to be born again if you are. You see, the SAME Jesus who introduced himself to me and indwelt me testifies INFALLIBLY to me that he does not know you. Do you understand what that means?

    It means, for the last time, that one of us is FATALLY — and I mean ETERNALLY — deceived about our salvation. Try to think that through, because it means, at this point, one of us is heaven-bound and one of us is not.

    That’s a concept you better try very hard to think through.

  54. CBC
    February 26, 2009 at 9:34 pm

    I value any thoughts on this material which is still being written especially from the writers of Jackhammer who I esteem very highly:

    Error #2 To confuse II Peter 1:21 with II Tim 3:16

    What happened in II Pet 1:21 will never happen again. It did not happen in 1611 or in 1769 or at any other
    time since the writing of the originals.
    We would do well to take our view of inspiration from II Tim 3:16 where the term is actually mentioned, instead of overriding our view with II Pet 1:21 where there is no mention of the term inspiration. Listed below is a comparison of the two passages, and how they are teaching two different things:
    II Tim 3:16 II Pet 1:21
    The PRODUCT The PROCESS
    HOLY WRITINGS (Scripture) HOLY MEN
    Never Repealed Never Repeated
    What IS given What was given
    Held in our Hands Historical Event
    Authority because of the Authors Conducted by the Spirit
    Character of Scripture.
    “Inspiration” is used “Inspiration” the term is not used
    (only place in Scripture)

    The term “inspired” was not one time ever used by the writers of scripture when they spoke of their actual writing of the words, notice these examples:
    Eph 3:3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words
    Note: Paul uses the term revelation and not inspiration.
    II Pet 1:10-11…the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ…unto whom it was revealed
    Note: No mention of inspiration but Spirit testified what was revealed
    Jude 3 …I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation.
    Note: nothing about inspiration.
    Also I Jn 1:4; II Pet 3:15-16 and many others.
    To say that “God inspired” the authors is to use phraseology that they never used. I have used the term myself but we should be careful.

    Error #3 Missing the primary intent of II Tim 3:16, which is the only place “inspiration” is mentioned.

    There is much more evidence that II Tim 3:16 is speaking of the character of Scripture and not merely the transmission of it. The Greek statement ALL SCRIPTURE GOD BREATHED is a predicate adjective. “God breathed” modifies or describes the character of All Scripture. All Scripture always has been and always will be inspired.
    An exegesis of II Tim 3:14-4:2 will show that Timothy had an inspired Bible and they were not the originals. As a child he had copies (possibly even a translation) of the Holy Scriptures (vs 15). They were powerful (able) to make one wise unto salvation. They had the quickening power to give faith in Christ Jesus. Paul goes on to imply that what Timothy had, like all Scripture is (not was) given by inspiration of God. The present profitability of them is based on the fact that they are presently inspired. The evidence that inspiration dealt with what Timothy had in his hands mounts further with the direct connection between the inspired Scriptures of 3:16 and the Word that was to be preached in 4:2. The Word was to be preached with all longsuffering and doctrine (II Tim 4:2), which connects precisely with “all Scriptures” being profitable for doctrine (3:16). The word of 4:2 could be preached with authority because it has the same character as the “all Scripture” of II Tim 3:16. Simply put, the Word of God by definition has the character of being inspired! It’s all in the context clearly laid out. Paul is saying, Hey Timothy, don’t be afraid to preach the Word, it is inspired of God! Be of good cheer man of God (3:17), we have in our hands the word of God, and it is as inspired as it is profitable.

  55. Jackson
    February 27, 2009 at 6:52 am

    >Not that this will register with you, but in the off-chance God will use it to awaken you, you said with regard to regeneracy, “We can’t know, of course, God knows.” Not one genuinely born again Christian on this planet would make that statement. Not one.

    I believe a believer can know regarding themselves, and I’ve written on the subject in a manner I’ve never seen anywhere else, i.e. I come through when a person challenges me with something like: “So, how do you *really* know you are regenerated?”

    Regarding other people, believe it or not, Lamblion, I can’t know what is in another person’s heart. So to say I can’t know if another person is regenerated is just simply a statement recognizing practical reality and the limits of a human being who is not God (and there was only one human being who is God, just to make that clear).

    You keep saying I divert, but you don’t converse, Lamblion, you engage in what is called *inquisition.* I’m trying to get you to converse. To give examples of your numerous claims now, for instance.

    Lamblion, you continue:
    >I want you to know, though, that it is not possible for me to be born again if you are. You see, the SAME Jesus who introduced himself to me and indwelt me testifies INFALLIBLY to me that he does not know you. Do you understand what that means?

    It means that you are, as I suggested before, unhinged.

    Nothing the Holy Spirit can’t cure, though. Just take a deep breath every now and then…

  56. February 27, 2009 at 7:17 am

    Miss ??? wrote —

    ****************************************
    Regarding other people, believe it or not, Lamblion, I can’t know what is in another person’s heart.
    ****************************************

    That’s a common claim of the unregenerate.

    But in fact, you don’t have to know what’s in another person’s heart. You only have to know the Holy Spirit and his ways. That’s why Bunyan, Whitefield, Edwards, Owen, et al, made the same claims I make about people not being born again. Discerning whether or not a person has the Holy Spirit is as natural as breathing air for those of us who are truly regenerate.

    http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/Blog%20Spots/how_do_you_know.htm

    I hope you also understand that everyone here knows you have yet to produce the quotation from me substantiating your accusation of what I said. I hope you understand that your false projection is apparent to all. You seem completely ignorant of the fact that there are intelligent people who can actually read what is written here on this blog.

    I hope you know also that the Holy Spirit causes those he indwells to tell the truth. The Holy Spirit also causes those he indwells to obey the written Word of God, such as refraining from foul langugage. If you were born of the Spirit, you would know these things and much more besides, for they are basic.

    Of course, an unregenerate person would say we’ll just have to agree to disagree on clear commandments of the Scriptures, which is what you said about foul language.

    Moreover, people who are interested in having genuine conversations with other people don’t deceitfully misrepresent themselves, and you have done numerous times, and as you continue to do. An honest person would have already cleared up this matter.

    I could go on, but you should know that you’re only (once again) making a complete spectacle of yourself. You’ve done it throughout the internet.

    You should heed my advice, becaue I’ll tell you again, the Jesus who introduced himself to me and indwelt me and who still speaks to me testifies he does not know you.

    That means one of us is FATALLY deceived, because if the Jesus who tells me he doesn’t know you is not the true Saviour of the world, then I’m not born again myself.

    On the other hand, if the Jesus who tells me he doesn’t know you IS the true Saviour of the world, then you are not born again.

    One of us is FATALLY deceived.

  57. Jackson
    February 27, 2009 at 8:05 am

    >But in fact, you don’t have to know what’s in another person’s heart. You only have to know the Holy Spirit and his ways. That’s why Bunyan, Whitefield, Edwards, Owen, et al, made the same claims I make about people not being born again. Discerning whether or not a person has the Holy Spirit is as natural as breathing air for those of us who are truly regenerate.

    But this isn’t at all the same as *knowing* what is in somebody’s heart. Walk into a church – a visible church gathering – for instance and pick out the people – self-identified Christians – who are not regenerate. A little more difficult, eh? Yet we know visible churches are not the invisible Church of which Christ is King made up of all the effectually called, regenerated, converted, justified, and adopted of all eras. You can know people by their actions and deeds and words, yes, but even then you are not on solid ground setting yourself up as a judge of who is and who isn’t regenerate. This is not how we are taught by the Bible to approach people, and that is the main point and bottom line. Just plain Holy Spirit enabled discernment and engaging in necessary spiritual warfare is not the same as what you are claiming. You are not on keel on this, pilgrim.

  58. Jackson
    February 27, 2009 at 8:32 am

    I say: “I can’t know what is in another person’s heart.”

    Lamblion responds: “That’s a common claim of the unregenerate.”

    I say: tell that to the Inquisition.

    JAM 4:12 There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?

    ROM 14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

    “God alone is Lord of the conscience.” Westminster Confession of Faith

    This was worked out in real time in real life in real blood during the great war against the system of the Beast that was the Reformation. God’s people won.

    Really, the fact is: you are the test case showing why your doctrine is not sound.

  59. February 27, 2009 at 10:50 am

    All,

    First, I regretfully don’t have time to engage Jackson, but I appreciate Lamblion’s work in that regard. I really don’t have time to comment much on this issue, which I equally regret. But I want to address a couple things from Thomas, Bobby, BJ, Kent, and Jeff’s discussion.

    I really appreciated BJ’s comment… you did a great job on that, Pastor Nordgren. I’m not sure what I have done to warrant constant suspicion from Bobby. Bobby, I would love to show you all my credentials on the KJV issue, so you’ll have that settled in your mind. But, I guess I’ll have to sit down with you sometime so that you can do a thorough examination. But just so you will know, Bobby, my convictions on this issue have led me to study the Greek, both with a tutor and on my own. For every message I compose, I read every word in my Greek New Testament, with all of my Greek study aids set out on my desktop. I read the Greek because I believe that those words are to guide me in my understanding of the English.

    That being said, I disagree with the notion that the words of the KJV are either inspired or else non-inspired. As I have said before, I believe that we are using equivocation of our terms. I’m glad that Thomas clarified that there is a difference between how we are using the term when it comes to the translation — that there is a difference between direct inspiration and derived inspiration. That is good. But then, I don’t think that we can make this an either/or proposition. In my opinion, the English-only preservationist movement requires us to be more precise in the words that we use to describe our position. Obviously, saying that the KJB is the inspired, preserved word of God means different things to different people. I am asking that we be more definite in what we mean.

    So, Bobby, I will save you the trouble of re-asking your question. Do I believe that the KJV is the preserved, inspired Words of God in English? Absolutely. But I don’t believe that God inspired the King James Bible. God inspired the words once, and from that point on God has miraculously kept and preserved every word. I will go a step further… something that I’ve been thinking about on this issue, and that I would welcome commentary on. But as I understand it, the mark of inspiration is preservation. In other words, the way that we know that God inspired a word is that we have it.

    Do you agree or disagree?

    • February 27, 2009 at 12:27 pm

      Dave Mallinak said: “So, Bobby, I will save you the trouble of re-asking your question. Do I believe that the KJV is the preserved, inspired Words of God in English? Absolutely. But I don’t believe that God inspired the King James Bible. God inspired the words once, and from that point on God has miraculously kept and preserved every word.”

      I absolutely agree with this statement. Please understand that I do not think that you need to undergo some sort of iron-maiden treatment on this. Now that the term “English preservasionist” has been defined by the one that coined the term I understand where you are coming from. When I first read what you had written concerning “English preservasionists” I was understanding it to mean those who believe what I just quoted from you.

      I would encourage you, Brother B., and Brother V., that if you are going to introduce and use a new term in the over-all discussion of texts and translations that has been going on for years, that you frequently define the term until it is widely understood. I would also encourage you to be patient with brethren like me who may not be familiar with your newly introduced term and may seek clarification concerning your statements. If you will recall, in my response to Thomas R. I used the word “seem” and I used it sincerely.

      When I read “English preservasionist,” not knowing the definition of this new classification it appeared to me to be one who believes that the Word of God has been preserved in English. My understanding of the context of these blog posts and those of about a year ago lent itself to my understanding also.

      Well, I fear I am getting redundant, so I will sign off for now. I do appreciate your clarification and your patience.

  60. February 27, 2009 at 11:10 am

    As far as the question concerning whether or not inspiration is product or process, I’m looking right now at my Greek New Testament and Exegetical guide for 2 Tim 3:16. It tells me that theopneustos is an adjective, modifying graphe. That would make the graphe “inspired” graphe. However, our English Bible makes inspiration a noun, and adds the preposition “by.” My English-speaking mind understands that as a process… “by” inspiration. Perhaps Pastor Nordgren’s comment on the difference between 2Peter 1 and 2Timothy 3 is relevant here…

    Inspired words are the product, and the process by which they are inspired is that God breathed them.

  61. Jackson
    February 27, 2009 at 3:50 pm

    >First, I regretfully don’t have time to engage Jackson, but I appreciate Lamblion’s work in that regard.

    Wow. I’ve been wondering where this site is regarding what Lamblion has been saying. I guess this some confirmation anyway.

  62. February 27, 2009 at 4:17 pm

    Isn’t it interesting how that the correct understanding of 2 Timothy 3:16 helps us in the matter of inspiration?

  63. February 27, 2009 at 4:25 pm

    Dave wrote —

    *************************************
    As far as the question concerning whether or not inspiration is product or process, I’m looking right now at my Greek New Testament and Exegetical guide for 2 Tim 3:16. It tells me that theopneustos is an adjective, modifying graphe. That would make the graphe “inspired” graphe. However, our English Bible makes inspiration a noun, and adds the preposition “by.”
    *************************************

    Keep in mind that grammatical terms are (late) man-made rules, especially as laid out in modern grammars and lexicons.

    theopneustos can easily and correctly be translated as a noun. The adjectival assignment is an interpretation of grammarians.

    I have been told by a native Greek friend of mine who speaks impeccable English that he would NOT translate the word as “God-breathed” at all. In his mind, theopnuestos has more force than that, and the King James rendition of “by inspiration” correctly carries that force. FWIW.

  64. February 27, 2009 at 5:06 pm

    Bobby,

    As far as your suggestion goes, I would agree that we always need to work hard to define our terms. I would also suggest that we need to “believe all things” and to avoid jumping to conclusions whenever we see something that we think we might not agree with. I will make you a deal. I will work harder to define my terms, if you will think the best instead of assuming the worst right off the bat.

  65. February 27, 2009 at 7:22 pm

    Brother Mallinak,

    Very good and you are right that I was at fault concerning that. Charity does hope, believe, etc. Thanks for being friend enough to point out this error.

    Bobby

    • February 27, 2009 at 7:37 pm

      Brother Voegtlin,

      You can see what I wrote to Dave in my last comment. The same applies to you also. As for me, the Scripture is true: “He that answereth a matter . . .” Thanks for your patience.

      • February 27, 2009 at 9:28 pm

        Thank you, brother Mitchell.

  66. Jackson
    February 27, 2009 at 7:29 pm

    Luk 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

    Who knows their hearts? God. God knows their hearts.

    1Co 4:2 Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.
    1Co 4:3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man’s judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.
    1Co 4:4 For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.

    Paul apparently puts little value on the judgment of man. Why should we? It is God that knows our hearts.

    Calvin on this passage: Nay, I judge not mine own self. The meaning is: “I do not venture to judge myself, though I know myself best; how then will you judge me, to whom I am less intimately known?” Now he proves that he does not venture to judge himself by this, that though he is not conscious to himself of anything wrong, he is not thereby acquitted in the sight of God. Hence he concludes, that what the Corinthians assume to themselves, belongs exclusively to God. “As for me,” says he, “when I have carefully examined myself, I perceive that I am not so clear-sighted as to discern thoroughly my true character; and hence I leave this to the judgment of God, who alone can judge, and to whom this authority exclusively belongs. As for you, then, on what ground will you make pretensions to something more?”

    A person might say “I can discern that that person is regenerate.” Somebody we all know (Lamblion) may say that. Then that person he deemed to be regenerate apostasizes. They were never one of God’s. It happens. Some people surprise even the most discerning human judge. So what do we conclude from this? God knows what is in people’s hearts. We can’t know.

    Lamblion disagrees. Anybody like to take his side and argue his side? Your silence does not commend you. Give me the silent treatment in favor of another, I’m used to such treatment, from the world, from internet Christians, whatever. The world is a respecter of persons. But to allow false doctrine to go by unremarked on just so you can shun somebody (however pleasurable that is to you) does not commend you.

  67. February 27, 2009 at 8:06 pm

    Miss ??? wrote —

    ******************************
    So what do we conclude from this? God knows what is in people’s hearts. We can’t know. Lamblion disagrees.
    ******************************

    One more time, please provide the quotation where I said this.

    Not only did I not say anything of the sort, or even imply it, but once again you keep demonstrating a very serious problem with false projection and a pronounced inability of even basic comprehension.

    I’ve seen this before, and it’s as much a spiritual problem as a mental one. A very serious spiritual problem.

    If you’re going to keep this up, try to read what people write, not engage your own delusions.

  68. Jackson
    February 27, 2009 at 8:25 pm

    A relevant passage from a man who lived in an era when the judges of hearts had the power of the sword. They were defeated by God’s own.

    “By regeneration the children of God are delivered from the bondage of sin, but not as if they had already obtained full possession of freedom, and no longer felt any annoyance from the flesh. Materials for an unremitting contest remain, that they may be exercised, and not only exercised, but may better understand their weakness. All writers of sound judgment agree in this, that, in the regenerate man, there is still a spring of evil which is perpetually sending forth desires that allure and stimulate him to sin. They also acknowledge that the saints are still so liable to the disease of concupiscence, that, though opposing it, they cannot avoid being ever and anon prompted and incited to lust, avarice, ambition, or other vices. It is unnecessary to spend much time in investigating the sentiments of ancient writers. Augustine alone may suffice, as he has collected all their opinions with great care and fidelity. Any reader who is desirous to know the sense of antiquity may obtain it from him. There is this difference apparently between him and us, that while he admits that believers, so long as they are in the body, are so liable to concupiscence that they cannot but feel it, he does not venture to give this disease the name of sin. He is contented with giving it the name of infirmity, and says, that it only becomes sin when either external act or consent is added to conception or apprehension; that is, when the will yields to the first desire. We again regard it as sin whenever man is influenced in any degree by any desire contrary to the law of God; nay, we maintain that the very gravity which begets in us such desires is sin. Accordingly, we hold that there is always sin in the saints until they are freed from their mortal frame, because depraved concupiscence resides in their flesh, and is at variance with rectitude. Augustine himself dose not always refrain from using the name of sin, as when he says, “Paul gives the name of sin to that carnal concupiscence from which all sins arise. This in regard to the saints loses its dominion in this world, and is destroyed in heaven.” In these words he admits that believers, in so far as they are liable to carnal concupiscence, are chargeable with sin.” – John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion

    Keep in mind something very important: regeneration refers to salvation. You can’t have part of a new heart given by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit doesn’t go half way with that. When the Holy Spirit gives you a heart of flesh for your heart of stone it is done. When the Holy Spirit quickens you and applies the work of redemption performed by Jesus Christ it is done. A regenerated person will have faith in Jesus Christ and will be justified based on the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ and His passive and active obedience, His work on the cross.

    That salvation is between the believer and his Prophet, Priest, and King Jesus Christ. No man has authority, *let alone ability*, to question your salvation. And if they do a born again Christian will usually not be upset. Then again false teachers don’t get upset at that accusation either. Each case though has different reasons. The born again Christians ‘knows’ his accuser usually just flying off the handle (if a believer) or is just currently in the darkness and bondage of the devil’s kingdom and likes to accuse Christians. The false teacher feels no sting because he doesn’t care about such things. He doesn’t value being regenerated by the Word and the Spirit.

    I’ve been a good Christian while over here. But the silence of the people who write on this site regarding the brutal inanity of Lamblion, not even a soft, pastoral counsel lofted his way, has caused me to almost reach my limit of patience.

    I, though, am left with my own convicted conscience on this subject. It’s always been one of the most prominent – to my mind – marks of regeneration that a person will be able to see and value the Word of God as something above him. And will be able to discern the pure and whole Word of God (though I recognize a person can be currently unaware of the differences in manuscripts, and more doctrinally indifferent type Christians may never become aware, yet they can still be saved). When I have brought up the subject of regeneration vis-a-vis other Christians – nominal or whatever, God knows – it really has solely been in the context of confronting false teachers. People who put themselves forward as teachers of Christians. Critical Text scholars fall into this category almost without exception. And the mocking and deriding and inane condescension one gets from such people can elicit strong responses in return. Yet now I wonder if this judging of their salvation is called for, even in cases that are rather obvious. We tend to assign *conscious* evil motives to such people, but really the fact is they can just be very duped and asleep people who happen to desire to teach others their nonsense.

    They need the shock of the Word of God. Let God work in them with His Word. Accusations from human beings of their being unregenerate are not a shock that can quicken and hence will be empty. We can act on such discernment ourselves, but for the other person just give them the Word of God.

  69. Jackson
    February 27, 2009 at 8:28 pm

    >One more time, please provide the quotation where I said this.

    OK:

    >I say: “I can’t know what is in another person’s heart.”
    Lamblion responds: “That’s a common claim of the unregenerate.”

    At this point I don’t even think you are reading your own posts, Lamblion. There is a serious disconnect here, and it’s not on my part.

  70. Jackson
    February 27, 2009 at 8:38 pm

    >I’ve seen this before, and it’s as much a spiritual problem as a mental one.

    You’re falling into typical patterns that people fall into who persecute Christians, Lamblion. The “You have a mental disorder” was a favorite accusation of the Communists of the 20th century towards Christians. They even imprisoned them in ‘mental institutions’ and shot drugs into them to ‘cure’ them.

  71. February 27, 2009 at 8:50 pm

    Okay, this is about it, Miss ???

    Did you read the next two sentences after the one you quoted? The one where I stated — “But in fact, you don’t have to know what’s in another person’s heart. You only have to know the Holy Spirit and his ways…”

    That’s called context. Go back and read the post again.

    And of course, whenever a Christian witnesses to or confronts an unregenerate person, almost invariably they will accuse the Christian of judging them or of assuming to know what’s in their heart.

    As I made very plain, I don’t have to know what’s in your heart. I already know from the Bible that your heart and my heart are deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked. (Jeremiah 17:9)

    All I have to know is whether or not you are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. That’s it. For as Romans 8:9 says, “if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.”

    That’s all I have to know, and as I made plain for anybody with an iota of reading comprehension, that is EXACTLY what I said. I never once stated, implied, or even hinted that I knew your heart.

    Now then, let’s get down to brass tacks. I exposed you here for a reason.

    You habitually lie about your gender and name in complete contravention of the Holy Spirit and the Word of God. You habitually use foul language in complete contravention of the Holy Spirit and the Word of God. You habitually refuse to acknowledge your lies and deceit and ungodly actions and character in complete contravention of the Holy Spirit and the Word of God. And I could of course go even further, but this is revealing enough.

    I happen to know for a fact that the Holy Spirit doesn’t indwell you. I not only know that by your own character and the utter lack of evidence that the Holy Spirit is anywhere near you, let alone in you, but I know it also by the witness of the Holy Spirit in me that he does not indwell you, the same Holy Spirit who introduced me to Jesus and indwelt me and made me a new creature.

    Moreover, I didn’t just arrive at this knowledge yesterday. You and your deceitful, ungodly character are infamous, and I’ve had a fair amount of past experience with you.

    It isn’t possible for someone who is indwelt by the Holy Spirit to lie and deceive and at the same time profess to be representing Jesus Christ. It isn’t possible for someone who is indwelt by the Holy Spirit to disobey the written Word of God and then justify that disobedience while at the same time profess to be representing Jesus Christ. Ad infinitum.

    I could write an entire article on you, for you are a CLASSIC case, but I’ll spare you that.

    Instead, I’ll leave you with this — the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of TRUTH, not the spirit of deceit and foul language, and on and on.

    Again, at the bottom of my website there is instruction on how to be born again. I strongly encourage you to read it carefully, somberly, prayerfully, and heed it.

  72. February 27, 2009 at 9:11 pm

    I just remembered why I usually don’t subscribe to blog comments…

  73. Jackson
    February 27, 2009 at 9:14 pm

    >You habitually lie about your gender and name in complete contravention of the Holy Spirit and the Word of God.

    Calvin had seven fake names from the time of his regeneration he speaks of in the preface to his commentary on the Book of Psalms, to his entering Geneva. He counseled Beza, I believe, to represent himself as a different person when on some mission to a royal person (I forget the details of that event). Sometimes it is easier to discuss the Gospel and evangelize without external and superfluous matters getting in the way. And if a sin, as you say, it certainly is not the unforgivable sin, and hence your brutal rhetoric concerning my salvation is a bit, as I stated, unhinged.

    >I happen to know for a fact that the Holy Spirit doesn’t indwell you.

    And you just got through denying you can know what is in another person’s heart.

    >Moreover, I didn’t just arrive at this knowledge yesterday. You and your deceitful, ungodly character are infamous, and I’ve had a fair amount of past experience with you.

    You’ve been reading Roman Catholic apologists (or James White’s website for that matter), one of which made up an entire web page with quotes from me he deemed ‘anti-Catholic’. *Guilty.* That picture he had of me, though, was not of me but of a wicked witch from some movie. Maybe you didn’t catch that.

    And your ‘problem’ with me had to do with the fact that you don’t think non-biblical literature is worth anybody’s time while I happen to think great literature is very much worth anybody’s time. General revelation informs special revelation, as the Reformed theologians would put it; and there is always a measure of grace in great works of art and literature and music. But that’s fine if you think differently. I won’t call you unsaved.

  74. Jackson
    February 27, 2009 at 9:15 pm

    >I just remembered why I usually don’t subscribe to blog comments…

    Thanks for the input.

  75. February 27, 2009 at 9:28 pm

    My apologies to the blog admins for allowing this thread to get hijacked to this extent. My only defense is that, like Paul, I will call accursed an angel from heaven if he professes Jesus Christ while wearing what I am convinced is a false mantle.

  76. Jackson
    February 27, 2009 at 10:02 pm

    >My apologies to the blog admins for allowing this thread to get hijacked to this extent. My only defense is that, like Paul, I will call accursed an angel from heaven if he professes Jesus Christ while wearing what I am convinced is a false mantle.

    That’s quite a defense. You like to exalt yourself, don’t you Scott.

  77. Jackson
    February 27, 2009 at 10:07 pm

    How do you like this, Scott: I suspect you are a Jesuit. You attack true critics of the Critical Text. I.e. critics who actually believe what they are saying. There are many Jesuits wearing Reformed/Calvinist clothing as well as Jesuits who say they are KJV. Doug Wilson springs to mind. A closet Romanist who debated James White on the manuscripts issues taking the KJV side. Yet back at his own site he quotes Alexandrian bibles and really doesn’t have a problem with them. He uses the KJV to attract followers just as he uses other stances to attract followers. Just a suspician, Scott. And of course if you are a Jesuit you have given your allegiance to a man and not God.

  78. Jackson
    February 27, 2009 at 10:11 pm

    (No, I don’t think he’s a Jesuit. Just a bit unhinged. Nothing that the Holy Spirit can’t cure. In time. He may have problems with women. Who knows. Who can know…)

  79. Jackson
    February 27, 2009 at 10:18 pm

    Lamblion, I’ll leave you here. You do need to know something though before I leave: I fear God only. I fear no man. This fear of you that you’ve been attempting to instill in me is purely Satanic, and it brings out the spiritual warrior in me. You need to understand that a follower of Christ could care less what any man says or does or thinks about their relationship with the Triune God. I fear God and God alone. When you fear God alone you don’t fear man. Man wants Christians to fear them. The world wants Christians to fear it. The Spirit in me enables me to know better. Your brutal accusing (purely devilish) and your brutal rhetoric all around doesn’t tempt or harm this follower of my Lord and King and Saviour Jesus Christ. That fact infuriates you. So be it. You’re not the first accuser (devil) that has been infuriated by a child of the Living God of all Creation. Get used to it. Upon the return of our King you will have a lot more to be infuriated about, accusor (devil). Get use to it. You won’t have any other choice.

  80. February 28, 2009 at 1:12 am

    Pastor Brandenburg was correct a long time ago when he said that with my schedule commenting much is not going to happen. I don’t have time to go through everything back there and make any comments. I just want to point this out about the LambLion gentleman. I think there are some good things on his website, but he also makes statements like this (from his article defending the correct view of monogenes, “only begotten”):

    Only someone with a vested interest in denigrating Jesus Christ would remove GOD in this passage, and he who denies this not only proves himself unregenerate, but likewise utterly ignorant of the devices of Satan and the spiritual battle over God’s Word, a battle that has been raging for six thousand years, and continues to rage to this day, its zenith culminating IN THIS VERY VERSE.

    In a nutshell, if a person is JEALOUS for the glory of Jesus Christ, he would UTTERLY REJECT a “bible” such as the NASB, which offers UNBRIDLED HERESY in such verses as John 1:18, Philippians 2:6, 1 Timothy 3:16, and others. (For an excursus on Philippians 2:6, see Indictment Of Ignorance)

    You may take it as absolutely axiomatic that if a person is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, he will, with the Holy Spirit, EXCORIATE the readings of the NASB in these and other verses. In other words, you may take it as axiomatic that if a person is JEALOUS for the GLORY OF JESUS CHRIST, he will have NOTHING TO DO with such foul, heretical readings. Nothing whatsoever.

    Conversely, he who DEFENDS such readings not only proves himself IGNORANT of sound doctrine, but manifestly unregenerate as well, for the Holy Spirit REBUKES such foul readings in ALL HE INDWELLS.

    Thus, Lamblion affirms that everyone who has a wrong view of 1 Tim 3:16 will be eternally damned. This is most unfortunate, as it implicates not only many believers who don’t have a clue about text criticism but just accept whatever Bible their CT pastors have put in their hands, but even those in church history such as the Waldenses who, at least in certain translations of certain vernacular versions of theirs made from the Latin Vulgate instead of the Greek, had the wrong reading in 1 Tim 3:16. It is too bad that the Waldensian brethren are damned eternally because they translated the Bible from Latin, not knowing Greek, in certain instances. In the rest of this post, I will list all the verses that state that nobody can accept a single wrong textual reading and go to heaven. Thus, Lamblion is on the extreme side here. I won’t have time to comment on any responses to this post, by the way.

    Anyway, here are the verses that state that everyone will be damned who believe in the CT, whether he knows it or not:

    1.)

    2.)

    3.)

    4.)

    5.)

  81. February 28, 2009 at 1:19 am

    By the way, Bible for Today refuses to call the KJV inspired, and so would not like what I wrote. I also don’t think that the brethren at Emmanuel Baptist Seminary would agree with what I wrote, although I may be wrong on this, as I was there quite a while ago. Also, BFT publishes a work that (correctly) attacks John MacArthur for his view on the blood. However, it also affirms that Christ’s blood is NOT human, which is actually a serious Christological error. Christ’s blood is incorruptible, it literally washes away our sins, etc. but Acts 20:28 simply does not prove that Christ’s blood is not human. It simply is teaching that He who is one Person with two natures has blood (which pertains to His human nature), and so one can ascribe the attribute of blood to He who is by nature God. It is like “they crucified the Lord of glory” or “the Son of man which is in heaven.” If Christ’s blood is not human, then we don’t have a fully human Redeemer and there is no salvation.

  82. February 28, 2009 at 9:07 am

    Thomas, I’ll have to take a look at the context in that specific article, but I have always written in the context of someone who has had the difference pointed out to them, not someone who isn’t aware of the difference between the TR and the CT with regard to 1 Timothy 3:16 or other passages.

    In fact, I have stated in almost every article I’ve written that I’m talking about someone who is aware of the differences and has the choice. For example, on the very main page of my website I say —

    “No man born of the Spirit of Christ would accept a “bible” which removes GOD in 1 Timothy 3:16 IF HE HAD THE CHOICE. Not one.”

    In other articles I make the same distinction.

    With regard to the overall situation, I will still maintain that Critical Text defenders/supporters are unregenerate.

    I’m not talking about someone who uses a CT “bible” but is not aware of the differences between the two texts or is aware of the issue in general.

    I’m talking about a person who is aware of the issue and who is still a supporter or defender ot the CT.

    The Holy Spirit bears witness to the words he inspired, and as I have stated many times, some of those words and verses are simply not expendable, such as 1 Timothy 3:16 and so forth.

    If a person is aware of the issue and the differences and yet still adopts the CT in 1 Timothy 3:16 and other passages, then he’s either not regenerate or he is in direct rebellion to the Holy Spirit.

    I know that CT supporters/defenders scoff at the witness of the Holy Spirit with regard to determining which text is the true text, but that is in fact one of the things the Holy Spirit does in those he indwells.

    He who doesn’t have that witness is he who doesn’t have the Holy Spirit.

    I’ll take a look at the specific article you quoted and see if I have not made it clear that I’m talking about active supporters and defenders of the CT, because as I said, I have stated elsewhere that I’m talking about active defenders/supporters of the CT with knowledge of the matter, not just anybody who happens to use a CT “bible” without knowing the issues.

  83. February 28, 2009 at 9:25 am

    Thomas, let me also clear up one other matter with regard to your listing quotation —

    “Anyway, here are the verses that state that everyone will be damned who believe in the CT, whether he knows it or not:”

    You have jumped to a false conclusion.

    I have never stated that, nor have I implied that one’s view of the CT will determine whether or not he will be damned, ESPECIALLY with regard to a person who isn’t aware of the differences and the issue.

    As I said above, and now that I’ve had a chance to look at the context in the article you quoted, it is CLEAR that I’m talking about a knowledgable person, which is why I used the word REMOVE in your quotation of my article above, and why I used the word DEFENDS in the same snippet you quoted, et cetera.

    So let me be clear — if a person REMOVES “God” in 1 Timothy 3:16, exactly as I said above, then he KNOWS the difference between the two readings, otherwise he couldn’t REMOVE “God”, or if a person DEFENDS the removal of “God” in 1 Timothy 3:16, then he is clearly aware of the issue, as the context makes clear.

    I’m clearly talking about a measure of premeditation here.

    In these cases, you can take it as axiomatic that that person does NOT have the witness of the Holy Spirit.

    If a person does not have the Holy Spirit, he is not born again, and if he is not born again, he will not go to heaven.

    Notice — he is not damned because of his view on 1 Timothy 3:16. He is damned because he is not born again.

    If he WERE born again, he would know that the Holy Spirit bears witness to GOD in 1 Timothy 3:16.

    That is what I wrote, and I believe the context is clear, nor do I believe the context supports your superficial understanding of it as represented in your quotation above.

  84. February 28, 2009 at 9:59 am

    Well, not to beat a dead horse, but in the VERY article you refer to, Thomas, we find me saying this —

    “You may therefore know without fear of revocation that he who accepts a “bible” that removes “GOD” in this verse, like the NASB does, AFTER HAVING BEEN SHOWN THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TWO…’

    Thus, your quotation asserting that I held this view “…everyone will be damned who believe in the CT, whether he knows it or not…”

    is a rather unfortunate quotation on your part.

    Moreover, after rereading that article, it is eminently clear that I’m taking issue with biblical translators and scholars. The context couldn’t be clearer.

    That article has been up there for years, and tons of people have read it and commented on it. Never once has anyone had a problem noting the distinction. You are the first.

  85. March 22, 2009 at 3:01 pm

    A further note concerning inspiration and translations:

    brief recap of what I said earlier:

    1.) Accurate copies of the Greek and Hebrew words are inspired, since inspiration, Biblically speaking, is product, rather than process.
    2.) Anything that we can properly call “God’s Word” is inspired, because, by definition, if God breathes out some words, He has inspired those Words. “All Scripture is inspired.” 2 Tim 3:16.
    3.) Scripture shows us that accurately translated Words are still Scripture. 1 Tim 5:18 refers to both untranslated gospel of Luke (10:7) and translated Deuteronomy (25:4) as “Scripture.”
    4.) Thus, accurate translations are Scripture.
    5.) Since accurate translations are Scripture, they are inspired, since all Scripture is inspired, and they retain the breath of God.
    Thus, since the KJV is an accurate translation of the perfectly preserved Hebrew and Greek Words dictated by the Holy Ghost, it is Scripture, and it is inspired.
    Otherwise we would need to say that the KJV is the uninspired Word of God, and it cannot produce faith (Romans 10:17), it is not quick, powerful, sharp, etc. and we are not to live by it (Matthew 4:4).
    Two qualifications to the above must be made, however. 1.) Only Greek and Hebrew words are DIRECTLY inspired. Translated words are DERIVITIVELY inspired. The directly inspired Greek and Hebrew cannot be changed, jot or tittle. Translated words can be changed and still have the breath of God. Dropping the “eth” from KJV verbs would not make the translation lose the breath of God. One could, in like manner, say that the KJV is derivitively preserved, sharp, quick, powerful, faith-producing, etc. This does not by any means make English, rather than the directly, verbally, plenarily inspired and perfectly preserved Greek and Hebrew (and Aramaic) words our authority.
    2.) When translations other than the KJV are accurate, in those parts they are also (derivitively) inspired. The NASV possesses the breath of God in the parts where it is not mistranslated nor translating a corrupt Greek/Hebrew text.

    New info:

    This use of Theopneustos for product, rather than process, also seems to be the use of the Greek word in related Christian/Koine Greek texts. For instance:

    Papias 10:1 Regarding, however, the divine inspiration [Theopneustos] of the book [i.e., the Revelation of John] we think it superfluous to speak at length, since the blessed Gregory (I mean the Theologian) and Cyril, and men of an older generation as well, namely Papias, Irenaeus, Methodius, and Hippolytus, bear witness to its genuineness. [Papias, who lived around the turn of the first century, reproduced by Andrew of Caesarea (563-637),Preface to the Apocalypse}

    Here the book itself, the Greek words, the product, is referred to as inspired. Process is not in view, but product.

    Sibyl. 5:406 But God, the great Father of all within whom is the breath of God [Theopneustos],
    Sibyl. 5:407 they were accustomed to reverence with holy sacrifices and hecatombs.

    Here the unknown early Christian writer of the Sibylline Oracles refers to the breath God puts within people as Theopneustos. It is simply “breath from God.”

    It thus seems to me that consistency requires that we either refrain from calling translated Scripture “the Word of God” or we allow the use of the word Theopneustos for translated Scripture. That is my position, in any case. I have no problem with using the word for accuratly translated Scripture.

    The only other argument I have every heard is that there is some sort of distinction in 2 Tim 3:15-16 where either grammata or graphe refers to the autographs, and the other word to copies. I am not even exactly sure how this argument is supposed to work, but it looks to me like both words are used for copies. For example, grammata:

    John 5:47 But if ye believe not his writings [grammata], how shall ye believe my words?

    They only had copies of Moses’ writings, obviously.

    The word is also used of copies, and with semantic overlap of graphe, in early extra-Biblical patristic works:

    1Iren. 20:1 Besides the above [misrepresentations], they adduce an unspeakable number of apocryphal and spurious writings, which they themselves have forged, to bewilder the minds of foolish men, and of such as are ignorant of the Scriptures [grammata] of truth.

    Trypho 29: For these words have neither been prepared by me, nor embellished by the are of man; but David sung them, Isaiah preached them, Zechariah proclaimed them, and Moses wrote them Are you acquainted with them, Trypho? They are contained in your Scriptures [grammata], or rather not yours, but ours. For we believe them; but you, though you read them, do not catch the spirit that is in them.

    Trypho 70: Moreover, these Scriptures are equally explicit in saying, that those who are reputed to know the writings of the Scriptures [here both words together, ta grammata twn graphwn], and who hear the prophecies, have no understanding.

    3Theoph. 29 These periods, then, and all the above-mentioned facts, being viewed collectively, one can see the antiquity of the prophetical writings [grammata] and the divinity of our doctrine, that the doctrine is not recent, nor our tenets mythical and false, as some think; but very ancient and true.

    Graphe, of course, is also used of copies of Scripture:

    Matt. 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures [graphe], The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

    What they were holding in their hands reading was a graphe. Likewise:

    John 5:39 Search the scriptures [graphe]; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

    Early patristic writings also use the word for copies; one easy example:

    1Clem. 53:1 ¶ For you know, and know well, the sacred scriptures [graphe], dear friends, and you have searched into the oracles of God. We write these things, therefore, merely as a reminder.

    Here the copies that they were looking at were sacred/holy scriptures. The Greek of 1 Clem 53:1 is tas hieras graphas, almost identical to 2 Tim 3:15’s ta hiera grammata. If there is some sort of technical distinction between the words so that only one refers to the autographs, the distinction was lost already in the earliest post-NT document we have, 1 Clement, which was written by what appears to be a fundamental Baptist pastor of the church at Rome around the turn of the 1st century (see my article on 1 Clement at http://thross7.googlepages.com; Clement teaches justification by faith alone, church independence and autonomy, etc; he looks like a good Baptist). As noted above, grammata/graphe are also found together as early as Justin Martyr c. A. D. 120 or before: Trypho 70: Moreover, these Scriptures are equally explicit in saying, that those who are reputed to know the writings of the Scriptures [here both words together, ta grammata twn graphwn], and who hear the prophecies, have no understanding.

    So I am not sure which word, gramma or graphe, is the one that is supposedly the technical word for the autographs, and why we are supposed to believe the one or the other.

  86. Jackieboy
    May 1, 2009 at 1:30 pm

    Just as a late aside, you mention Jeff Fugate only being a graduate of Hyles Anderson College, not the anointed son-in-law of Hyles. To the best of my knowledge, he is not a graduate of any college. I have known him since he was in his late teens/early twenties. He briefly attended Tennessee Temple University but did not graduate. He did receive an honorary doctorate from Hyles Anderson as you mentioned, but I’m 99.9% sure he does not have an undergrad. degree.

  1. March 13, 2009 at 7:11 pm
  2. March 14, 2009 at 7:18 pm
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: