The PuritanBoard - View Single Post

Jerusalem Blade · #1 (**permalink**) 06-23-2006, 11:38 AM

On Gathering Intelligence and Evidence

Preliminary to posting on issues pertaining to the CT vs. the TR/KJV/NJKV (including the 1 John 5:7 business), I wonder if I might offer some thoughts.

A parable: There was a man in the mountains of Kentucky known as "œthe horse man," seeing he had bred, birthed, raised, doctored, shoed, trained, loved, and lived with horses the half century of his adult life; there was no one with greater experience and wisdom concerning these creatures in the state, and in many of the surrounding states.

This man had a rusty but fairly reliable pickup truck, American-made, and a good mechanic down the road who kept it running. The "œhorse man" had a strong aversion to foreign-made vehicles, and wouldn´t even get in one. He said, "œThe British were our enemies in a war, as were the Germans, Italians, and Japanese. I don´t trust these folks to make things right!" It was not a matter of forgiveness, or of mean-spiritedness, but some foible of judgment.

He was a godly man, honest and fair in his dealings, generous, humble, and he loved the Lord, but he maintained his idiosyncrasy about vehicles.

We lived in a nearby town, and one of our horses fell ill, and it was a no-brainer to ask for his help with our animal. Yet when he had finished diagnosing and treating our horse "“ who began recovering immediately "“ we knew it wouldn´t make much sense to seek his views on the relative merits of Toyotas or Hondas, or Mercedes vs. BMWs. For we knew he was not a reliable source of information about vehicles, expert as he was in his chosen field, and holy in his character.

We would certainly not disparage his character because of his views, for this was a man of sterling temper, even if his judgment was flawed in one area. Perhaps we might be tempted to disparage him, if he learned that we owned a car dealership specializing in high-end foreign makes, and cracked a few good-natured jokes about us when talking with his mechanic. But we knew he was a good man, and in the main sound of judgment and heart. And without his wisdom and skill, our horse would have died.

Now here is my point: when gathering intelligence we go to where it may be found, not being deterred if a valuable and trusted source has poor intelligence in other significant areas. And we certainly will not disparage his character on account of such flaws in his understanding.

I agree with this administrative dictum:

"œI have assumed a zero tolerance platform as of late; If I see any innuendo, ad hominem, slander, below the belt assaults on any believers from here on out, the guilty party will be banned immediately."

Yet it seems to me that the following statement is close to violating this policy:

"œ[David] Cloud is not a reputable source; he sees Calvinism as heresy. He actually endorses D. Hunt's stuff."

"œNot reputable" is virtually indistinguishable from "œdisreputable." Here are some dictionary definitions and synonyms for the word:

disreputable: lacking respectability on the basis of past or present actions; notorious; infamous; scandalous; disgraceful; dishonest; base; dishonorable; of ill repute; untrustworthy; villainous; corrupt; immoral; slippery; seedy, etc.

When the word "œsource" is appended to the word as above it becomes all-inclusive, or at least easily perceived that way: As a source of knowledge and information nothing is to be accepted from him.

David Cloud (and I include many "“ but not all! "“ of his Fundamental Baptist "œanti-Calvinist" colleagues) is a godly and honorable man, "œholy and beloved" of Christ (Colossians 3:12), in spite of his aberrant theology.

Now here´s the rub: We all "“ here at Puritanboard "“ own that our God is sovereign; whatsoever things are are at His decree ("œyet so as thereby is God neither the author or sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature"¦etc" -1689 Confession 3.1; cf. WCF). He has so ordered things that these despised (by many, it seems) Fundamentalist Baptists who, in my view err grossly on vital doctrines, nonetheless have some of the finest scholarship and the best resources for defending the Masoretic Hebrew text and especially the Greek Textus Receptus and its primary English offspring, the KJV. Yes, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Reformed, Reformed Baptists, Wesleyans, etc have all put their hands to the labor, but in this day it is mainly the Fundamentalist Baptists (FB) who carry the ensign and stand undaunted in the fray. I do not exaggerate when I say that without them and their resources we would be hard put to make a good defense. Of course it could be done, but God has provided His choicest weaponry in the FB armory. For example, for the defense of the AV reading of Psalm 12:7, 8, where will you go to find teaching on the genius of the ambiguity in the Hebrew that allows the reading to easily refer to the LORD´s word as well as to His people? Or where will you go to find the unabridged two-volume sets of (respectively) Westcott´s and Hort´s biographies by their sons, so as to ascertain somewhat the lives and thinking of these two men? Or where will you go to find the hard-copy reprint of Frederick Nolan´s An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, or Received Text, of the New Testament (London, 1815), a stunning piece of textual/historical detective-work? (There is an online version of it.) Or Herman C. Hoskier´s masterful two-volume, Codex B and its Allies: A Study and an Indictment? Well, at Dr. D.A. Waite´s Bible For Today ministry all of these works are available. He has reprinted them, as well as numerous other priceless books and articles. By His sovereign hand these men received such treasure (for those of you who will allow it is such!).

I spent two decades under the thrall of Wesley´s perfectionism and Finney´s Pelagianism, and the free will/Arminian/second blessing/entire sanctification brew would have killed me had not the Lord´s promise to keep me been true. Nonetheless my spiritual life during that time was 95% nightmare and ignominious failure. So please do not think I am soft on Arminian doctrine (or on the dispensationalist schema). It is just that I recognize God´s choice treasure among these folks, and so I deal with them with great respect. Perhaps our Sovereign foresaw the current state of affairs, and the Presbyterian-Reformed grasp of so much vital doctrine, along with our tendency to look down of our FB brethren as "œcrude back-woods hillbillies," and we princes of the realm. To my view it is clear He has honored them with wisdom and knowledge we have great need of.

So when I am told here that we must forfeit the intelligence and evidences crucial to an aspect of our warfare because in other areas these men grossly err, I find this imprudent counsel, at least in those who choose the TR/KJV/NKJV over the CT and its offspring, and desire to make a coherent and cogent stand for their view.

How to make this stand is another topic. I just didn´t want anyone to tell me I had to forsake some of the finest intelligence and evidences available while doing so.

The contest against the Arminian sovereign free-will of man is a separate battle. In the city where I am there is no other Reformed witness, and I am surrounded by Arminians and charismatics! (We start our English-language services in August, Lord willing. Presently the services are mostly in Arabic.)

I read one poster here say this textual debate has become a tiresome bore, and unfortunately it often does. Another poster said that if pastors kept their Hebrew/Greek skills up and translated directly from the original languages it would be a non-issue. But that is not really the case, as the main issue is which original-language manuscript should you use? For they differ. And knowledge of the original languages does not help in deciding the CT/TR issue, but rather knowledge of history and the transmission of the manuscripts.

When I was teaching a class in Africa last year one of the men, an evangelist (a different breed than we know here in the West), came to me quite disturbed, showing me that in his Bible, in Acts 8 verse 37 was completely missing, and why was that? (The class had all been given NIVs, though it is the same in the NASB & ESV.) Those teaching and preaching need to be able to explain the state of modern textual criticism (and the significance of the marginal notes in the modern Bibles) to their people, and at the same time bolster and not tear down their confidence in the reliability of God´s word.

I see godly and learned men, such as James White (one could mention also B.B. Warfield and Charles Hodge, or more recently, James Boice) take the CT side, while other men, as Jakob Van Bruggen (The Ancient Text of the New Testament), David Engelsma , or Edward Hills take the TR or Traditional Text side. In these days (as perhaps also of old) the two sides seem not to be hearing each other; Dr. White credits no intellectual consistency or acumen to most (if not all) of his opponents, and they in turn do not respect his approach to the matter, saying he proceeds on naturalistic grounds which are contrary to faith. White does have a good point when he says, for example re 1 John 5:7, it is not sufficient that internal evidence seems to point to the passage being excised rather than inserted when there is no historical evidence offered to support the former, but rather a lot of evidence to the contrary. I think he must be answered with some solid historical support, if not to convince him, at least to give credence and consistency to the position, aside from "œI just believe it."

Incidentally, in a March 12 post of Dr. White´s on his own site (responding to people here at PB) he said, regarding earlier defenders of the Comma, "œthe consistent application of their arguments would demand the utter overthrow of the TR as a Greek text of the New Testament. As I pointed out in my comments in The King James Only Controversy [KJOC], there are all sorts of readings with similar manuscript support to the Comma that would, by logical necessity, have to be inserted into the TR." As I don´t have a copy of his KJOC in this foreign land, would someone please tell me in brief what he is referring to here? Thanks.

Appreciating this newly-discovered forum.

Steve Rafalsky