Thread: THE ASCENDANCY OF THE CRITICAL TEXT

The ascendancy of the Critical Text
is as the rising of the spirit of antichrist
in those times it is given to be his hour
and darkness comes in like a flood, and in power.

Slowly, trust in God’s word increasingly dims
as the trumpet now gives an uncertain sound:
we no longer know for sure what belongs within
that one Book where salvation is found.

Some say, “Nothing vital is affected,
the basic truths remain intact,”
and while that is so, it may be detected
“entire trustworthiness” is no longer thought fact.

Against this strong delusion a standard flies
—that Volume on which the Reformation stood—
on the pole of God’s providence, raised by the wise,
true guide of escape from the darksome wood

of the world, and its myriad satanic dreams.
That Greek and Hebrew, and their King James Bible,
God preserved intact, that the Gospel which redeems
may be taken to heart, sure and reliable.

[Edited on 10-3-2006 by Jerusalem Blade]

Pretty silly...

OK, JerusalemBlade. I have noted your recent polemics against critical/eclectic texts, but this sort of apocalyptic rhetoric against critical editions is far, far off-track.

You want to frame this debate in terms of theology and presuppositions, yet you don't seem to notice that there are many inerranist Christians - who are both Reformed and presuppositional - who hold to the critical method. WTS, WSC, RTS all use Nestle-Aland or UBS Greek Texts and BHS Old Testaments. Dallas Theological is the only place I can think of where the Majority Text is promoted (and this still doesn't get you to the Textus Receptus anyway).

Greg Bahnsen himself had to put Andrew Sandlin in his place some years ago over these sorts to attacks on the eclectic texts: http://www.kjvonly.org/other/dr_theo...theonomy-L.htm

James White has also deflated the "ecclesiastical text" rhetoric from Doug Wilson: http://www.credenda.org/issues/10-1disputatio.php

We can affirm God's providential hand in preserving the genuine text of the Bible, even if we believe He has done so through varying manuscript traditions.

Hello:

It seems to me that JerusalemBlade is a screamer. As much as I would like to agree with him - I cannot - because of the way he presents his viewpoint.

Grace and Peace,

-CH

Originally posted by DaveJes1979
James White has also deflated the "ecclesiastical text" rhetoric from Doug Wilson: http://www.credenda.org/issues/10-1disputatio.php

Yes, JW did a very effective job of destroying the text on which the church builds her faith. To quote Thomas Manton: "Where would profaneness stay? and, if this liberty should be allowed, the flood of atheism stop its course?"

I don't have a dog in this hunt, OK?


But, if a fellow wants to rant, or post poetry (even apocalyptic poetry) why not? Do you have to respond at all? The P-B is about Q&A, argument, and opinion.

If J-B's thoughts destroy all his credibility in your view, say what you think and move on.

CalvinandHodges wrote: "JerusalemBlade is a screamer."
Reeeely. No, I think Michael Savage is a screamer.

J-B is reformed, even if he's not on the same page on this with most of you. And he's been a civil discourser with those he disagrees with on this issue. Unlike a P-B-banned person or two I can think of. Not even a little like the anti-Whites, etc.


Its poetry, guys.
And please, in text exchanges, deal with words on a page, and refrain from judging character.

I had heard of Charles Spurgeon (I think in one of Ian Murray’s little books on him) that when in personal contact with people he was kind and respectful – in short, a gentleman – but in the pulpit, when addressing certain topics, he took off his gloves, as it were, and pulled no punches.

--------

All I can say, Scott, anyone who is identified with “a bunch of hippie Calvinists” I gotta like, seeing as from thence I came, having spent 19 years in Woodstock, my daughter and I both coming of age in that milieu, and even before then counted myself a member of that counterculture.

Ben, sorry if I’ve given you a headache!

Folks, I really don’t mean to offend anyone, but this is a truth-claim issue, and I’m taking a stand. Perhaps you will appreciate that I did not draw “first blood,” in this conflict (as Rambo was wont to say), Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield did when he wrote to the general Christian public in Sunday School Times 24 in 1882, that Mark’s long ending was “no part of God’s word,” and therefore “we are not to ascribe to the verses the authority due to God’s Word.” [Cited from Theodore P. Letis’ The Ecclesiastical Text: Text Criticism, Biblical Authority and the Popular Mind, p. 53]. In naming him thus be it understood I mean not at all to demean “the mighty Warfield,” as other than in the area of text criticism I honor and love him. But when a man is wrong we sin if we do not decry that error which causes harm to the flock of God.

To his credit, Warfield’s intentions were good; he hoped to disarm the threat posed by text criticism in the hands of liberal and unbelieving scholars by redefining the Westminster Confession’s statement on Scripture to refer to the inerrant autographs (anciently lost and beyond reach) instead of the apographs (the copies; texts in the hands of the Westminster divines). I quote from Letis’ essay “B. B. Warfield, Common-Sense Philosophy and Biblical Criticism” (in The Ecclesiastical Text”, pp. 26-27):

Only eight years after Warfield’s death [in Feb 1921], the higher criticism entered Princeton and the seminary was reorganized to accommodate this. The facile certainty that Westcott and Hort’s system seem to offer Warfield evaporated. Later text critics abandoned the hope of reconstructing a “neutral” text and today despair of ever discovering an urtext, the final resting ground of Warfield’s doctrine of inspiration and inerrancy. Warfield had given earnest expression to his hope that,

The autographic text of the New Testament is distinctly within the reach of criticism….we cannot despair of restoring to ourselves and the church of God, His book, word for word, as He gave it by inspiration to men. [“The Rights of Criticism and of the Church”, The Presbyterian (April 13, 1892):15]

Fifty years later, the Harvard text critic, Kirsopp Lake, offered a more modest assessment:

In spite of the claims of Westcott and Hort….we do not know the original form of the Gospels, and it is quite likely that we never shall. [Family 13 (The Ferrar Group (Phila., The Univ. of Penn. Press, 1941), p. vii]

Warfield’s Common Sense adoption of German methods would be more fully developed by others at Princeton who would no longer find his appendage of the inerrant autographs theory either convincing, or any longer relevant for N.T. studies.

Make no mistake about it, Warfield’s textual theories, taken in good faith from Westcott and Hort – which he was open to after his studies in German criticism at the University of Leipzig in 1876 – single-handedly turned the Reformed Communities from their former view of the WCF and its prizing the texts-in-hand to the (what turned out to be) never-to-be-found-or-restored autographic texts. This was the watershed. And today men of good intentions seek to make the best of it, developing theories and stances so as to defend what they say is a trustworthy Bible.



David,

When you use a phrase like “deflated the ‘ecclesiastical text’ rhetoric,” as though the well-informed and heartfelt conviction of a man amounted to no more than propagandistic tripe, this is a form of marginalizing a view (and a man) through the use of condescending labels and stereotypes.

Okay, my poem is bare-knuckled, as some of Spurgeon’s sermons were when he dealt polemically with serious issues of his day, but I say with David of old, “Is there not a cause?” (1 Sam 17:29) Poetry is (or rather, may be) a form of visionary combat in the Global Arena of Consciousness, and there are no holds barred save that which is laid upon us by the Word and Spirit of Christ. It is a different arena than the one in which strictly civil discourse is conducted, as we do now.

I have not yet finished my research and studies in the matters surrounding the Biblical texts, but I find that much relevant material is not widely known in the community of believers. And so I do a small part in bringing such to light.

It is also a pastoral matter to me, this stand I take on the Received Text, for I have seen people in my care, as well as classes of mine (to whom NIVs had been distributed before I took over the teaching) distressed at the marginal notes saying very plainly that the Biblical text is uncertain, and what was once thought the Word of God is alleged by some to be, of all things, debunked! And the newer ESVs are no better, due to the underlying Greek text.

So I endeavor to be conversant with the various views in this matter, and have for some time become convinced of the view I presently hold, although I like to keep abreast of the work of those who oppose me. To this end I am getting material by James White, in the event I will some day talk with him, and I am most interested in a book he more recently wrote than the KJO Controversy, and that is his, Scripture Alone: Exploring the Bible’s Accuracy, Authority and Authenticity. I want to know how he states his view positively, that is, not merely his arguments against the KJV/TR (1894), but what confidence he holds out for those that use versions based on the Critical Text. I am sincerely interested to see his view on this.

I also take note of the specific KJV texts White (and others) bring forth as being in serious question in their eyes. I always appreciate when people can give a cogent reply to such questions, and so have made a list which I research to the best of my limited means (being stuck on an island in the Mediterranean, and out-of-the-loop as far as being able to obtain scholarly materials, and on a fixed retirement income).

I take pains to explain these things so as not to give the impression I am but a rabble-rousing demagogue handing out slick slogans, but rather a sincere laborer in the vineyard of the Lord, with a genuine concern that a palpable evil in the camp be exposed routed. I am open to other points of view – I try to remain teachable in this area – but there are certain doctrines of the Faith that are non-negotiable. For instance, the Deity of Jesus Christ, the tri-unity of the Godhead, the doctrines of grace, the virgin birth, and such bedrock foundations. I reckon the God-breathed infallibility of the entire Scripture, and its providential preservation throughout the ages among these. This was the doctrine of the Reformation churches, and it is here, in the 17th century, that the Reformation church developed the doctrine of Scripture – as exemplified in the Westminster Confession and the Helvetic Consensus Formula – as a response to the counterattack of the Roman Catholic “Church,” which attack specifically consisted of displaying its array of variant readings as found in the MS we now know as B, or Vaticanus, and a multitude of others found in their library, so as to undermine the Protestants’ basic doctrine of Sola Scriptura. This was the Rome who bathed the ground of Europe in the blood of believers. And the textual issue was the ferocious battle between the scholars of each camp in those days. The Reformation stood on this doctrine of providential preservation so despised today, and on the Old and New Testament texts—in the Hebrew and Greek—which were translated into the King James Bible, likewise despised, even in most of the Reformed communions today. The very weapon Rome used to try to subvert the Reformation—the array of variant readings from its bag of MSS—is what the Critical Text is doing today in the hands of our fellow Reformed believers; this is the text of Rome! Is there not something amiss?

As I study the “variants” proposed by Dr. White and others which purportedly show the TR/KJV to be lacking in correctness, I would offer a couple for you CT folks. I refer to the last 12 verses of Mark’s Gospel (the notorious shot across the bow of the Reformed ship which caused it to surrender, finally, to the cannon of Rome), and to 1 Timothy 3:16, where “God was manifest in the flesh” is replaced by “he” or “he who”. Do you think you can defend these? If so, come visit the “authentic New Testament text” thread.

At any rate, I hope to come across as fairly rational in presenting my views.

Robert, “screamers” do not last long in the Global Arena of Consciousness (is not this the situation in terms of consciousness and worldwide instantaneous communications?), for to be short of temper and apt to “scream” and rant indicate that such a warrior can be brought down rather easily. It takes a steady nerve and calm heart to stand in the global warfare, especially in the days when the devil is active with “great wrath” and subtlety of deception. Those who walk with the Lord Jesus He gives a calm heart.

Please, do not mistake the weapon of poetry for the common rant; the one is a dry stick, the other a honed edge forged off-world. There are some mighty foes out there.



Bruce,

Thank you for a calm and reasonable word.

Steve <><

Steve,

I think that was simply Robert's take on your posts...it is merely a matter of opinion. I for one (usually a lurker...seeing as how when I do comment the thread's usually shut down...last instance: the KJ21 thread) have read the two threads and have never seen you as a screamer.

For what it's worth, I've been a TR guy, for quite some time. I appreciate your posts, b/c I wish I had the time to write and correspond more; in other words, thanks for pulling the heavy load for the rest of us.
I had already read most of the guys that you've posted quotes from, but I have been introduced to a couple of guys from your links. So, thanks.

nick

[Edited on 9-15-2006 by nicnap]

The very weapon Rome used to try to subvert the Reformation"”the array of variant readings from its bag of MSS"”is what the Critical Text is doing today in the hands of our fellow Reformed believers; this is the text of Rome! Is there not something amiss?

No, sir. Nothing is amiss. Somehow those of us who follow critical texts have managed to hold onto sola scriptura and other biblical doctrines. This does not rise above guilt by association.

this is a form of marginalizing a view (and a man) through the use of condescending labels and stereotypes.

Talk of an ecclesiastical text IS rhetoric, for several reasons. For instance, Wilson bandies about a criticism of "autonomous science", as if people like James White could rightly be labeled as "autonomous" in this sense. Wilson's appeal is, at base, an appeal to authority, and a type of subjectivism, rather than empirically-driven.
And moving from "ecclesiastical text" to the textus receptus is a jump.

have seen people in my care, as well as classes of mine (to whom NIVs had been distributed before I took over the teaching) distressed at the marginal notes saying very plainly that the Biblical text is uncertain

If this is the real rub, then consider what other pastors would do - they would explain that, even when some textual matters are not all clear to us, God has preserved His Word with sufficient clarity for us to be prepared unto every good work. God has guided the church throughout the centuries through various textual traditions, and did not wait to the 16th century to shine His light of preservation on the textus receptus (which, itself, is nothing other than an eclectic text).

Greetings:

A little backround on me: I have a BA Degree in English Literature with a Minor in Philosophy. Currently I am teaching Literature and History in a Christian High School. I am also attending New Geneva Theological Seminary here in Colorado Springs under the auspices of my Session.

To imply, in poetical form, that the CT is: "the spirit of the antichrist", " darkness come(ing) in like a flood", and, "darksome wood" are all inflammatory statements without logical or reasonable basis. Poetry does not require logical proof.

DaveJes1979 has pointed out that many evangelical seminaries use the Critical Text. The NIV, RSV, ESV, and NASB all use the Critical Text, and many people have found salvation from reading these translations. What then do we do with this line in the poem:

we no longer know for sure what belongs within that one Book where salvation is found.

.
If the critical text was that bad than what does one say to those who have found salvation from reading it?

Over the last ten years I have been studying the books and debates concerning the Alexandrian Variants and the Byzantine Text. I became acquainted with Ted Letis through a friend from the New College in Edinburgh. Ted and I talked for hours on the phone though I never met him. He was very passionate about the subject.

What I have observed is the shocking behaviour from those of whom I rest my sympathies. Some of these people are sincere - like Ted - but I think a vast majority of them - like Gail Riplinger - follow the fortune telling spirit in Acts 16:16-18.

If I have offended, then I sincerely ask for forgiveness. My reaction may have been a knee-jerk one. It just seemed to me that a poem like this causes more strife than sensibility.

Grace,

-CH

Originally posted by CalvinandHodges
If the critical text was that bad than what does one say to those who have found salvation from reading it?

I imagine we would say much the same thing as when the grace of God saves a soul despite being under a ministry which does not declare the whole counsel of God, or corrupts that counsel in some way. None can prescribe to God who and by what means He shall be pleased to accomplish His purpose. But we are called upon to use the most pure means available to us, and to expose any attempt which is made to corrupt those means.

Consider the strong language of John Owen with respect to the deniers of providential preservation:

Let me say without offence, this imagination, asserted on deliberation, seems to me to border on atheism. Surely the promise of God for the preservation of his word, with his love and care of his church, of whose faith and obedience that word of his is the only rule, requires other thoughts at our hands."� Works, 16:357.

Originally posted by DaveJes1979
OK, JerusalemBlade. I have noted your recent polemics against critical/eclectic texts, but this sort of apocalyptic rhetoric against critical editions is far, far off-track.

You want to frame this debate in terms of theology and presuppositions, yet you don't seem to notice that there are many inerranist Christians - who are both Reformed and presuppositional - who hold to the critical method. WTS, WSC, RTS all use Nestle-Aland or UBS Greek Texts and BHS Old Testaments. Dallas Theological is the only place I can think of where the Majority Text is promoted (and this still doesn't get you to the Textus Receptus anyway).

Greg Bahnsen himself had to put Andrew Sandlin in his place some years ago over these sorts to attacks on the eclectic texts: http://www.kjvonly.org/other/dr_theo...theonomy-L.htm

James White has also deflated the "ecclesiastical text" rhetoric from Doug Wilson: http://www.credenda.org/issues/10-1disputatio.php

We can affirm God's providential hand in preserving the genuine text of the Bible, even if we believe He has done so through varying manuscript traditions.

My dear brother,

I am hoping to engage JB on this at some point, but the time necessary to honestly engage the issue simply has not been mine for the taking. (For those who may wonder, I still have no update on my liver problems).

However, your post does have one error: the notion that Dallas Theological Seminary is a Majority Text school. In fact, not a single faculty member in the NT Studies department - where I am a major btw - holds to the MT.

Now I think what you might mean is this: DTS has been at the forefront of producing graduates who worked on the Majority Text and have held that position. Wilbur Pickering, Alfred Martin, Zane Hodges were all DTS students and the late Arthur Farstad was an instructor here.

DTS has also produced its share of KJV Only advocates including David Otis Fuller and Donald A. Waite.

But the MAJORITY (just had to say it) of DTS grads are CT folks. Even though Hodges taught at DTS from 1959 until 1986 - and he taught both Greek and textual criticism - the Majority Text view has always been the minority view at Dallas.

Hopefully, I will have time to interact soon with some of JB's data. He sent me Van Bruggen's book - I'm still not an MT advocate, but I read all I can on the subject.


God bless,

Maestroh

David, when you say,

No, sir. Nothing is amiss. Somehow those of us who follow critical texts have managed to hold onto sola scriptura and other biblical doctrines. This does not rise above guilt by association,

it seems to me we are miscommunicating. If, instead of assuming you know my point of view, you would consider some of the things I’ve said in the thread on this topic, I do not think you would misunderstand. I realize it takes some time to look into such things, but why answer a matter if you do not hear it first – what the speaker has really said? It is simply a fact – nothing to do with “guilt by association” – that the primary MS of the Critical Text is Vaticanus. It is a pertinent piece of data to consider when seeking to understand the textual situation today. I know, many good men and scholars hold to the CT.

When you say, “Talk of an ecclesiastical text IS rhetoric,” what of the text that was used for some four centuries – the Authorized Version of 1611 being the main English exemplar of that Hebrew and Greek text – and was the one the London Baptist Confession of 1689 and the Westminster Confession both referred to in their statements on Scripture? This was the ecclesiastical text. That’s not rhetoric, but history. Is it the ecclesiastical text today? No, not generally, except in those churches who are not “abandoning the sacred text of the Church for a future scientific text reconstructed by the Academy.” [Letis, “The language of Biblical Authority: From Protestant Orthodoxy to Evangelical Equivocation” in The Ecclesiastical Text, p. 81]

I know some pastors explain the marginal notes by saying “some textual matters are not all clear to us” and they do the best they can given the situation where the Academy has been allowed to encroach upon the precincts of God’s house and assumed its God-assigned prerogatives. Other pastors are not intimidated so and speak of what is clear to them.

We have discussed the process of preservation up through the centuries, and in various sectors of the church, in the aforementioned thread.

I do honestly think there is an “apocalyptic” aspect to the textual issue, but in the other thread such an approach is not the norm. I’m sorry if my approach here troubled you. I do not reason about these issues as I do in the poem.



Nick, thanks for your words.



Robert,

Thanks for the background. Glad to meet you.

You said,

To imply, in poetical form, that the CT is: "the spirit of the antichrist", "darkness come(ing) in like a flood", and, "darksome wood" are all inflammatory statements without logical or reasonable basis. Poetry does not require logical proof.

The poem does not say that the CT is “the spirit of antichrist” but “is as the rising” of that spirit in its like casting of an evil shadow. The thread I mentioned above deals with the logic and “proofs” – the poems deals simply with that which is. “darksome wood” refers to “this world” and one might see an allusion to the opening lines of Dante’s Inferno, but the “true guide” being Scripture.

I ponder your use of the word “inflammatory”. What is more inflammatory, saying the Bible is not now and may never be settled and certain, and the old King James is unreliable and inaccurate, not to be relied upon as the infallible Word of God, OR, that such statements are reflections of darkness arising from Hell, causing in humankind a “strong delusion” which leads to doubt in the reliability and authority of God’s Word? Do I have to pussyfoot around an issue because telling the truth may cause those who trouble the Church – and have for many decades – the distress of being opposed? In poetry I speak with a degree of force and clarity I often do not use in general conversation. I am not a tame little poet, but a poet of the Lord Christ.

Let me quote here what text critic John Burgon said in the Intro to his Revision Revised,

If, therefore, any do complain that I have hit my opponents rather hard….when the words of Inspiration are seriously imperilled, as now they are, it is scarcely possible for one who is determined effectually to preserve the Deposit in its integrity, to hit either too straight or too hard. (Pp. vii, viii)

Robert, you state,

DaveJes1979 has pointed out that many evangelical seminaries use the Critical Text. The NIV, RSV, ESV, and NASB all use the Critical Text, and many people have found salvation from reading these translations. What then do we do with this line in the poem:

we no longer know for sure what belongs within
that one Book where salvation is found.

If the critical text was that bad then what does one say to those who have found salvation from reading it?

To answer your question let me quote here from other posts of mine on this very subject:

There is a preserving of the text, and then there is a preserving of the text—where its integrity is held even to minute readings not granted the former. That the former was nonetheless efficacious is analogous to the Bibles based upon the CT being efficacious to save and edify God’s people today, as witnessed by the multitudes regenerated through those who use the NIV and NASB. The minute preservation occurred in the primary edition (KJV/TR) which was to serve the English-speaking people and the translations created for the vast missionary work they undertook, which impacted the entire world. (It is accepted by many today that the English language is now the universal language—the second language of most other nations.) There was a progression in the purifying of the text, so as to almost (some would say completely) perfectly [preserve] the original [words] of the apostles, even as there has been, in the area of theology, a restoration of apostolic doctrine, which also went through phases of deterioration and eventual renewal.

Thus, even those areas of the church which were non-Greek-speaking also had a “preserved text”—as do multitudes in this present day—though their texts were not “minutely preserved.” The texts they had were efficacious unto the salvation of souls and the sustaining of the churches.

-----------

Where Hills said (see ¶ 8), “it is only among the readers of the KJV that due love and reverence for God’s word may be found”, I balk at that statement. Price has a good point here. Jerry Bridge’s book, The Pursuit Of Holiness, uses the NIV and the Lord used that book — and the Scriptures therein — powerfully during a crisis in my life in 1991. My pastor (and most of the church) in NYC used the NIV (with the ESV gaining favor nowadays), and I have no doubt of his “love and reverence” for the word of our God. And my wife is another example of one who loves and reveres Jesus Christ’s word — in the NIV. I will not concur with the assessment of those who call the users of versions other than the KJV “apostates”, though Dr. Hills never did say this.

It remains, however, that the deterioration of even Christians’ trust in the Scripture being reliable and authoritative increases; and I ponder as to what will be the state of affairs in 50 or 100 years if the Lord should hold off His return for that long (as He “is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” 2 Pet 3:9, by which I mean every last one of His elect saints). As Jesus said, “When the Son of man cometh, shall He find faith on the earth?” Luke 18:8. Could this have any reference to there being a famine of the Word of God on the earth? I am serious in this question. The churches more and more dilute the Gospel, apostasy is widespread, Arminianism and semi-pelagianism weaken the faith of multitudes, and it is a sickly message that goes out to the lost. Those few churches that hold fast to their sure Bibles, and the sure word within them, and to the doctrines of grace, may be a small despised minority, and this within Christendom, not even to speak of possible persecutions from the world.

Robert, as you knew Ted Letis personally, would you know of any articles he’d published since his last book, The Ecclesiastical Text in 1997? I would love to have even a rough bibliography of his works.

To change the subject (to another field I love), you don’t think it fitting a poem be polemic? Here are two:

TRIBAL MYTHS

may be a proper tag
when talking of Arthur
or Middle Earth,
but we talk history
speaking of a crown
from ancient lineage
and supernatural birth

of course worldview may screen
facts from truth,
calling ancient records
myths, not allowing
God in his universe;
but it remains, the crown
himself was actually seen.


---------------



Thy word is a lamp unto my feet —Psalm 119

This walk I take will not end
when legs or heart fail, being connected
to a life-support that goes around the bend
of death,
so whatever happens,
loves lost, thermodynamics’ second law
in all its forms, I sing.

Sainthood has a bad rap
with those who would deconstruct
all text outside the relative heart,
but what is that to me, who walks
by a light they do not see,
whose hand and heart are held
by a love to and from Thee.

Why not be aggressive (in a winsome way) to dispel the darkness that obtains in the world of letters?

Too bad the PB doesn’t have a Christian Literature section; that could be quite interesting. No, you haven’t given me any offense, Robert. Thank you for your tender heart.



Maestroh Bill,

Good to see you back, if only for a moment!

Greetings:

A complete online listing of resources by Dr. Letis can be found here:

http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/Letis.html

I only knew Dr. Letis over the phone. I never met him in person.

Ted was prone to shocking behaviour, and James White has scored many points by mentioning the Theonomy-L debate wherein Ted did not do too well. Dr. White, again, shows a surprising ignorance of the logical fallacies when he points this out. The ad hominen argument is when you attack your opponent's character rather than the substance of his points. Ted did not feel that Dr. White was his equal or peer because Dr. White showed an ignorance of the relevant scholarly materials. In Ted's opinion Dr. White is a popularist with more interest in self-promotion and making debating points than in scholarly discussion and debate.

armorbearer:

That is an excellent point, and something that I had thought of myself. i would have to ask, then, if the tables were turned, and a supporter of the CT wrote a poem castigating the TR and/or the Byzantine mss, would you feel that such a poem was convincing in a whimsical fashion?

Look at some of the responses concerning this:

Sroper: "pretty silly"

DaveJes1979: "OK, JerusalemBlade. I have noted your recent polemics against critical/eclectic texts, but this sort of apocalyptic rhetoric against critical editions is far, far off-track."

JerusalemBlade:

Using art in a polemical fashion is often understood as propaganda. You claim that poetry is an acceptable medium for such. What about painting or sculpture? As I understand it Psalm 119 is more didactic than polemical. Concerning the other poems you quote I am not at all familiar with the authors - nor am I impressed with their artistic merit.

If you are going to refer to the Psalms, then the imprecatory passages may lend themselves to your position. And, if your intention was to create maladictions, then I see your point.

Such, though, does not seem to be the general character of the Christian Man, 2 Tim. 2:24-26:

And the servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

In teaching high-schoolers I have found that patience and teaching are practically synonyms!

Grace and Peace,

Rob

Originally posted by CalvinandHodges
armorbearer:

That is an excellent point, and something that I had thought of myself. i would have to ask, then, if the tables were turned, and a supporter of the CT wrote a poem castigating the TR and/or the Byzantine mss, would you feel that such a poem was convincing in a whimsical fashion?

Not personally, but different methods work on different people. When we consider the way in which critical text proponents deal with the TR in such a heavy handed manner (much like evolution teachers with respect to creation), why should such offence be taken against TR proponents calling it as they see it?

Why are critical text advocates so easily ruffled by TR defences, seeing it is such a still small voice? Their reaction suggests the TR polemic strikes at a nerve. Is there an inherent uneasiness about the position when brought into the realm of faith? It appears so. Note the responses. It comes down to this -- they dislike the suggestion that this is a matter which God himself has determined in His word.

In teaching high-schoolers I have found that patience and teaching are practically synonyms!

A good observation, one that would be true in all fields of teaching. 2 Tim. 2:24, "Apt to teach, patient." Blessings!

[Edited on 9-18-2006 by armourbearer]

Rob,

Thanks for caring enough to respond – and reprove. I agree with what you say about teaching. In the “authentic New Testament text” thread, and the thread before that, teaching is the approach to these issues.

Is it not true, there is a time to teach, and also a time to war? Wisdom is knowing the proper time and place for each.

I am not a “nice” Christian. I have stood up for the gospel and for righteousness and taken beatings, and revilings. I know this may happen to obnoxious fanatics, but I am a preacher of grace, and mercy, of righteousness, and of judgment to come.

To take a godly stand when “the whole world lieth in wickedness” 1 Jn 5:19 (NKJV: “lies under the sway of the wicked one”; NIV: “under the control of the evil one”) is to make instant enemies, often among professing “Christians.” This is a war.

As you brought out, there is a time for teaching in the Spirit of Christ, not striving, gentle, patient, in meekness instructing…. The same Scriptures show there is also a time for war, “the pulling down of strong holds…casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God” (2 Cor 10:4, 5). Were I to be “a nice guy” when war is called for, would not that be either cowardice or foolishness?

The Faith is not a “religion” to me, but a visionary adventure of life and death, wherein we are held by a great and terrible love, walking with Him who is Friend, Captain, King, and Lover of our souls.

For teaching see the teaching threads. This is a thread where I chose to reveal deception by exposing it to the light of a blade eternally forged in the Glory.

David didn’t teach Goliath, he slew him. Knowing I do not wrestle against flesh and blood (Eph 6:12) I go for the satanic strong holds, even though they may be lodged in the minds of men. I do not go for the men, but for those alien infiltrations.

You don’t like my vision? Counter it. But this is my method of war, or one of them.

Which is not to say I do not like and prize scholarship, and congenial discussion in this realm, for I do. It is just that “to every thing there is a season”.

You said,

i would have to ask, then, if the tables were turned, and a supporter of the CT wrote a poem castigating the TR and/or the Byzantine mss, would you feel that such a poem was convincing in a whimsical fashion?

Returning to your earlier use of the word “inflammatory,” do you think because a poem starkly casts a matter in what to some is a shocking light, it is any less “inflammatory” because one uses scholarly language to deprecate what is sacred? In my view scholarly language has been used to do the devil’s work too many times to count. Because lies and deception are couched in gentle and soft-spoken words (consider the Garden), does that make them any less vile and violent? Those gentle and reasonable words spoken to our first mother perpetrated havoc, ruin, and misery untold.

We sometimes are thoughtless about the trends we accept today as normative, and the impact they will have on future generations. It is all well and good to vaunt our faith and confidence in the scientific “neutral text” given us by the Academy – in lieu of the sacred text of the Church – as the churches we attend in 2006 still (many of them) retain at least a modicum of spiritual vitality. Yet those among us who observe the diminishing of this spiritual vitality, the weakening of faith, the corruption of doctrine (can you be unaware of the mounting attacks on sound doctrine even from within historic Reformed orthodoxy?) as the decades pass, leads us to consider grave trials await the faithful Church as an island amid a raging sea of apostasy among professing Christians and outright hostility from both them and the world. I would say one causative factor in this declension is the uncertainness of the (I repeat) reliability and authority of the word God has spoken and enscripturated.

One wonders if the prophecy in Amos 8:11-13 has any relevance for the days to come, as well as times in the past (such as the hiatus between Malachi and John the Baptist):

Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:

And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it.

In that day shall the fair virgins and young men faint for thirst.

Could it be related to this that Jesus, after His parable concerning how men “ought always to pray, and not to faint,” said,

Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall He find faith on the earth?

I see the effect the loss of faith in the Greek and Hebrew texts has on many souls. Some of you may not be bothered by the uncertainty and unsettledness (with no resolution in sight) of the texts, but not all are as strong or confident as you. It is not that what remains is, as you put it, Rob, “that bad”, but that what remains is no longer certain. The text of the Church as been (in the eyes of some) debunked. This in itself, whatever you say, will cause the faith of many to fail, or in the case of the elect, weaken.

The primary reason I write in these threads is, having been nurtured and taught by the Lord in these things (so I assert), I desire to share with others the reasons for my confidence in the providential preservation of the Hebrew and Greek Received texts, and their excellent translation into the King James Bible, so that they may have like confidence in the Bible He provided for them. There are many reasons to believe, and I share them as best I can. I also seek to interact with those who oppose this confidence, to show that a relatively unlearned person can stand up to the experts with but a basic understanding of the facts and issues and history involved. There is coming a time, I think, when there will be “a famine…of hearing the words of the LORD,” and it will be of Him. Like Joseph in ancient Egypt, I think that storing provision before the famine hits hard will redound to the saving of God’s elect, though I be thought the fool by many. The Master said to Peter, “Lovest thou Me?....Feed My sheep.” So I seek to do. He will sort us out at the End. I do what I gotta do.

I do not conduct the scholarly discussions on the other threads in what you might call an inflammatory manner, but there reason and weigh.

Those were my poems. What poets do you like? Among my favorites are Patchen, Ferlinghetti, W.C. Williams, Bob Dylan, Simon & Garfunkel, David of Israel. And I’ve recently been reading the essays of Dana Gioia. Your teaching position sounds like a wonderful job.

A couple more poems (the second written after reading the essay, “Disappearing Ink: Poetry at the End of Print Culture”):

SPIRITUAL WARFARE

I'm glad I saw the Star Wars movies
'cause one gets an idea
of fighting against the odds
in a mythic world
of amazing powers and weapons

Afar off I see the Orthodox embattlements
flying the Star of David,
but how weird it is
there is no light of God at all
in that great and fortified death-star

It purports to be holy and of God
but is itself deceived, and deceiving,
a horror spinning a spell
blinding multitudes to the true God
and killing those who oppose them

The worst is
they believe in themselves
unaware they are tools of demons
destroying faith in Him
who is Champion of Israel

So I ponder this dark sphere
bristling with evil powers and weapons
as it lays waste multitudes
and gathers them in the devil's net,
mighty, but vulnerable.

A wise man scales the city of the mighty
and casts down the strength
of the confidence thereof.
Grant it to be so, Lord,
show how the assault is to be made

That Your light penetrate the sphere
and shine glorious within
exposing all dark ways and thoughts
and capture with Your love
all those who love Your Spirit

destroying the dark star
of lying Orthodoxy,
bringing to the dust its false ways,
leaving only the sons & daughters of God standing
in the Shekinah of Yeshua's face.



------------------



HIS BRIDE

a man…shall be joined to his wife,
and they two shall be one flesh.
This is a great mystery: but I speak
concerning Christ and the church.

— Paul to the Ephesians

She is the knock-out of the ages, His bride;
even the angels are astonished, wide-eyed
at a beauty beyond what they see in themselves
and seeing such mysteries desire to delve
into how it could be, this shining like deity
in one once consort with the dark prince, in infamy
before she was redeemed, and party to the deicide.

The price He paid to win her back was steep,
a horrid cost much wondered at in glory’s Keep,
but He got her, and led her through the wilderness
of hearts, through enemies and great distress;
He taught her to stay near to Him,
hold to His word and heart when the way grew dim,
to trust Him, her friend in trouble, her guard in sleep.

It is the story of God the Son’s bride;
she is many, male and female, for whom He died;
she is rugged soldier, little child, woman fair,
all one they are, all dependent on His care.
Safe now in the Kingdom, His glory their reward,
she shines full back the glory of her Lord,
He who ever lives, and for her was crucified.

Originally posted by Jerusalem Blade
The ascendancy of the Critical Text
is as the rising of the spirit of antichrist
in those times it is given to be his hour
and darkness comes in like a flood, and in power.

Slowly, trust in God´s word increasingly dims
as the trumpet now gives an uncertain sound:
we no longer know for sure what belongs within
that one Book where salvation is found.

Some say, "œNothing vital is affected,
the basic truths remain intact,"�
and while that is so, it may be detected
"œentire trustworthiness"� is no longer thought fact.

Against this strong delusion a standard flies
"”that Volume on which the Reformation stood"”
on the pole of God´s providence, raised by the wise,
true guide of escape from the darksome wood

of this world, and its myriad satanic dreams.
That Greek and Hebrew, and their King James Bible,
God preserved intact, that the Gospel which redeems
may be taken to heart, sure and reliable.

The B-I-B-L-E
Yes that's the Book for me
I stand upon the Word of God
And not the NIV

and a double

P.S. No, I am NOT a KJV onlyer, but I do hold to the Textus Receptus view.. i.e. Geneva, KJV, NKJV, and a few others.

Originally posted by Jerusalem Blade
The ascendancy of the Critical Text
is as the rising of the spirit of antichrist
in those times it is given to be his hour
and darkness comes in like a flood, and in power.

Slowly, trust in God´s word increasingly dims
as the trumpet now gives an uncertain sound:
we no longer know for sure what belongs within
that one Book where salvation is found.

Some say, "œNothing vital is affected,
the basic truths remain intact,"�
and while that is so, it may be detected
"œentire trustworthiness"� is no longer thought fact.

Against this strong delusion a standard flies
"”that Volume on which the Reformation stood"”
on the pole of God´s providence, raised by the wise,
true guide of escape from the darksome wood

of this world, and its myriad satanic dreams.
That Greek and Hebrew, and their King James Bible,
God preserved intact, that the Gospel which redeems
may be taken to heart, sure and reliable.

A word on the poem “Spiritual Warfare,” in the event anyone has thought me too harsh – or even anti-Jewish – in my views. I am myself a Jew, and of the house of Levi (my grandmother being Rose Levyn of Manhattan, wed to Mark Rafalsky), and I have seen friends and family perish without Christ – insofar as human responsibility may be assigned in the providences and decrees of God (cf. Acts 2:23) – under the Rabbinic suppression of the truth of my people’s Messiah.

This is a burning issue with me. I post a couple of pieces from the book, A Poet Arises In Israel:


SOVEREIGNITIS

With regard to the church's – both Gentiles and Messianics – attitude to Orthodox Jewry, and their suppression of the saving knowledge of Messiah among their countrymen, I think we have been stricken with a theological malaise called sovereignitis, wherein we overlook and excuse the role and responsibility of men because of our knowledge of the overriding sovereignty of God. I am applying this to the present where the most horrible crimes of spiritual genocide are committed against a people and we are of a mind to "respect the dignity" of the perpetrators because they are clergy or religious. And we get all theological about it and dress the horror of it with verses from Romans so that it even looks sort of Biblical, whereas in reality it far outstrips the horror of Herod's butchering Bethlehem's little lambs before their mothers. Those whom Messiah denounced as sealing off the door of the kingdom to others (Luke 11:52, Matt 23:13), pronouncing divine woes upon them, we want to have a more nuanced view of them, granting them a Biblical dignity, while the screams of their victims resound through the corridors of Hell, and those still in the world soak the ground with their tears and their blood.

-----------------------


An Alien Regime


There is a phenomenon in the Jewish State that is matched only in nations where entrenched demonic strongholds control much of the religious and/or political life of those nations – such as those under fundamentalist Islamic or Hindu, or communist rule – and that is the legal persecution of believers in Yeshua with government sanction, and violent persecution without government interference.

If it is indeed the case that an alien regime, whose capital is in Gehenna, wields the spiritual scepter in Jerusalem – with considerable political influence – then our strategy of appeasement by avoidance of the prophetic stance will be as effective as British appeasement prior to the Second World War. Gehennian regimes eat appeasers for breakfast.

If it is said, "But they have been the standard-bearers of Judaism for centuries, and through awful persecutions have preserved Torah for our people," it must be noted that that which they have preserved is not authentic Judaism, and all who hold to this spurious version of it shall perish, for it is the devil's snare – this version of Judaism – concocted for the purpose of destroying the nation by sealing it against Messiah's Spirit. The "Torah" they have preserved is not the Torah of Moses at all, for the instruction of Moses pointed to Messiah, and so it was with all the prophets. The "Torah" they preserved is a counterfeit, and all who stake their souls on this teaching will lose them eternally.

To put it plainly, the rabbis have destroyed more souls than ever did Hitler or Hamas. They have destroyed more Jews than all the evil Gentiles and "Christians" up through the ages, by leading us into the dread curses of Moses (the Fifth Book, chapter 28; Isaiah 9:16).

The true story of these things is being suppressed in unrighteousness, and a fresh retelling of it – in the vigor of the LORD's Spirit – will provide an exposure of the evil, and a vision of God's love for His people, and it will happen, for a poet arises in Israel.

------------------

If one thinks this is too in-your-face to be effective, consider that confrontation and exposure – giving those who observe the opportunity to see an interaction between their leaders and a challenger – may be more effective than relevant but low-key teaching. There are many teachers of Yeshua in Palestine. I am something else.

I use the word “Israel” carefully. I am in the true Israel of God, that community of His people which bow the knee to His Son, the Christ, even as Peter reiterated the word of Moses (Deut 18:19) to the nation after Pentecost, saying that those who would “not hear in all things whatsoever [Messiah] shall say unto you…shall be destroyed from among the people.” (Acts 3:22, 23) At that time the Israel of God was sundered from the apostate nation as a butcher cleaves the meat from the gristle. Those who would not bow the knee to the rightful King were cut off, according to the ancient word of warning. The true Israel – the apple of God’s eye – is that holy nation comprised of all people across the globe who love the King and are born of His Spirit, Jew and Gentile alike.

As I said above, David didn’t teach Goliath, he slew him. There is teaching and mercy – and great joy – for those who love the Spirit and word of the Champion and glory of Israel, He whom the Gentiles call Jesus, and the Jews Yeshua.

[Edited on 10-3-2006 by Jerusalem Blade]

Originally posted by Jerusalem Blade
Too bad the PB doesn´t have a Christian Literature section; that could be quite interesting.

I agree! See this thread.

Originally posted by Jerusalem Blade
Those were my poems. What poets do you like? Among my favorites are Patchen, Ferlinghetti, W.C. Williams, Bob Dylan, Simon & Garfunkel, David of Israel. And I´ve recently been reading the essays of Dana Gioia. Your teaching position sounds like a wonderful job.

[Edited on 9-18-2006 by Jerusalem Blade]

You are a gifted poet. Thanks for sharing the poems that you have. Some of my favorite poets are mentioned in the links referenced above, including Keats, Shakespeare, Sir Thomas Wyatt the Elder, Francis Fontaine, John Donne, George Herbert, John Milton, Ralph Erskine, Michael Wigglesworth, and Henry Vaughan, to name a few, and, of course, the Psalmist.

The James Begg society has an interesting series of writings on this subject. I am in basic agreement with them and will stick with the KJV text. I'm not a scholar and don't pretent to be. Just know what has worked for me and what the Spirit has born witness to. God bless all of you my brethren.

SOUND THE ALARM
http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~jbeggs...ndation01.html

[Edited on 9-22-2006 by Blueridge reformer]

I have found that lengthy internet debates are not spiritually edifying to me, and they also strain my eyes. So, I won't engage in any long debates on this, but I would like to offer the following comments and will carefully consider all responses, should there be any.

Is it any coincidence that the revival of Christianity that occurred in the 16th century was accompanied by the emergence and consolidation of the TR, and the decline of the church in the 19th and 20th centuries followed upon the abandonment of the TR and the introduction of methods of textual scholarship pioneered by unbelievers and originally intended for the use of secular texts such as Homer and Aeschylus? I believe it is not a coincidence.

Does God even feed the birds, yet leave it up to blind chance which biblical texts just happened to be available for the glorious reformation of doctrine and the recovery of biblical truths that occurred during the Reformation? I would say the texts available at that time were the texts that God in his providence provided, and the turning away from those texts is one of the many serious problems in the church today.

Moreover, for a very long time unbelievers asserted that there were mistakes and contradictions in the bible, and believers responded that this was not the case. It was understood on both sides that the existence of mistakes and contradictions in the bible called the entire book into question. After all, if there is one mistake and contradiction, what others might there be elsewhere? A divinely authored and inspired book does not have mistakes and contradictions, a humanly authored book does. So, Christians in the past have traditionally argued that the bible was free from errors and contradictions - but not any more.

Scholars have found a mistake and contradiction in the bible and removed it: it is the last part of Romans 8:1, ". . . who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit." They say it was not part of the bible originally, and moreover contradicts salvation by faith. We are saved by faith, not by our works. So, the bible did have a mistake and contradiction after all, but the "scholars" have removed it, so now we can have much more confidence in our bibles.

I am sure if someone had told Jonathan Edwards, or Calvin, or any of the other Reformed preachers and teachers so esteemed on this site, that "This part of Romans is a mistake and a contradiction, it should be removed," they would have met with instant and complete rejection. They might have been asked, is the last part of verse four a contradiction as well? Does " . . . who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit" contradict salvation by faith? " . . . if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live" - another contradiction? What about Romans 8:14 - doesn't being led by God include walking in the Spirit? Why does it say in verse 17 that we are joint heirs if we suffer with him? Is the removal of the last part of Romans 8:1 connected to the belief that we do not have to walk with God in the straight and narrow way of Christ but are guaranteed of a place in heaven no matter what we do if we just assent to some doctrines? Then there is the passage in James about faith without works being dead - does this contradict salvation by faith?

If someone tells me that the KJV uses archaic language and we need a translation in modern English, I agree. If someone tells me that translations of the original can use different phrasing and sentence structure, I agree. If someone says that some advocates of the KJV are eccentrics, even nuts, who use faulty logic and dishonest arguments, I agree. If someone tells me that this part of Romans is a mistake, I believe it is the voice of the devil himself - and don't forget, Peter was not an evil and wicked man, he was well-intentioned, trying his best to serve Christ, but Satan used him and Christ rebuked Satan using him.

Plus, it doesn't stop with one verse. As Christ said, a little leaven leavens a whole loaf. The last part of Mark, a gospel account of the resurrection of Christ, is also considered to be not original, a later addition, included by mistake. The miracle of the angel stirring the waters of the pool - another mistake. I could go on and on. I believe one of the many reasons for the pitiful collapse of the church before the forces of secularism in America has been the introduction of secular methods of scholarship originally intended for Homer and Cicero.

I believe removing parts of scripture insults God, grieves the Holy Spirit, and robs the word of its power.