Preservation: How and What? Part 3

Read Part 1 and Part 2.

Does the Bible teach that God’s people will always be able to point to a particular text1 of the Bible and know that it is the word-perfect, preserved text? Those who believe a particular choice of translations is “the biblically right” option, tend to answer (passionately) in the affirmative. But many who use other translations or simply prefer the KJV are not so sure. Who is right?

Points of agreement

Nearly all involved in the controversy are agreed that God has preserved His Word for us in some sense. Nearly all are agreed as well that Scripture teaches God will preserve forever, somewhere and in some form, every one of the words He inspired and that some believers will always have access to Scripture in some form. God’s ability to use imperfect sinners to perfectly preserve His Word is also not in dispute, nor is the fact that we should accept what the Bible reveals to be true regardless of the claims of the “science of textual criticism” or any “high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God” (2 Cor. 10:5, KJV).

It is also agreed that the Bible depicts human beings as both finite and fallen and prone to error in what they do, but that God overcame human fallibility when He inspired “holy men of God” to record the Scriptures (2 Pet. 1:21). This is where we come to a major fork in the road. Though we do not have equally direct and clear statements to the effect that God also ensures word-perfect preservation (see part 2), many believe a compelling case for this kind of preservation can be derived from less direct passages. The book Thou Shalt Keep Them (TSKT) is an important example.

The next two articles in this series aims to examine all of the relevant biblical arguments in TSKT to see whether we have sufficient grounds for believing God has continuously overcome the limitations of His servants so that they maintain a word-perfect, preserved text of the Bible.

Passages handled previously

TSKT has chapters devoted to several of the seven popular preservation texts I examined earlier in this series: Psalm 12:6-7 (TSKT, ch. 1), Matthew 5:17-18 (TSKT, ch. 3), Matthew 24:35 (TSKT, ch. 5) and 1 Peter 1:23-25 (TSKT, ch. 7). These passages clearly affirm a concept of preservation, but do not tell us to expect a word-perfect text to be available to every generation.

Though all of these passages would be consistent with the idea that we will always be able to access word-perfect copies of Scripture, “consistent with” is not strong evidence that God has chosen to overcome the human fallibility the Bible clearly teaches us to expect.

Other important passages

Perhaps recognizing that these often-cited passages are not sufficient to support their conclusions, the writers of TSKT look to several other verses as well. We’ll consider these individually.

“Every word that proceedeth”

But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. (Matt. 4:4)

Thomas M. Strouse handles this passage in TSKT’s second chapter and concludes the following:

The Lord clearly stated His belief in the availability of Scripture by assuming the accessibility of every Word. The Savior clearly stated His belief in the verbal, plenary preservation of God’s Words since they had been and were still preserved intact in His day. (p. 39)

But Strouse’s case proves to be weak on several grounds. First, the perfect tense of “it is written” (gegraptai), does not indicate anything about the future of what is written, as he asserts (p. 38). Rather, the tense indicates an action that occurred in the past and has produced a state that continues in the writer’s (or, in this case, speaker’s) present. The idea here is simply “it stands written.”

Second, Jesus describes the “every word” He has in mind as coming from the “mouth” of God, and uses the Greek rhēma (ῥῆμα) for “word.” Rhēma normally indicates spoken rather than written words.

Third, “proceeds” is in the present tense. The sense is “every word that is proceeding from the mouth of God.” Though continuation is not always part of the meaning of a present tense verb, the fact that “shall live” is future almost requires that sense here. “Man shall live now and in the future by every word that is proceeding from the mouth of God.”

Finally, the context is also significant. Deuteronomy 8:3, which Jesus quotes here, is a reminder to the children of Israel that they are dependent on God’s decrees for their well being. And in the immediate context, Jesus is responding to pressure from Satan to turn stones into bread (during a long fast).

These details do not prove that Jesus was referring to unwritten words, but together they do strongly suggest He was speaking of God’s continual commanding of what we need to “live.” He was emphasizing our dependence on the Father as well as the Father’s sovereign control over our lives. In Matthew Henry’s words:

It is true, God in his providence ordinarily maintains men by bread out of the earth (Job 28:5); but he can, if he please, make use of other means to keep men alive; any word proceeding out of the mouth of God, any thing that God shall order and appoint for that end, will be as good a livelihood for man as bread, and will maintain him as well.2

Jesus’ statement here does not communicate that He had access to an Old Testament text that contained every word originally inspired. The statement is even further from teaching that every generation of believers will have access to such a text.

“They have received them”

For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me. (John 17:8)

In ch. 4, Strouse takes up the case once again, this time emphasizing the concept of a “received Bible.”

This essay will demonstrate that…the Lord Jesus is the Author of the received Bible mindset and expects His followers to be united around the received Bible movement throughout history. (p. 52)

The chapter’s argument is based in part on the view that “the words” Jesus says the Father gave Him are the entire “Bible canon,” and the same as the “all Scripture” of 2 Timothy 3:16—the same words Jesus said would never pass away (Matt. 24:35, p. 53). Furthermore, since all will be judged by these words (John 12:48), all of the “canonical Words” must be written and preserved. To judge men by anything less than “perfectly preserved, inscripturated Words” would be unjust (p.53).

Strouse then cites several references to believers “receiving” the word (pp. 54-55) and, in the process, gives “receive” a special meaning: something along the lines of “to get a hold of a copy of the entire Bible that you know is a word-perfect copy” (my words, not his).

A close look at the text, however, reveals that it does not support the conclusions Strouse draws from it. That Jesus is referring to the entire canon when He says “the words which thou gavest me,” is far from “presumably” true (p. 53), especially since much of the canon had not yet been written at the time. Plus, the words Jesus says His hearers will be judged by (John 12:48) refers most naturally to those He had been speaking to them personally. Other passages may expand on the content of what men will be judged by, but can we reasonably argue that every word of Scripture must be preserved, recognized and accessible in order for this judging to be just? How would someone be judged differently if Luke 9:3 reads mēte ana duo chitōnas, “not two tunics apiece” (Textus Receptus), rather than simply mēte duo chitōnas, “not two tunics” (Nestle-Aland 27th ed.)?3

What Jesus says in John 17:8 is simply that He has faithfully passed on the words He was given. Turning this into “every single one of the words of Scripture” is reading into the text. Even if we suppose that Jesus meant exactly that, the conclusion that He promises a word-perfect text for every generation does not follow.

“Thou hast known the holy scriptures”

In ch. 6, Charles Nichols argues that “inspiration implies preservation,” based on 2 Timothy 3:15-17.

15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Nichols summarizes his claim as follows:

2 Timothy 3:15-17 strongly suggests perfect, available, verbal and plenary preservation of Scripture just as it establishes God’s inerrant, verbal, plenary inspiration. (p. 68)

His argument asserts that “holy” (v.15) indicates “unadulterated, and pure from defilement” (p. 65). He argues further that the primary meaning of grammata (“scriptures” in v.15) is “letters,” therefore, Paul was pointing out to Timothy that Timothy had grown up having access to a letter-perfect Old Testament text (p. 66). On the basis of the relationship between v.15 and v.16, Nichols observes, “what God inspired is perfect. Therefore, the Old Testament was perfectly preserved to Timothy’s day” (p. 66).

Based on the sufficiency of Scripture expressed in 3:17, Nichols concludes that “Sufficiency depends on every writing God breathed” and “the availability of every writing is an obvious ramification of ‘all Scripture is profitable’ ” (p.67). His conclusion is that “the unadulterated Words, recorded up to or more than a thousand years earlier, were available to Timothy.”

A closer look

Several problems exist with this line of argument as well. First, “holy” (hieros, which Nichols says is synonymous with hagios) does not always mean completely pure. For example, 1 Corinthians 7:14 describes the children of believers as hagios.

Second, the passage does not say that Timothy “had access to” or “possessed” the “holy scriptures” but that he knew them. Unless we suppose that young Timothy knew every single inspired word of the Old Testament, “holy scriptures” in v.15 cannot have that meaning. Rather, it refers to the subset of the Scriptures Timothy had personally learned.

Verse 16, however, does specify that “all Scripture” is theopneustos (an adjective rendered “given by inspiration” in the KJV). Paul’s point is that the Scripture Timothy knew was powerful and sufficient because the Scripture that was inspired was powerful and sufficient. He does not say that what Timothy knew included every word originally given.

Third, even if Timothy had had access to a word-perfect copy of the Old Testament, what would this prove about what we have today?

The sufficiency argument based on 3:17 remains. Nichol’s reasoning is that if “all Scripture” is sufficient, missing any words would render it insufficient. But the reasoning is faulty. If I say “all of my money is sufficient to buy a hamburger,” I’m not denying that “some of my money is sufficient to buy a hamburger.” Granted, if the “some” is reduced to a small enough subset of “all,” it eventually becomes insufficient. But it is far from obvious that the discrepancies we find in the MSS cross that threshold.

Conclusion

Several passages and Bible-based arguments in TSKT remain to be considered. So far, its case for a biblical doctrine of word-perfect text preservation proves nothing beyond what is generally agreed: that God has seen to it that we have His Word today in a form that is sufficient to inform our faith and direct our obedience.

Notes

1 “Text” here means a complete Hebrew and Aramaic OT and complete Greek NT.

2 Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, (Matt. 4:4).

3 Of course, not all manuscript differences are so minor, but a vast quantity of them are. TSKT’s preservation argument here requires that every pronoun and qualifier be preserved in order for God to judge justly.


Aaron Blumer, SI’s site publisher, is a native of lower Michigan and a graduate of Bob Jones University (Greenville, SC) and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He, his wife, and their two children live in a small town in western Wisconsin, where he has pastored Grace Baptist Church (Boyceville, WI) since 2000. Prior to serving as a pastor, Aaron taught school in Stone Mountain, Georgia and worked in customer service and technical support for Unisys Corporation (Eagan, MN). He enjoys science fiction, music, and dabbling in software development.

Discussion

So I awoke this morning and now I am a convinced Particular Preservationist.

1. I believe that God has miraculously preserved His revealed, inspired Word in a line of texts, known as the Majority Text, from the time of inspiration until the present.

2. I believe that we have God’s inspired Word present in written form today.

3. I believe that the Believing Church is the recipient, conservator, transmitter, guardian, and preserver of God’s Word.

4. I believe that God’s preservative power and acts are presupposed in our acceptance of canonization and inspiration.

5.I believe that the same reasoning that leads us to plenary verbal (The Bible does not say plenary verbal) inspiration with the inferences of inerrancy, infallibility, etc. are applicable to establishing the doctrine of preservation.

6. I believe that the ESV is God’s inspired Word in the English language. It is miraculously being widely accepted and I hardly even need to mention all the people that have gotten saved after reading the ESV in the very short time that it has been available.

7. I do not believe or accept Ancient Critical Text Theory(read it was OK for old catholics to examine the manuscript and decide what the original was but not for modern scholars to do it).

I reject the epistemological tenets of Modernity (i.e. Modernism) and naturalistic-rationalism (i.e. scientific rationalism) so I don’t really have to explain why I believe any of the above but I have faith that my position is correct and I am prepared to vigorously defend every one of the above. What more would you like to know?

How would this be any different from what is being posited by Mr. Pittman here?

Jon Bell Bucksport, ME "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and

Let’s see if I can draw fire from all sides.
1. I believe that God has miraculously preserved His revealed, inspired Word in a line of texts, known as the Majority Text, from the time of inspiration until the present.

2. I believe that we have God’s inspired Word present in written form today.

3. I believe that the Believing Church is the recipient, conservator, transmitter, guardian, and preserver of God’s Word.

4. I believe that God’s preservative power and acts are presupposed in our acceptance of canonization and inspiration.

5.I believe that the same reasoning that leads us to plenary verbal (The Bible does not say plenary verbal) inspiration with the inferences of inerrancy, infallibility, etc. are applicable to establishing the doctrine of preservation.

6. I believe that any faithful translation based on the MT is God’s inspired Word in the English language.

7. I do not believe or accept Ancient Critical Text Theory because I don’t accept the idea that older is better.
8. Because of my position on the MT, I have my doubts about the inclusion of I John 5:7.

There. That should bring me enough pain and suffering for today.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

[RPittman] Well, it appears to me that the historical-grammatical uses materials external to Scripture.
Clearly, whatever method you are using does the same, when you come to conclusions about the Received Text and the KJV.

Let’s say for the sake of argument you grow up in a country with only one translation of the Bible available in your language, and the text used for that translation was the critical text. What information coming from the scriptures themselves would allow you to determine you had an errant Bible and that the basis for the translation you are reading is incorrect?

Dave Barnhart

[RPittman] Dave, you seemed to have missed all of the points.
I’ve been paying attention, but I have been waiting to see how all of this plays out.
And you fail to connect the dots of how my method clearly does the same.What method am I using? What external sources does it use?
I may have been unclear about what I meant, but the dots are connected well enough, and I don’t need to know either your method or sources:

1. You have come to conclusions about the Received Text and KJV being the proper vehicles for preservation.

2. Neither of these are referred to in scripture.

3. Therefore, you are using something external to the scriptures to come to your conclusions. QED.
We use external sources for things about which the Bible does not speak.
Agreed. Yet you seem to decry natural observation as being unworthy of use. However, even the scriptures declare that things about God can be revealed through natural revelation. That means that both observations and conclusions for those observations are considered by God to be valid methods of evaluating information (in fact, man will be held accountable for them), though they do not trump God’s direct revelation.

I would agree (though I know some don’t), that the Bible teaches preservation of God’s word. It nowhere teaches that preservation was in the received text (or any particular text), or that the KJV was the only valid translation of God’s word for English-speaking people. The authors of TSKT (a book I own and have read twice, the second time making annotations) argue that not only can preservation be shown from scripture, that the conclusions about the received text and KJV can be drawn from “proper” interpretation of scripture. I do not believe that the authors have sufficiently shown that such conclusions MUST follow from scripture.

Obviously, even the TSKT authors are using some external sources, as they rely on Greek lexicons and other tools in the writing of this book, in which they attempt to present the scriptural argument for their view of preservation. To some extent, we all do. However, I believe it’s perfectly appropriate to attempt to use the same technique (make the argument from scripture, instead of history, etc.) to refute a work that the work itself is using. I think you are being intentionally obtuse when you make the claims you do about not recognizing we all use external sources, etc.


We, modern Fundamentalists, use the basic epistemology as the Modernists. That’s what I’m trying to establish…
Are you including yourself by saying “we,” after you have declared that you have renounced any modernist epistemology? You do switch to “they” fairly quickly after this, so I suppose this use of we might have been a mistake.
They can’t shake off what they’ve been taught. Until they deliberately alter their paradigm and look at things through different spectacles, they will never see until they change the lens through which they view the world.
I’m curious what lens you believe you are using and how you think you can completely remove a modernist one from your own thinking. Believing you can is not the same as actually being able to do so.
Perhaps the Holy Spirit would guide me.
If I understand the scriptures correctly, the Holy Spirit guides us into all truth *through* the scriptures. Well, in my posited case, the scriptures would be what you have in front of you, flawed or not. Are you arguing you would receive special, extra-scriptural revelation that would tell you the scriptures you have are false? If so, what would make it possible for you to discard certain words rather than distrust the whole work, and the basis for your belief in a Holy Spirit?

Dave Barnhart

[RPittman] You are still trying to press me into the naturalistic/rationalistic/modernistic mindset. Aren’t you aware that there other means of knowledge other than evidence-proof method.
OK, Roland. We should all believe you just because you say so. No reasons required… because requiring reasons is the naturalistic-rationalistic paradigm and we shouldn’t force you into it.

On the grammatical historical method

Of course I use external information to interpret Scripture. Everyone does. Words do not have meaning without reference to things in our experience. And the principle of author’s intent in interpreting Scripture has been well established for a very long time. This is not the same thing as building a case on external evidence. Rather, I have made my case based on the evidence of Scripture. (FWIW, I’m not crazy about the wikipedia excerpts you quoted. There are many better places to read up on the grammatical-historical method.)

Where is the Holy Spirit?

The Holy Spirit never promised to do our thinking for us, Roland.

Where you seem to be going is the idea that there is some direct route to knowledge of the meaning of Scripture apart from employing the faculties of the mind. Do you hold to perfect text preservation because you believe the Holy Spirit has revealed it to you directly? Because you have grasped this truth intuitively? Received it in a vision?

That may be good enough for you, but it will not persuade others. This is why the writers of TSKT didn’t simply publish a one-page book in which they reported “God has revealed to us by ‘other means of knowledge than evidence-proof method’ that He has preserved a word-perfect text of the Bible down to today, and it’s the TR.”

Instead, they interpreted passages using the grammatical historical method and offered reasoned conclusions to support their claims. You would do well to take that approach as well!

I happen to believe they executed the grammatical historical method poorly in lots of places and also reasoned badly to conclusions that don’t follow, but their method is the right one and the same one I’m using.

No disrespect intended, Roland, but “other means of knowledge” is the ultimate cop out. It basically declares your view to be beyond all debate.

At least the TSKT guys are trying to give people something to think about.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

I left this thread at post #5 or 6 I think, and only just came back and read the rest. I’m dumbfounded as many others are as to Pittman’s responses.

I would agree we need more than just naturalistic methods for Bible interpretation, we need Spirit-filled teachers and the Spirit does guide the church. Illumination is key, as 1 Cor. 2:14 teaches that a natural man is not able to understand the Word. Still the principle of finding the author’s intent goes back way before modernity. It predates the Reformation as well.

I find it odd that RP gives a list of declarations that he believes and is prepared to contend for. Then when Bob Torpatzer and others ask for that defense and contention, he refuses to give it.

It appears that the Spirit’s teaching the church, and the common faith that we have inherited as members of the church, plays a role in RP’s thinking as revelatory or at least a way of gaining knowledge. Still, citing the WCF doesn’t take the day. That statement in its specificity was relatively new in the history of the church, and given in the day of much debate with the Romanists. Still, it doesn’t exactly say that the copies of Scripture they had were confessionally held to be equal to the Scripture as given originally. Furthermore, some of the signers and fellow Reformed leaders and thinkers (all pre-Modernity, mind you) reveal that they don’t shun any text-critical sort of thinking. Turretin, Calvin, Luther all sought evidence in ancient copies about whether certain readings were genuine. Beza and Stephanus added textual notes to their TR editions.

On the 2 Tim. 3:16 point, you do know the words aren’t equivalent necessarily in vs. 15 and vs. 16. Vs. 15 has grammata and vs. 16 has graphe. I contend that the in the word theopneustos in vx. 6 (inspired of God) implies a one-time event. That event (God’s breathing out the Word) left the resultant text with a particular quality. That quality extends to the copies that Timothy had in vs. 15, but not because the copies are exactly identical in every particular. But because they are generally faithful copies of the text of Scripture and so share the quality Scripture has. So I find the hamburger analogy still holds pretty well. Saying Timothy was made wise to salvation by the scriptures he had. And that every Scripture is inspired, does not say anything about how accurate the copies that Timothy had were.

I do say it appears awful convenient for RP to sidestep argumentation altogether in this by denouncing our epistemology. What may be lost in the shuffle on this, is that he hasn’t shown how or why we should believe that he is using his different epistemology correctly. It’s almost as if he just uses that to obscure matters and he does this because this particular topic is touchy or something.

That is how it appears. Honestly, Roland, if you really want to convince us that our epistemology is totally misguided, then try being irenic and humble and show us patiently how to get where you are. The Spirit has guided a good many of us, along with the majority of the English speaking church, to accept and make wise use of modern English Bible versions. And He has guided us on the basis of many texts in Scripture too.

Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.

[RPittman] Aaron, I’ve found this particular thread most unimaginative particularly during the last few days. It seems that folks became stuck in a rut. There has been a poverty of ideas in that no one was able to envision any other possibilities other than their own. It was not a question of which possibility was right and which possibility was wrong but it was a matter of no other possibilities. Well, the link below may offer some subtle possibilities to rejuvenate your imaginative powers. That is unless one is brain dead. :-) As someone observed, a rut is a grave with the ends kicked out.

http://benbyerly.wordpress.com/2009/07/31/the-limitations-of-historical…
Roland,

I greatly enjoyed this article. I almost entirely agree with him. But a redemptive historical interpretation doesn’t lead by necessity to a complete overturn of epistemological structures and a rejection of any resort to evidence.

Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.

There is a reason that the “believing church” embraced sola scriptura during the Reformation.

Among other things, how does one tell the difference between the Holy Spirit and some random intuitive impression? If we make a distinction between Holy Spirit and Scripture and suggest that Scripture is not enough to establish doctrine, we basically head into territory where any notion we happen to like can be blamed on Him.

The main reason I have focused on the biblical evidence is that the Scriptures are sufficient for doctrine and if they do not teach a doctrine of perfect text preservation, that’s the end of the story as far as a “doctrine of preservation” is concerned. It is certainly possible to hold to a position of perfect text preservation based on any number of things… “the believing church” (which is really another way of saying “my understanding of church history”—external evidence), some mind-bypassing direct revelation from the Spirit (if you believe the Spirit is doing that sort of thing today), something even more bizarre, like chaos theory—or just ordinary external evidence (like looking at MSS and finding that a bunch of them match perfectly… so far, waiting for that to happen).

But any conclusion we arrive at in these ways cannot properly be called doctrine and those who disagree cannot be in “doctrinal error.”

Roland, there’s really no shame in saying “perfect text preservation is my opinion and I can’t prove it, but I believe it.” But others can’t be expected to find that persuasive and it’s not OK to elevate an opinion like that to the level of doctrine.

Doctrine can only properly be derived from interpreting Scripture and reasoning soundly from it. And the Holy Spirit’s role in the process is mainly that of giving us the Word in the first place. Whatever else He does beyond that is debatable and, in any case, a small factor by comparison. I often think we are insulting Him when we insist on something more than what He has already inspired for us for doctrine, reproof and instruction in righteousness.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

[RPittman] By showing a number of possible alternatives, I hope to persuade posters that the alternatives are not limited to the prevailing epistemology or a return to baseless superstition. I am not opposed to observation, reason, etc. as components of epistemology as they must be. However, I think that we stretch the system to make everything proven or provable. It is better to say, “I don’t know.” Proof, evidence, and support are precise words with limited semantic range. Yet, they are used far too loosely. I can’t prove how God has preserved His Word. I can’t prove that He did but I believe that God did because of His statements and actions. It’s argument from a consistent pattern. Furthermore, God’s past actions provide a pattern of both Scriptural evidence and external evidence to reasonably suppose that He will act consistently in the present and future. This does not mean that everyone will be persuaded, as everyone is not persuaded of any doctrine/teaching, but it is a valid and reasonable position to hold.
This is the closest we have come to seeing your rationale for your positions, Roland. Thanks, this helps.

I read the same Bible and just don’t come away with an equal stress on the word perfect nature of preservation. I see loose quotations all over the place, and statements about the authority of Scripture and its perfection, but not of the need for perfect representations of the text of Scripture. That wasn’t the focus of the Scriptural texts when it talks of preservation and the role of the Bible for the church, as far as I read it. When it comes to seeing how the Spirit guided the church in the last 2,000 years we also manifestly come away with differing conclusions. For the first several centuries the church used the LXX. Then the Vulgate was used by one wing of the church and the LXX / Ecclesiastical Greek Text was used by the other. The Reformation brought us back to the Ecclesiastical Greek Text being prized and this was disseminated in even more common language translations than there were before. And since then this translation impetus has continued even as the discovery and study of the Greek and Hebrew has intensified all birthed out of the respect for the authority of the text of Scripture which the Reformation recovered.

Now that’s my reading of history and of Scripture. And it is the reading of many other Spirit-indwelt believers. This is behind the widespread adoption by the English speaking church of the last 40 years, of the NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV and other sound translations.

Now how exactly do you disagree with this reading of history and Scripture? How does accepting other inputs to knowledge from beyond rational or observable sources make you see things in a different light? How do you get from point A to point B? And why is your way better than mine and the many others who agree with me and also claim the name of Christ?

Like Aaron, I’m at a loss for this kind of reading being described and summarily dismissed as modernistic with no alternative explained….

Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.

Roland, you are a genius at evasive answers, I’ll give you that! But you’re also sinking deeper toward serious doctrinal trouble and that’s much greater cause for concern.
[RP] you are using precisely the same methods that the preservationists use, yet you deny the legitimacy of their case.
Yes! We have an understanding here! I’ve been trying to say that for days. We are using the same methods and neither theirs nor mine is a “rationalistic schema” or any of the other things you have called it. I do not deny the “legitimacy” of their case, only their conclusions because—as I have explained repeatedly, I believe they made errors in the interpretive process as well as in the post-interpretation reasoning.
[RP] I though Brandenburg, et. al. were using Biblical arguments. If so, it comes down to Aaron and Kent disagreeing about what the Bible says. It’s not as if one is on the high road and the other on the low.
Right again! This is encouraging. (Sadly, what comes later is very discouraging)

I’ve never claimed a higher road, only that Kent et. al. have not correctly interpreted and/or reasoned from the passages they use. There is no problem of methodology, only of execution.
[RP] Does the Holy Spirit speak to individuals today? How do you know? The Scriptural precedence is that He did.
See Mark Snoeberger’s excellent series on cessationism for one good answer to that. Two more installments coming. The short answer is, I believe He does not because Scripture does not seem to support the idea that He does.
[RP] [on what we were taught in school….] We accepted it as true and went our way.
Maybe you did. I did not. I accepted what was well supported based on the convictions I had at the time, filed much in the “Maybe” file, and rejected some things as well (some of which I later discovered to be the truth after all. And many things have moved in and out of the “Maybe” file multiple times!).
[RP]
[Aaron] But any conclusion we arrive at in these ways cannot properly be called doctrine and those who disagree cannot be in “doctrinal error.”
No, this is a false dichotomy. Doctrine is simply a teaching.
Doctrine is the teaching of Scripture. If it helps, what I mean by the term is “something Scripture teaches.” We cannot claim Scripture teaches things that we have figured out only by external evidence (or some claim of direct revelation). But there’s a simpler answer. We cannot claim as “doctrine” in the 2 Tim. 3:16 sense anything that is not taught in Scripture. That was my point.
[RP] earlier stated that the essentials of salvation are explicit in Scripture. I believe it. However, these essentials are not rationally provable
Actually, they are. This is an important point for understanding what my “paradigm” really is, so please don’t miss this part: there are things we all take “without proof” as starting points, our a priori beliefs. We cannot really prove there is a holy God or that He has revealed Himself in the Bible. These things are convictions I have not arrived at by evidence and reasoning.

There are “reasons” for them, but they are circular (I believe the Bible is true because the Bible claims to be true). It’s fairly easy to put my “objectivity hat” on and see that this is not “proof.” Yet I am convinced. The Spirit did not reveal these things to me directly. He convinced me (John 16:8) that what the Bible said about them was true.

Once a person becomes convinced by the Spirit that the Bible’s claims about itself and God are true, a whole lot of things become “rationally proveable.” Whether we are willing to see them is another matter, but if you believe the Bible is true, it’s a rational process to figure out what it says so you can believe it.

The role of reasoning is in understanding what it teaches. This reasoning process is inescapable if we are going to truly “read” it at all. More on this later.

The tenets of the gospel are absolutely rationally provable once a person accepts that the Bible is true.

To put it in the ol’ syllogism format

A. The Bible is true

B. The BIble teaches A

C. Therefore A is true [edited to fix… got a bit rushed there]

This is not a rationalistic/modernistic/etc. “paradigm;” it’s just thinking straight.
[RP] Your methodology is defunct. It can’t prove anything even using Scripture. And I have already suggested reasons why it can’t. Now, please don’t jump to conclusions and accuse me of opening the door to every man with a revelation. I’m not proposing that at all.
Roland, it doesn’t matter if you are “proposing” it or not. There is nothing else left after you reject the approach to understanding the Bible that I have described (and which you are incorrectly calling “rationalistic methodology.”) We have to use reason to even read the Bible. It is not possible to make sense of even the simplest sentence if we don’t take the sequence of words, associate each word with some referent in our experience (or imagination), and then do the logical exercise of applying a set of grammatical rules to discern how each word is related to each other in the sentence. We normally do this without consciously thinking about it, but we always do it. When studying the Bible, we do it very intentionally.

There’s a reason we don’t just take all the words in the Bible, each on its own little slip of paper, shake them thoroughly and pull them out and read them at random for a “text” on Sunday morning! God chose to give us sentences and paragraphs, and by doing so He communicated an important fact: “I intend that you should reason.” This inference is a “necessary” one. It cannot be avoided. Otherwise, there is no point in translating the Bible at all. We could hear it in Hebrew, and—without knowing the language—know intuitively (claiming it’s “by the Spirit” if we like) what it means. No reasoning required.
[RP]
[Aaron] Doctrine can only properly be derived from interpreting Scripture and reasoning soundly from it. And the Holy Spirit’s role in the process is mainly that of giving us the Word in the first place.
Aaron, you have just made doctrinal assertions. Back them up with Scripture or retract according to your own previously professed standard!

How do you know from Scripture that “[d] octrine can only properly be derived from interpreting Scripture?” Is not this a conclusion?

How do you know from Scripture that “reasoning soundly from [Scripture] ” is the only way to derive doctrine? How do you know that reasoning is involved?

How do you know from Scripture that “Holy Spirit’s role in the process is mainly that of giving us the Word in the first place”
2 Timothy 3:16 has no meaning apart from this, Roland. The whole idea of sufficiency of Scripture has no meaning without it. As to how I know reasoning is involved, see my remarks above.

Now we’ve gone on quite a rabbit trail here. I really don’t want to spend any more time on it.

I’ve written this series of articles (and pretty much every other article as well) with a particular audience in mind and certain givens in place.

These givens include that my readers are already firm believers in the sufficiency of Scripture for “doctrine, for reproof, for instruction in righteousness.” To be honest, the sufficiency of Scripture to answer these questions is not a belief I’m really very interested in defending. That is, it’s on my short list (and it is a short list) of things I take for granted, pretty much right up there with my belief that God exists and the Bible is His Word.

But there are lots of good books on the subject, and others have done excellent work on it. For me, it’s just a given. So I’m probably not going to spend much more time on that.

(I sure hope all this work is helping someone! :D )

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Roland,

I appreciate how you clarified your position with your 8 points in Post #14 (above). Normally in these debates when someone tries to prove something not found clearly stated in the Scriptures the proofs have to go one of two directions:
  1. The evidence of history, the church, etc. proves my point. Additional points are usually made that my expert (or translator or manuscript compiler) is better than yours (i.e. more godly, intelligent, etc.) and my thinking is better than yours.
  2. I have received some kind of direct revelation which shows that I am right.

    You seem to be following the second point and added a third:
  3. My mind is able to grasp concepts which your mind is not able to grasp (e.g. your references to “thinking out of the box,” “chaos theory,” that you have “other means of knowledge” which no one else on this thread seems to have).If this is true, putting #2 and #3 together makes it appear you are walking on dangerous ground since this “method” subjugates the Scriptures to human thoughts and feelings and makes one to be unteachable.

    Roland, you have posted 30 of the 56 comments on this page and (if I could speak for the rest of us) you still have not clearly stated what your source of truth is which makes you feel you can claim those 8 points and “vigorously defend” them. I am afraid that your method of defending the Received Text and KJV actually ends up denigrating them.

MS -------------------------------- Luke 17:10

MShep2… well summarized. Thanks. Much of the time a few words is way better than pages full. I hadn’t noticed the #3 pseudo-argument, but yes, it does seem to be in the mix. The thing is, if a guy possesses some knowledge and skill that others lack, doesn’t he want to pass that on? … especially if it’s knowledge and skill that is supposed to be the key to understanding something God wants us to believe. But the trouble with #2 is that it cannot be passed on. It just isn’t possible to put some kind of “I know because I just know” into a format that allows others to know as well. We have to either doubt or take it on the ethos of the one who has had the experience. This is another reason God gave us words and reasoning. When you have words and reasons, you can pass those on to others and they may also be persuaded to believe what you do.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Roland, I’m not interested in any more discussion with you about your incoherent paradigm or any further defending of my falsely labeled “naturalistic” paradigm. I’m rarely, if ever, writing to people who do not accept the sufficiency of Scripture for doctrine and who do not accept the grammatical-historical approach to interpretation. Without that as a common starting point, I really have nothing to say.

(You can’t really claim the sufficiency of Scripture for doctrine and simultaneously insist that proving doctrines from Scripture is a “naturalistic methodology” that should be dismissed.)

I think it’s obvious to most readers that I’m just trying to determine what the Bible really teaches on the subject of preservation. It really is that simple.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.



[quote: Aaron Blumer]

I’d really love to see a few folks help Roland out here. There are probably some other perceived (or real) problems in my case, but we’re not hearing from many perfect text preservationists. Kent Brandenberg tells me he will be posting some responses at his blog pretty soon, so we’ll get some additional criticism there I’m sure. Would be nice to see more here, though. [quote: Mr. Pittman]

1. I believe that God has miraculously preserved His revealed, inspired Word in a line of texts, loosely known as the Received Text, from the time of inspiration until the present.

2. I believe that we have God’s inspired Word present in written form today.

3. I believe that the Believing Church is the recipient, conservator, transmitter, guardian, and preserver of God’s Word.

4. I believe that God’s preservative power and acts are presupposed in our acceptance of canonization and inspiration.

5. I believe that the same reasoning that leads us to plenary verbal (The Bible does not say plenary verbal) inspiration with the inferences of inerrancy, infallibility, etc. are applicable to establishing the doctrine of preservation.

6. I believe that the KJV is God’s inspired Word in the English language.

7. I do not believe or accept Original Autographs Theory, Modern Critical Text Theory, etc. These are either reactions or products of Modernity (read Modernism).

8. I reject the epistemological tenets of Modernity (i.e. Modernism) and naturalistic-rationalism (i.e. scientific rationalism). I can’t offer much help to Mr. Pittman, but I can stand with him in saying I believe the first six points of his TR Confession. I might be persuaded of the remaining two, but I’m not sure I understand them fully - yet. The whole preservation series has been fascinating, informative, and edifying. I hope it will continue. I, for one, would like to read this paper that Mr. Pittman has proposed writing.

Chris Long

[RPittman] Aaron, it may be that my answers are simply unsatisfying to your preconceived notions (i.e. your epistemology). The fact is that my ideas won’t fly in naturalistic/rationalistic/modernism. In an earlier exchange, you brushed aside my suggestion of a “logic of faith” without any apparent understanding of the concept. Why should I trot out ideas only to have them ridiculed with the same old stale arguments. There has been very, very little serious discussion of the ideas that I have proposed. Sometimes I have intentionally been evasive and sometimes I have not. Here are some reasons:

  1. If I propose an idea, then I know that it will be attacked and I will be called upon to defend it. A defense of these ideas would require a tremendous amount of time and effort that I cannot afford just now. So, I reserve it until I can adequately explain and defend it.
  2. I make leaps and jumps in logic and information assuming that the readers/posters are well-read and educated to follow my allusions to things generally known. I am not trying to profess esoteric knowledge but I can’t supply all the details and background. I’m surprised that folks missed my point about Chaos Theory.

    [*[When I post, it is composed on the fly from memory. I do not have the time to pull my references and make my posts conform to scholarly academic standards.
  3. There are things that I don’t know and haven’t worked out. It’s more like an outline than a finished work.
  4. There are simply too many points and questions for me to answer adequately. I have to pick and choose.
    And some folks have just failed to comprehend what I have said. I have told you that I am being an iconoclast. Also, I have plainly told you that I am trying to shake your Modernist epistemology. Until some of you guys step outside this paradigm and are willing to consider another framework of thought, then I will not submit my ideas to be ridiculed within a Modernist epistemology. The error that you make is assuming what my position is. I asked in an earlier installment of this article, “How did people think before Modernity?” Am I advocating a return to a Pre-modern epistemology? No, it there are some things that may be instructive for us.
Ok, Roland. I don’t think I can read any more of this thread. My head is spinning. So, I have a suggestion for you:

Please, for the sake of this discussion, assume that we (Aaron, others, I, etc.) have accepted your statement that our thinking is wrong. (Believe me, if I am wrong I really would like to hear about it and I would assume that the others would too). We accept that you are being an iconoclast. We now (for the sake of this discussion) have admitted we are wrong, and are willing to “step outside [our incorrect] paradigm” and “consider another framework of thought.” Therefore, I am asking you to tell us succinctly how to think correctly. It is not enough to say that you don’t want to have your ideas “ridiculed.” Challenging someone’s position is not the same as ridicule - and as I look through this thread it seems everyone has been patient with you.

It is not enough to simply refute others’ arguments. You must tell us what your “framework of thought is.”

MS -------------------------------- Luke 17:10