PUBLICATIONS

THE BURNING BUSH
 

Volume 16 Number 1, January 2010

A CRITIQUE OF ROLLAND MCCUNE’S TEACHING ON BIBLE PRESERVATION IN HIS SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY OF BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY

Paul Ferguson

Dr Rolland D McCune is Professor of Systematic Theology at the Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary (DBTS) in Allen Park, Michigan. In 2009, DBTS released the first of four volumes of A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity by McCune.¹ Dr McCune had also previously written a well received book entitled Promise Unfulfilled: The Failed Strategy of Modern Evangelicalism, released in October 2004.²

This first volume on Systematic Theology deals particularly with three main areas: the doctrine of Scripture, the doctrine of God, and Angelology. Like DBTS, McCune holds to a traditional dispensationalist Baptistic perspective on theology and this is apparent throughout. However, he does have a somewhat distinctive approach as he seeks to weave his dispensationalism with a Calvinist soteriology, pretribulational premillennialism in eschatology, a single source (Scripture) as the only rule for theology, cessationism of miraculous gifts, and a decidedly Van Tilian presuppositional approach to Christian philosophy and apologetics.

In general, this is a well written and a helpful addition to the volumes on Systematic Theology. McCune is gifted in setting forth many doctrinal themes in profound yet clear language. He utilises different definitions by a diverse range of other theologians in different categories with hundreds of footnotes saturating this work. There are many aspects of this first volume that are particularly illuminating such as McCune’s defence of inspiration and inerrancy. However, there is one section that causes concern to those of the historic Reformed Faith—Bible preservation.

Given the longstanding DBTS hostility to the KJV and the Received Text, it is no surprise to note McCune’s position on this issue. Throughout this book, he cites uncritically many corrupted versions including the NIV and the New Living Bible. It should be noted and welcomed that he does break ranks with his former colleague Edward Glenny in at least accepting that there are "explicit" scriptural promises for perfect preservation of the "written" Words of God such as Psalm 119:152 and Psalm 119:160. He also accepts that there are "implicit" promises such as Matthew 5:17-18. McCune additionally argues that in passages such as Proverbs 30:5-6, Daniel 12:4, Revelation 22:18-19 "there is an assumption of a preserved message, which itself requires some sort of vehicle for preservation, namely a text" (53). Whilst, discussing the possibility of a lost canon, the author correctly observes, "texts on preservation must be explained in a manner compatible with the mutual and reciprocal dependence of inspiration, canonicity and preservation" (54-55). However, although he claims to believe in canonicity, McCune notably fails throughout this volume to set forth a theological framework for the doctrine of canonicity.

Despite his inchoate, but commendable, biblical presuppositional approach to theism and inspiration, McCune inexplicably switches to an evidential and rationalistic approach to the doctrine of preservation. He asserts that "preservation does not necessarily mean availability in written form" (53) and "most scholars recognize that not every word of the original has been preserved" (54). McCune offers superficial and theologically reckless arguments that willfully ignore the wide range of Bible promises that God would make His Words generally available to every generation of believers (Deut 30:11-14; Ps 147:19, 20; Isa 34:16, 59:21; Matt 4:4; 2 Pet 3:2; Jude 1:17). He also ignores the Biblical precedents which show that God keeps and protects His Words (Deut 10:2; Jer 36:28). In the Neo-fundamentalist worldview, to question the rationalistic evidential approach is tantamount to scientific heresy. The postulates of modern scientific textual criticism are antithetical to faith in the perfect word of God being available today.

McCune goes on to attack the Received Text position by trying to stack the deck by arguing that "it is based on proof texts allegedly teaching miraculous preservation and, also, because there is no empirical evidence of such preservation in the totality of extant manuscripts" (54). This is because he intones,

It is important to note, too, that no one copy or translation perfectly reflects the message (much less the words) of the original documents. This is the case simply because the original documents do not presently exist, and the extant manuscripts which do are, in each case, unique, no two fully agreeing in every detail. Therefore, without infallible criteria for determining original readings, infallible determinations of original readings are impossible. In sum, copies and translations are authoritative insofar as they faithfully reflect the message of the original text. And, insofar as they do, they may be called the Word of God (97-98).

This is a nonsensical position as we do not have the autographs, so it is impossible for the integrity of any text to be judged by the autographs. It is intellectually dishonest to say that they can ever be regarded as "authoritative insofar as they faithfully reflect the message of the original text." How does McCune prove his claim that, "no one copy or translation perfectly reflects the message (much less the words) of the original documents?" By a hunch or a vision? Clearly, he does not even believe his "Creed of Unbelief" for how can the Critical Text or the Textus Receptus be judged by an autograph that does not exist? No doubt McCune would argue that there are apostate scholars who can determine which manuscripts are closest. However, as the logical conclusions of guilty man on spiritual matters will always be in error he needs to explain what makes a modernist an expert on something that does not exist? Statements such as this of McCune only delineate the depths into the sea of absurdity that those who reject the Biblical presuppositional approach will go rather than face up to the biblically obvious.

One should note, paradoxically, that those who proclaim to speak for the Bible seldom seem to allow the Bible to speak. The Bible does explicitly promise that God will preserve every one of His Words forever down to the very jot and tittle of the smallest letter (Pss 12:6, 7, 33:11, 119:152, 160; Isa 30:8; 40:8; 1 Pet 1:23-25; Matt 5:18; 24:35). In Matthew 5:18, Christ did not say "one concept" or "one doctrine" would not pass only, but spoke of the preservation of the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet. God’s work cannot be imperfect as "He is the Rock, his work is perfect" (Deut 32:4). The Bible promises there will be certainty as to the Words of God (2 Pet 1:19; Luke 1:4; Prov 1:23, 22:20-21; Dan 12:9-10; 2 Tim 2:18-19). The Bible promises that God would lead His saints into all truth, that the Word, all of His Words, are truth (John 16:13, 17:8, 17; 1 John 2:20). The Bible shows that the true Church of Christ would receive these Words (Matt 28:19-20; John 17:8; Acts 8:14, 11:1, 17:11; 1 Thess 2:13; 1 Cor 15:3). The Bible implies that believers would receive these Words from other believers (Deut 17:18; 1 Kgs 2:3; Prov 25:1; Acts 7:38; Heb 7:11; 1 Thess 1:6; Phil 4:9).

It is also regrettable that McCune’s speculations should now implicitly reject the sufficiency of Scripture to guide him on the question of how God preserves His Words. It is also wholly inconsistent with his previous assertion that the Bible "need not be supplemented by reason, experience, tradition, other religions, or anything else" (61). Clearly, the seat of faith in Scripture is to him for those of a restricted intellect, whereas rationalistic textual criticism is the privileged evolutionary path of scholarly understanding. His abdicating of the task of receiving the Words of God from the true remnant church to apostate textual critical scholars such as Bruce Metzger and Carlo Martini is about as reliable as a chocolate teapot! For what can be argued by "neutral" scientific studies by apostates into the Christian faith today can be argued out of the Christian faith tomorrow. God does give us good reasons to believe in His preservation of His Words. However, for those reasons to be cogent we must believe both that He is and that He is a rewarder of those truly seeking after Him. This excludes the efforts of apostate critics. So once again we are thrown back on the presuppositional nature of faith. Textual criticism is simply a dish of autonomous rationalism cleverly served up as biblically palatable to the gullible.

McCune lacks transparency in stating the implications of his premises here. He accepts that there is no "neutral scientific" bridge that guarantees we have an entire tradition going back to the originals outside the promises of Scripture. McCune’s view of God is as if He inspired the Words and then walked off to play an eternal celestial golf game only to return when He gets to the eighteenth hole to settle scores. His bald assertions do not stand up biblically or scientifically. However, this approach simply introduces other problems. We could not be certain that God did not inspire other books not in the Protestant Canon if we accept the premise that all God did was inspire the Words, leaving the rest to humanity to determine autonomously from God. With this presuppositional approach, we lose any ability to determine what is inspired and what is not. Indeed, if we believe God was involved how do we determine how much He was involved and if He stopped being involved or was only imperfectly preserving, when did He stop being fully involved? The Scriptures teach that God sovereignly works in time to control revelation (Gal 4:4; Eph 1:10). The God of history and Scripture is not an absentee landlord. He alone gets the glory for preservation and no liberal scholar.

With respect to an evidential approach, all McCune, at best, can be certain about is that his reconstruction of a text replicates the majority opinion of a group of third century manuscript copies. Beyond that he is as uncertain and lost as anyone else. His supposed objective scientific approach represents a serious mischaracterisation of reality. Neither the CT advocates, nor the TR advocates, have extant manuscripts that bridge the first three to four hundred years of the Church. Unless McCune and his colleagues at DBTS have dug up the originals in Michigan, they are also left to adopt a faith-based presuppositional approach. The essential difference is that they base their bridging presuppositions on rationalistic ones; independent of biblical promises. As Reformed writer, Douglas Wilson opines,

But when we consider the facts carefully, nothing is more apparent than that this is actually a battle of the paradigms. In some respects, this is very much like the reconstruction of the evolutionary fossil tree, 98 percent of which is missing. When we consider all the manuscripts we possess, we must still compare them to the number of all the manuscripts ever written—which we do not have. This is a scholarly task outside the competence of science, and any attempt to submit the task to scientific canons will only result in increasing confusion. A process of scholarly reconstruction here makes sense only when undergirded with faith in the living God who controls the flow of all historical events. If, in order to be "scientific," we eliminate this God from our considerations, the end of the road will be no text at all, or radical confusion about the text. The autonomous text critic is someone who believes that this problem of the original text is one which admits of a scientific solution. But the real solution to this problem is faith in God, and in His providential care for His Word.³

Most CT advocates, like McCune, believe that the key doctrines or the original text are preserved somewhere among the variants, but they have no logical or scientific reason to believe so. No matter how they finesse it, their belief is predicated more on sentimentality as they have rejected any Biblical exegetical basis for assuming perfect preservation. No accumulation of sardonic putdowns or intellectual gymnastics can conceal this fact from the discerning reader. Textual critical arguments presuppose that man can approach the knowledge of God’s Words as if man is morally neutral. It is predicated on the idea that man has an unaided intrinsic ability to reach knowledge of God’s Words in making textual choices and conjectural emendations. However, any attempt to separate faith and reason is doomed to failure, as this construction violates Scripture (Rom 1:18; 1 Cor 10:31).

Since no one is viewpoint neutral and everyone has presuppositions, why does McCune want to exclude Biblical presuppositions on the issue of the preservation of the text? Does he really believe in the myth of a "secular, academic, religiously-neutral hermeneutic" in criticism? Unbelief in the promises of Scripture is a sin and even believers can be guilty of it by being "fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken" (Luke 24:25-27). The devil managed to persuade Eve that God’s Word was not to be trusted over our autonomous reason. It should be noted he came professing to offer a way to "real" truth and happiness. All attempts to be wise outside of God’s Word has shipwrecked many seminaries and churches. McCune (and DBTS) need to return to the biblical presupposition that the Church, as the pillar and ground of the truth, is entrusted with the New Testament Words, as the Jews were with the Old Testament oracles of God. We must hold the Biblical worldview without reservation or we are doomed to perpetual uncertainty. McCune has sought to blunt the Sword of the Spirit by his non-acceptance of its sufficiency for all truth. Instead, we should follow the approach of men like A W Pink who commented,

Man craves for certainty. Speculations and hypotheses are insufficient where eternal issues are at stake. When I come to lay my head upon my dying pillow, I want something surer than a "perhaps" to rest it upon. And thank God I have it. Where? In the Holy Scriptures. I know that my Redeemer liveth. I know that I have passed from death unto life. I know that I shall be made like Christ and dwell with Him in glory throughout the endless ages of eternity. How do I know? Because God’s Word says so, and I want nothing more.⁴

It would be the height of folly to surrender the Received Text that changed nations, sparked a Reformation, and three Great Awakenings for the evolving manuscript based on the subjective views of apostate textual critics. The truth is that Miss Pragmatism is a seductive mistress for those seeking the approval of the Neo-Evangelical scholarship but unfortunately she produces some very ugly offsprings. We see the Athaliah’s of the Jehoshaphat compromise with apostate textual criticism now flooding the collapsing dyke of modern Fundamentalism as seen in institutions such as Bob Jones University (BJU), Central Baptist Theological Seminary (CBTS) and DBTS. Speaking of this decline of Fundamentalism, the Rev Ivan Foster of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster in a message delivered on October 11, 2009 states,

The first evidence of change was Fundamentalism’s turning against the Authorised Version of Holy Scriptures. That which had been kept on the fringes of Fundamentalism crept nearer the centre. Suddenly, it was learned and scholarly to agitate for a replacing of the Authorised Version. The Authorised Version has been replaced within some circles of Fundamentalism and new versions have made their appearance. I do not believe that any new version is free of compromise with and contamination by the camp of liberalism. The emergence of new versions amongst Fundamentalism is evidence of the adopting of a new scholarship and the moving away from the Bible of the Reformation; the Bible of every revival since the seventeenth century in the English speaking world.

He went on to say,

I believe that God has set His stamp upon the Authorised Version and I do not believe that any degree of scholarship gives a man or any group of men the right to replace that which God has set His seal upon for whatever reason with a new version. That might sound naïve to the learned; it will certainly sound very unscholarly. I don’t really care. I am prepared to take the risk of being wrong by relying on the book that God has changed nations with rather than launch out in that frail vessel of scholarship that those who today have gained some standing within Fundamentalism would have us all embark in. I reject the NKJV and I reject every other version as flawed in comparison to the purity of the Authorised Version. I just cannot see the reason for changing.⁵

It is not that we do not understand McCune’s arguments for change from the historical Reformed position on preservation, we do, but we don’t agree. We see the tunnel he wants to go down, but we don’t see the light. Despite many other commendable features, McCune’s volume will only aid this decline.

¹ Rolland McCune, A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity, Vol 1: Prolegomena and the Doctrines of Scripture, God, and Angels (Allen Park: Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, 2009), 443pp.

² Rolland McCune, Promise Unfulfilled: The Failed Strategy of Modern Evangelicalism (Greenville: Ambassador International, 2004).

³ Douglas Wilson, Mother Kirk (Moscow: Canon Press, 2001), 56.

⁴ A W Pink, The Divine Inspiration of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1961), 65.

⁵ Ivan Foster, "The Present Crisis in Northern Ireland (2 Timothy 3:10-17)," a sermon preached at the Congress of Fundamentalists at Foundations Theological Seminary, Dunn, North Carolina, on October 11, 2009, accessible from http://www.foundations.edu/online_material/online_audio/sermondetails.php?SermonID=8496.

Top / Back

© Far Eastern Bible College. All rights reserved.