|
TRINITARIAN BIBLE SOCIETY, VERBAL PLENARY
PRESERVATION, AND THE TEXTS UNDERLYING THE AUTHORISED VERSION
Paul Ferguson
Life BPC1
and others2 have been
arguing, in a most misleading manner, that the Trinitarian Bible Society
(TBS) position is in contradistinction/opposed to the position of VPP of
FEBC. Notwithstanding, that the TBS has issued no public statement to
this effect, let us compare the TBS official position with both Life BPC
and FEBC. All of the following quotations have been drawn from “The
Statement of Doctrine of Holy Scripture”3 issued
by “all the Members of the General Committee, the Vice-Presidents and
the General Secretary” in 2005. The TBS state very clearly that:
In conformity to God’s purpose, promise, and
command, faithful and accurate copies were made (Deuteronomy 17:18;
Proverbs 25:1) and, through God’s special providential care, His Word
has been preserved in all generations (Psalm 119:152; Matthew
5:18; 24:35; Luke 16:17; 1 Peter 1:25).4
The TBS also state in the Preface that they
hold to,
The Reformation Confessions such as the Westminster
(1647), the Savoy (1658), and the London Baptist (1689), state regarding
Scripture that, ‘The Old Testament in Hebrew, (which was the native
language of the people of God of old,) and the New Testament in Greek,
(which at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the
nations,) being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular
care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore
authentical… (WCF 1:8).
So we can conclude from these statements that the
TBS believe all the Words of God have been providentially preserved
“pure” and “in all ages.” Also, the preserving of these Words has been
done by God and not man so we cannot believe that this would be done
carelessly or by accident. We cannot play semantics and say that “pure”
only means really 99.9% as it can only rationally mean 100% and perfect
as the WCF state that it was done by God, who cannot err as any impurity
as “a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.” The question now is:
where does the TBS state the “pure Words of God are?” They say,
The Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles received the
preserved and standard Hebrew text of the Old Testament as Scripture
(Luke 4:16-19, 21; 2 Timothy 3:16). This serves as our pattern for
accepting the historically received text of the New Testament also as
Scripture (1 Timothy 5:18 cf. Luke 10:7; 2 Peter 3:15-16)… These
texts of Scripture reflect the qualities of God-breathed Scripture,
including being authentic, holy, pure, true, infallible, trustworthy,
excellent, self-authenticating, necessary, sufficient, perspicuous,
self-interpreting, authoritative and inerrant (Psalm 19:7-9, Psalm 119).
They are consequently to be received as the Word of God (Ezra 7:14;
Nehemiah 8:8; Daniel 9:2; 2 Peter 1:19) and the correct reading at
any point is to be sought within these texts.5
So, these “texts” are to be received the same way
Christ and the apostles received them i.e. as the perfectly preserved
and inspired Scripture (2 Tim 3:16), as they are “pure, true,
infallible, trustworthy, excellent, self-authenticating, necessary,
sufficient, perspicuous, self-interpreting, authoritative and inerrant.”
Therefore, we can safely conclude that the TBS believe that these
“texts” can be said to be the perfect 100% inspired Words of God. Now,
which “texts” are they referring to? The TBS state,
The Trinitarian Bible Society maintains that the
providentially preserved true and authentic text is to be found in the
Masoretic Hebrew and the Greek Received Texts. In so doing, it follows
the historic, orthodox Protestant position of acknowledging as Holy
Scripture the Hebrew and Greek texts consistently accessible to and
preserved among the people of God in all ages. These texts had
remained in common use in different parts of the world for more than
fifteen centuries and they faithfully represent the texts used in New
Testament times.6
So, the TBS state very clearly that the “true and
authentic text” is “found in the Masoretic and Received Texts,” but only
those from the Received text family. It adds a further limb of proof
here which is important as it must only be in those texts that are
“consistently accessible to and preserved among the people of God in all
ages.” This would appear to expressly rule out any such concept of a
“Majority Text” position that “preservation is throughout the ages in
all the extant manuscripts, versions and the citations by the Church
fathers.” However, how does the TBS define as the, “Masoretic Hebrew and
the Greek Received Texts?”
The Society accepts as the best edition of the
Hebrew Masoretic text the one prepared in 1524-25 by Jacob ben Chayyim
and known, after David Bomberg the publisher, as the Bomberg text. The
Greek Received Text is the name given to a group of printed texts,
the first of which was published by Desiderius Erasmus in 1516. The
Society uses for the purposes of translation the text reconstructed by
F.H.A. Scrivener in 1894.7
It should be noted carefully that the “Greek
Received Text” is defined by the TBS as “the name given to a group of
printed texts, the first of which was published by Desiderius Erasmus in
1516.” This clearly does not include any other so-called “Majority Text”
from any other Byzantine Family manuscripts that are extant today that
differ from any of the “printed texts.” We can only logically conclude
that the TBS only accept these “printed texts” as having the “true and
authentic text” of the “pure” Providentially Preserved Word of God.
Life BPC have tried to argue that the TBS statement
does not mean this and that the TBS allow latitude of interpretation in
that they believe all of the “Words of God” are preserved somewhere in
the extant manuscripts within the “Byzantine Text” family. However, the
TBS clearly state they only view the “printed texts” not the extant
manuscripts as the “Greek Received Text,” which they also state is
“definitive and the final point of reference in all the Society’s work.”
However, in a final and surely decisive blow to the Life BPC position,
the TBS also, in their definition of the “Majority Text,” expressly and
definitively rule out any such view as Biblically valid,
Majority Text: A text based on the majority
of manuscript witnesses. The Greek New Testament According to the
Majority Text, edited by Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad
(1982), is a modern example of the Majority Text. Although close to the
Received Text, there are a number of differences and some of these are
significant (e.g. John 7:53-8:11; Acts 8:36,37). Furthermore, as no
detailed collation of all surviving manuscripts has taken place, the
exact majority text cannot yet be determined; and even if one day
that became possible, the resultant text could only be provisional and
tentative, because the discovery of further manuscripts might change
minority readings to majority readings, or vice versa. The doctrine of
providential preservation, however, teaches that the Church is—and
always has been—in possession of the true text of Scripture.8
In other words, the TBS have adopted a
faith-based test for determining the exact words of Holy Scripture
which is “the doctrine of providential preservation, however, teaches
that the Church is—and always has been—in possession of the true
text of Scripture.” What the TBS are stating here is that there is no
further examination needed of extant texts within any of the textual
families as we already have the exact words of the autographs in the
“printed texts” of the “Greek Received Text.” In simple terms, it is
crystal clear to anyone who reads with an open mind, that the TBS
believe in VPP in the various editions of the printed Greek Texts of the
Textus Receptus! This is very different from the Life BPC
position that only holds to a nebulous and undefined view that “God has
fully preserved His Word in the body of manuscripts (or texts or copies)
after the original autographs were lost.”9
By contrast, FEBC state that:
The infallible and inerrant words of Scripture are
found in the faithfully preserved Traditional/Majority
manuscripts and fully represented in the Printed and Received
Text...that underlies the Reformation Bibles best represented by the
KJV.10
The TBS position, from the deductive and logical
analysis above can only differ from FEBC in one marginal aspect; that
they would change this statement to “fully represented in the Printed
and Received Texts,” as they state “the scope of the Society’s
Constitution does not extend to considering the minor variations between
the printed editions of the Textus Receptus.” It would also seem
logical that the TBS would probably lean more to the view of FEBC as no
doubt it makes more sense to assume that the KJV translators made the
right choices with the greater evidence before them in determining the
true text when comparing what the TBS say are “variations” that are “not
of great significance and rarely affect the sense”11 in
the various printed editions of the Received Text.12
Despite Life BPC accusations that FEBC is “divisive”
on this issue, the reality is that FEBC readily embraces the TBS
position as a legitimate interpretation and state,
FEBC concedes that others can differ with them “over
the absolute certainty as regards the underlying texts or words” but as
long as other VPP and KJV defenders “...maintain VPP in the lineage of
Byzantine/Majority manuscripts and the Textus Receptus...” and deny the
Westcott-Hort Text and also deny the existence of scribal errors,
“...slight differences of opinion over the verbally preserved
texts/words among KJV defenders should remain as non issues....”13
(4) Life BPC claim that the conviction of VPP, “is
not held by the majority of fundamental, Bible-believing institutions,
churches and writers.” Notwithstanding, that their distinctives of
Reformed Premillennial Presbyterianism is in a relative minority in
these categories and they do not consider that a problem, a quick survey
around the “Fundamentalist world” will show how worthless such an
observation is. For instance, in the USA, it is reckoned that the number
of independent Baptist churches is roughly 10,000 and most of these are
pro-KJV and VPP. We will list just a few examples:
(i) Crown College of the Bible and Temple Baptist
Church is an Independent Fundamental Baptist Bible College and Seminary
in Powell, Tennessee with more than 1,000 students. The founder and
President, Dr Clarence Sexton has spoken at many Free Presbyterian
Churches in Northern Ireland and is a close friend of Dr Ian Paisley and
have exchanged pulpits many times.14
The Reformers’ portraits line the halls of Temple Baptist Church.
In 2007, Dr Sexton gave the opening address to the Fundamental Baptist
Fellowship International (FBFI) Annual Fellowship.15 His
Church, Bible College and Seminary use the KJV exclusively and clearly
state in their “Statement of Faith” on the Scriptures that,
We believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New
Testaments to be the Bible, “as it is in truth, the Word of God...” (I
Thessalonians 2:13). We believe in verbal, plenary inspiration in the
original writings, and God’s preservation of His pure words to every
generation (II Timothy 3:16, Psalms 12:6-8). The Masoretic Text of the
Old Testament and the Received Text of the New Testament (Textus
Receptus) are those texts of the original languages we accept and use;
the King James Version of the Bible is the only English version we
accept and use.16
(ii) Pensacola Christian College has 4,500
undergraduate students and has recently appointed Dr Lloyd Streeter as
co-pastor of the Campus Church17 who
has published a book fully endorsing VPP in which he says,
We have no original language manuscripts for the
book of Job except those copied in A.D. 900 by Massorite scribes. That
is a gap of approximately 3000 years. Actually, we do not even know the
language in which Job was originally written. Think of it, dear reader –
3,000 years with no manuscripts? How would you know that Job is God’s
Word if you had to depend on ‘early manuscripts’? There is ONE way to
know and that is by faith. God said He would preserve His Word and He
kept His promise. … So it means absolutely nothing that there is a
“scarcity” of Greek manuscript evidence in the first several centuries
of church history. Our confidence is in the God of the Bible Who said
that He would not allow His words to fall by the wayside never to be
known to man again. Early copies were worn out and destroyed (especially
the best ones!) but the Word of God is indestructible and unalterable.
God always saw to it that the best copies were copied. The Holy Spirit
taught God’s people to know and keep the words of God. … Furthermore,
... trustworthiness of the King James Bible should be looked upon as a
winnowing or refining process extending from Tyndale through 1769. God
used such men as Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus, Tyndale, the translators of
the English versions which preceded the KJV, the translators of the KJV
itself, and those who corrected printing and spelling errors between
1611 and 1769.18
(iii) David Cloud runs the Way of Life
website ministry which has the largest list of subscribers and viewers
of any Fundamentalist ministry. Cloud receives 2,500 and more personal
letters and e-mails each month. Hundreds of Independent Baptist Churches
are associated with him and listed in his Directory of Churches.
(iv) Singapore has a number of Independent Baptist
Churches, listed in David Cloud’s Directory that are clearly VPP.19 For
instance, Shalom Baptist Church states, “We believe that God preserved
His Word in the Traditional Masoretic and Traditional Greek Text (the
Textus Receptus) and we hold the King James Version which is based on
these texts as the best English translation of the Bible.”
20
(v) The Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland clearly
embrace the TBS’ position that all the “Words of God” have been
preserved in the Received Text of the Textus Receptus editions. Speaking
of the WCF, they disagree with the Life BPC interpretation and state,
Note how the Confession emphasises “in all ages.”
The claim of biblical criticism is that manuscripts discovered over the
past 150 years which were not used or available to the Church in the
preceding 1500 years are more authentic than the standard text (often
called the Received Text) which form the vast majority of available
manuscripts which the Westminster Assembly spoke of as having been kept
pure in all ages. This text is witnessed to by the general consensus of
the Church in each generation. God has preserved the Scriptures down
through the ages for the salvation of men and the edification and
comfort of His church, not buried away secretly but publicly in the
usage of His Church. It is significant that Isaiah 59:21 speaks of
the Church’s continuous possession of the Word, this verse is, as John
Owen, put it, “the great charter of the Church’s preservation of truth.”
Any close consideration of the following verses will show that the
providential preservation taught in relation to the Word of God extends
beyond its doctrines to all of its words. Every word of the
Scriptures as originally given was fully inspired of God and in the same
way every word preserved by God is also fully inspired (See Matt. 5:18;
Matt. 24:35; Matt 28:20; Mark 13:31; Luke 16:17; Luke 21:33; 1 Cor
11:23; 1 Pet 1:25; Rev 22:18-19).
Any Church that holds fully to the teaching of the
Westminster Confession must recognise that the Bible teaches the full
providential preservation of the text of Scripture. Not least because
various parts of the wording and teaching of the Westminster Standards
depend on verses that are only in the Received Text and have
therefore been omitted in most modern versions (e.g. Matt. 6:13, 1 John
5:7). 21
(vi) Dr Ian Paisley is the Joint Chairman of the
World Congress of Fundamentalists and Founder of the Free Presbyterian
Church of Ulster. The Rev Dr Ian Paisley MP, in his book My Plea for
the Old Sword (KJV), wrote:
Divine Revelation plus Divine Inspiration plus
Divine Preservation equals the Divine Bible. These all, without
exception, cover the whole field of every Word of God. There is no such
thing as verbal Revelation without verbal Inspiration and there is no
such thing as verbal Inspiration without verbal Preservation. In
all cases it is not partial but plenary i.e. full, complete, perfect.
…
The Divine Revelation, put into writing the
verbally Infallible Scriptures through Divine Inspiration, must have
Divine Preservation in order to be available to all generations. The
verbal Inspiration of the Scriptures demands the verbal Preservation of
the Scriptures. Those who would deny the need for verbal Preservation
cannot be accepted as being really committed to verbal Inspiration. If
there is no preserved Word of God today then the work of Divine
Revelation and Divine Inspiration has perished.
In such a case any Bible is as good as any other.
Hence the multiplication and continuing changes of perverted English
versions of the Bible on the market today.
Those who believe in a partial preservation are
not much better. To say that God has preserved most of the Original
Scriptures but not them all, robs us of every Word of God. Therefore we
cannot live [by His every word, Matt 4:4]. This is but another way to
pen-knife God’s every Word.
Those who do not believe that God preserved His
Word are really going down the path of final rejection of that Book of
which the Lord Jesus Christ said, ‘The Word of God cannot be broken.’
Thank God, no potency can disintegrate this Rock.22
Dr Paisley went on to defend the VPP of Scripture in
the original languages and the KJV from Psalm 12:6-7:
Surely here we have the Doctrine of Divine
Preservation divinely revealed. The preserved Scriptures cannot be lost
or caused in any way to perish. As of the God who uttered them, so we
can say, ‘Thou remainest!’
It is interesting to note that the new Bibles
vary the words of Psalm 12:6-7 and so eliminate the testimony of that
verse to the Divine Preservation of the Scriptures. They insist that the
‘them’ of verse seven is not a reference to God’s words but to God’s
people … and destroy the text’s testimony to the Preservation of God’s
Word.
God’s providential preservation of His own Word
ensured that the true Scriptures were not hidden away in the library of
the Antichrist nor in a monastery of ‘Greek Catholic’ idolatry at the
time when Tyndale prepared his Bible. Faithful and true copies of the
originals were at hand for the Divine Bombshell (Tyndale’s translation
of God’s Holy Word into English) which would smash the Roman Antichrist.
He translated into English the Preserved Word of God, not the Perverted
Word of God.
A return to the Apostolic Gospel comes as a
result of Tyndale’s work. A return to the Apostate Gospel comes as a
result of the translation of Rome’s long hidden, perverted text and
other such perverted texts in the Modern Perversions of the Scriptures.
The Authorised Version translated into English
the Preserved Word of God and so preserved for the English speaking
peoples of the World, the Word of the Living God, the only infallible
Rule of Faith and Practice.23
It is clear from these quotes that Dr Ian Paisley
believes that the “true Scriptures” were only preserved in a “full,
complete, perfect” manner in the “true copies of the originals … at
hand” which gave us Tyndale’s Version and eventually the Authorised
Version. Will Life BPC denounce now the Joint Chairman of the World
Congress of Fundamentalists, Dr Ian Paisley as a “heretic?” Will they do
this also for the TBS, Crown College, Dr Clarence Sexton, Way of Life,
hundreds (if not thousands) of KJV-defending churches across the world,
and Dr Lloyd Streeter, co-pastor of the Campus Church at Pensacola
Christian College? Will they issue a statement banning all of these
groups from the premises of Life BPC for their “heresy?” In accordance
with Titus 3:10 and their claim to practise in their Constitution
“Ecclesiastical separation from all churches or groups of churches who
are doctrinally impure,” will Life BPC “reject” and separate from the
TBS, Dr Ian Paisley, the Free Presbyterians of Ulster and Scotland,
Crown College, Pensacola Christian College, and the World Congress of
Fundamentalists for promoting “heresy” and allowing “heretics” into
leadership.
It is axiomatic, from all of the evidence presented
above, that a “new formulation” of an historic doctrine is not
necessarily characteristic of “heresy.” It is also clear that Life BPC
have not even carried out the basic steps of collating the evidence
properly and analysing it objectively. This was the very evidence that
they used to act in a discriminatory, inconsistent and unbiblical manner
in their inflammatory and unjust action. Unless they retract we can only
conclude that they are simply willing to tolerate any view on
preservation, save that of FEBC.
In light of the above evidence, we can only plead
that Life BPC formally retract their visceral and clearly unfounded and
unbiblical accusations against their founding pastor, Dr Timothy Tow and
the Board of Directors of FEBC. Further delays will only compound the
great wrong of these terrible slurs and slanders, which as they
themselves stated, “brings no glory to God, and will only discredit the
Church of God”24 for the
infallible and perfect Scripture warns, “For with what judgment ye
judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be
measured to you again” (Matt 7:2).
Questions for Life BPC
These questions which I have modified for the Life
BPC context are based partly on some suggestions raised by Independent
Baptist author, Kent Brandenberg.25
(1) Do you believe it is possible that the
underlying text of the KJV in Hebrew and Greek is an exact 100% copy of
the autographs? If not, do you have a Scriptural framework and any
objective textual critical framework for rejecting so that we all can
“test” your bold assertions?
(2) How can you add or take away from something that
isn’t settled? In other words, what difference does Revelation 22:18, 19
make?
(3) How is the Bible considered perfect if there are
errors in it? If the errors aren’t related to the words, then what
difference does verbal inspiration make? What is the Scriptural basis
for errors in the Bible?
(4) Where does the Bible say there would be
sixty-six books? If it doesn’t say, then how do we know there are not
more or less? What are the reasons that Christianity rejected the
Apocrypha and accepted the book of Revelation?
(5) What is the pre-19th century
historic basis for the doctrine of the errancy of Scripture, that is,
the history of assuming that we don’t know what the Words are or that
there are errors in Scripture?
(6) What is the historic position on the
preservation of Scripture?
(7) What is your developed Scriptural position on
the doctrine of preservation that you have believed and believed before
you began examining textual criticism?
(8) What was Paul telling Timothy in 2 Timothy 3:16,
17 that was profitable for doctrine, correction, etc.? If every Word and
all of them was necessary for thoroughly furnishing us to every good
work, then how could we do that without all of them?
(9) When Jesus told us that man shall live by every
Word in Matthew 4:4, should we assume that He meant that we would not
have every Word?
(10) When something passes away like heaven and
earth will pass away, does that mean that it will disappear? If God’s
Words are not going to pass away or jots and tittles are not going to
pass away, does that mean that we are still going to possess them?
(11) Was the Critical Text available for believers
from c.1525-1825? If someone, like BJU believes that this “new” text is
closer to the autographs are they believing in “heresy” as their view is
also “infectious” and “divisive?”
(12) Does Scripture teach anywhere that man was
responsible for restoring a lost text?
(13) Can you show me physical, tangible evidence
that the Ben Chayyim Hebrew Masoretic and the Scrivener TR are not the
same words as the original manuscripts?
(14) How can a member of Life BPC be confident that
prophecies are being fulfilled literally today, if he does not have all
the words of the Bible available to him?
(15) Where does Scripture say that a miracle is a
greater and more thorough act of God than providence? Is something that
God does providentially less God than it is when God does something
miraculously?
(16) Can you prove that all the words of the
autographs were not available to the translators of the KJV as they were
consolidated into a printed edition?
(17) In light of Matthew 5:18, can you provide
any evidence that prior to Erasmus there was no agreement among the true
remnant church as to the “preserved text” to the degree of “jots and
tittles” having been preserved? Can you prove that all of the period of
time before 1611 all of the “words” were not in one place at one time?
(18) Which of the following positions reflect your
view?
(i) Every Word of God was inspired and has been
preserved and is available today.
(ii) Every Word of God was inspired, but we’re not
sure that every Word has been preserved.
(iii) Every Word of God was inspired and has been
perfectly preserved, but we’re not sure that every Word is available.
(iv) We don’t have every Word of God today, and we
may never have had it.
(19) What fundamental doctrine of Scripture and what
dangers to the Church is there from the consequences of believing that
God has perfectly preserved His Words today? Do you believe that doubt
in a perfect Bible is the less dangerous position? How would you prove
to a cult member or a non-believer that you have an infallible, inerrant
Bible?
(20) In light of Isaiah 59:21, “As for me,
this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon
thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out
of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of
thy seed’s seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever,” what
words have departed from the mouth of believers in 2008? When did “for
ever” end? Do you agree with John Owen who said on his commentary on
this passage that it means the “Words” of God, “shall always continue
with the church and her spiritual seed, such as are born in her, and
brought up by her, throughout all successive ages, and to the end of
time; and it may be observed, that after the conversion of the Jews, to
which this prophecy has a special regard, they shall no more apostatise?”
Do you agree with The Pulpit Commentary edited by H D M Spence
and Joseph S Exell whose exposition on this section says, “The Spirit
will be accompanied with certain “words” which will be put into the
Church’s mouth; and these words will remain unchanged and pass on from
mouth to mouth, age after age, for ever. The “words” intended are
probably those of the entire Bible—“all God’s revelations” (Cheyne)—which
the Church will maintain as inspired truth through all ages.”
(21) Where are all the extant manuscripts of the New
Testament? How does one look at every single one of them? Has Life BPC
elders ever studied any of them – if so, how many?
(22) Do you agree with Dr Martin Lloyd-Jones’ book,
God the Father, God the Son, when he says that miracles are a
sub-category of providence?
(23) Do Life BPC agree with Rev Tan Eng Boo of Grace
Bible-Presbyterian Church that “We have in our hands the perfect Word of
God…. We believe we have the perfect Bible, but not the perfect
version!” 26 If so, can they
state where this “perfect Bible” is?
(24) Do Life BPC believe God would providentially
lead Samuel to “let none of his words fall to the ground” (1 Sam 3:19),
yet He did today as we cannot find some of these Words? Does any Bible
version tell us that God would preserve His words “out there somewhere”
among thousands of variant readings and that it is up to the scholars,
who never agree with each other and keep changing their minds every few
years, to tell us where the true words of God might be found?
(25) If a member of Life BPC does not have access to
all the “Words of God” today, will God hold him accountable on the day
of judgment for rejecting and not receiving them (John 12:48) and not
keeping His commandments (Luke 16:10; Rev 22:14)?
(26) Who is preserving the Words of God today – God
or man?
(27) Can Life BPC identify absolutely all the Words
of God today? Could they explain how they could do this? Rev Charles
Seet said at Life BPC sanctuary in a sermon27 that
“The correct reading can be easily determined by comparing scripture
with scripture” so this should be a straightforward task.
(28) In light of 2 Peter 3:2 which say, “That ye may
be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets,
and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour” are
we excused of this as we do not have all these words?
(29) As “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the
word of God” (Rom 10:17), how can the members of Life BPC “earnestly
contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3)
if we do not have all of that faith?
(30) Life BPC stated28 in
respect of Matthew 24:35 that “The words of Jesus will continue to be
certain, valid and trustworthy even after the universe ceases to exist.”
Can a member of Life BPC know today that all the Words of Jesus are
“certain, valid and trustworthy” if they do not have them all?
(31) Life BPC stated29 in
respect of the words “kept pure in all ages” in the Westminster
Confession, “If they had truly written it with the intention of proving
perfect preservation of Scripture, more would have been written about
it.” Can they show us any evidence from the writings of any of the
Westminster Divines to prove that the basis of their interpretation of
this is correct?
(32) In light of the following quote in 1893 for
The Evangelist by E D Morris,30 expert
on the Westminster divines, who contributed to Philip Schaff’s
History of the Christian Church, do you believe that the
one-Bible-belief started in the 1970s or the mid-twentieth century?
As a Professor in a Theological Seminary, it has
been my duty to make a special study of the Westminster Confession of
Faith, as have I done for twenty years; and I venture to affirm that no
one who is qualified to give an opinion on the subject, would dare to
risk his reputation on the statement that the Westminster divines
ever thought the original manuscripts of the Bible were distinct from
the copies in their possession.
(33) In light of the following quote by Samuel
Rutherford, in A Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of
Conscience, in 1649, do you believe that we can separate the
teaching of Scripture from the actual Words?
Though the Letter of the Scripture be not the Word
alone, yet the Letter with the true sense and meaning of it, is the
Word.... So if ye destroy the Letter of the Scripture, you do destroy
the Scripture; and if you do deny the Letter, how is it possible that
you should attain to the true sense thereof, when the Sense lies wrapped
up in the Letters, and the words thereof?
We must say, we have not the clear and infallible
word of God, because the Scripture comes to our hand, by fallible means,
which is a great inconsequence, for through Scribes, Translators,
Grammarians, Printers, may all err, it followeth not that an
[un]-erring providence of him that hath seven eyes, hath not delivered
to the Church, the Scriptures containing the infallible truth of God.
(34) In light of the following quote by Richard
Capel, one of the divines, when he writes (Capel’s Remains,
London, 1658, pp 19-43), do you agree that God by His providence hath
preserved all the words “uncorrupt?”
[W]e have the Copies in both languages [Hebrew and
Greek], which Copies vary not from Primitive writings in any matter
which may stumble any. This concerns only the learned, and they know
that by consent of all parties, the most learned on all sides among
Christians do shake hands in this, that God by his providence hath
preserved them uncorrupt.... As God committed the Hebrew text of the Old
Testament to the Jews, and did and doth move their hearts to keep it
untainted to this day: So I dare lay it on the same God, that he in his
providence is so with the Church of the Gentiles, that they have and do
preserve the Greek Text uncorrupt, and clear: As for some scrapes by
Transcribers, that comes to no more, than to censure a book to be
corrupt, because of some scrapes in the printing, and ‘tis certain, that
what mistake is in one print, is corrected in another.
Notes
1
http://www.lifebpc.com/ourstand/godlypath.htm. So desperate are Life
BPC to buttress their misrepresentation of the TBS view that they have
resorted to citing A J Brown, former editorial secretary of the
Trinitarian Bible Society (TBS) in a 24-year-old document, “Faith and
Textual Scholarship”, TBS Quarterly Record (Oct-Dec 1984).
They have acted, at best, carelessly in failing to study the clear
statements of the latest “Statement of Doctrine of Holy
Scripture” by the TBS. This error is compounded when the TBS has
rejected the validity of the statements of A J Brown, as Mr David
Larlham, the Assistant General Secretary of TBS, recently wrote to Dr
Jeffrey Khoo of FEBC, “we would suggest that neither you nor the Rev.
Wong should place any such reliance upon the comments of Mr Andrew Brown
going back around 20 years.” David Cloud lists correspondence from Mr
Brown (www.wayoflife.org/articles/majoritytext.htm)
clearly endorsing the “Majority Text” position in the 1980s, but he
states that Mr Andrew Brown was “dismissed from the Trinitarian Bible
Society in 1991.”
2 http://www.truth.sg/tbsnonvpp.htm.
3 http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/statement.pdf.
4 Preface,
Section 4.
5 Section 6.
6 Note 1, page
6.
7 Note 3, page
6.
8 See
definition of “Majority Text” in Word List, 9.
9 http://www.lifebpc.com/ourstand/stmtfaith.htm.
10 Editorial,
The Burning Bush 12 (2006): 2.
11 “A Brief
Look at the Textus Receptus” in Appendix 3.
12 Indeed,
the TBS state in Appendix 2, (footnote 4) that “the Society believes
that the latest and best edition is the text reconstructed by F H A
Scrivener in 1894.”
13
The Burning Bush
12 (2006): 80.
14 http://www.wbir.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=31306.
15 http://www.fbfi.org/content/view/61/29.
16 http://www.thecrowncollege.com/Future/Faith.aspx.
17 http://www.pcci.edu/CampusChurch/PastorBios.html.
18 Lloyd
Streeter, Seventy-five Problems with Central Baptist Theological
Seminary’s Book “The Bible Version Debate” (LaSalle: First Baptist
Church, 2001), 98, 99, 104.
19 http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/churchdir/!churches.htm.
20 http://shalom-baptist.com/index.html.
21
http://www.fpchurch.org.uk/Beliefs/AuthorisedVersion.php.
22 Ian R K
Paisley, My Plea for the Old Sword: the English Authorised Version (KJV)
(Belfast: Ambassador, 1997), 102-3.
23 Ibid,
106.
24 http://www.lifebpc.com/ourstand/godlypath.htm.
25 http://www.kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com.
26 http://www.truth.sg/response/pborpv.htm.
27 Rev
Charles Seet, “The Word that Endures Forever,” preached at Life
Bible-Presbyterian Church on October 28, 2007.
28 http://www.lifebpc.com/ourstand/godlypath.htm.
29 Ibid.
30 Prof E D
Morris for decades taught the Westminster Confession at Lane Theological
Seminary in Cincinnati, Ohio.
Top
/ Back
|
