Should Believers Accept the Preservation of God’s Word(s)
by Faith,
or
by History & Science?
Submitted to:
Revised for
Heritage Baptist University
April 1998
By
Should Believers Accept The Preservation of God’s Word(s)
by Faith,
or
by History & Science?
What should be the believer’s approach to the Doctrine of Preservation of The Scriptures?
Hebrews 10:38 - 11:10
38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.
39 But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.
1 ¶ Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
2 For by it the elders obtained a good report.
3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
4 ¶ By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.
5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.
6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.
8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.
9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:
10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.
Introduction
If I go way back to my catechism years in the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, I can still hear the man
we called, Reverend Bentrup, say, “Every word of The Bible is true, whether we can explain or understand It,
because It is God’s Word.” That was a statement of faith, not history or science. It was to become what I have
adhered to as the basic principle of my approach to God’s Word, and all of the Doctrines which we derive from
God’s Word. It was because many within that synod of churches began to doubt that basic teaching that I chose
to break fellowship with that group. They stated such things as, “Jonah was not an historical individual.”
I have no
doubt that many within the fundamental Baptist camp, who even call themselves Biblicists, are following the same
teachers of Bible textualism and translation who were followed by those in the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod.
If one checks the history of the theology of the past 200 years, and checks to see who in the area of textualism and
translation was influential even to this day, it will be found that men who were anything but fundamentalist in their
doctrine are those who are being followed. My Bible believing Lutheran great grandfather, Michael John Krinke, fled
the effects of these men in Germany in the early 1860's in order to experience freedom of religion and freedom
of speech, as he put it to my grandfather, John Rudolf Krinke.
Those who, today, follow the German Higher Critical school in textualism and translation will, eventually
follow them in other areas of theology. All one must do to prove this is to look at GARBC approved Cornerstone
College in Grand Rapids (formerly Grand Rapids Baptist College). A professor who denies a Biblical eternal Hell who
is kept on the faculty is an open invitation to universalism (everyone is going to Heaven; if there is a Heaven). A
compromising position in one area is not going to be the only breach in Bible faith. Cornerstone recently had Dr.
Ronald Nash speak in chapel. Previously, Nash was quoted as stating, “Strictly speaking, the Bible does not teach the
inerrancy of its original contents.
” Cornerstone left a position of faith.
What do many modern day fundamentalist Baptist preachers and teachers have in common with many in
the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod of almost thirty years ago? Both groups have left, departed, abandoned,
forsaken, disowned the faith principle upon which the forefathers of their fellowships based the necessity of their
fellowship in favor of a set of purely naturalistic, humanistic principles. It matters little of the Doctrinal differences
between the two groups if the faith principle regarding The Foundation of True Faith, God’s Holy Word, is violated.
For both groups will further slide back into the dark and murderous shadows of the authority of the Harlot of Rome,
or some other pantheon of gods, when they leave The Authority of God’s Holy Word, Which promises to be our all
sufficiency in matters of Bible Doctrine.
If that sounds too radical, consider that once featured fundamental Baptist speaker and icon, Jerry Falwell,
in order to gain accreditation, ceased teaching Creationism some years ago as a science at Liberty University
(formerly Liberty Baptist University). Although that is old news, the real news is that as time has gone on, Dr. Falwell
has slid further and further into a liberalizing, compromising, neo-evangelical, and even ecumenical position.
What
is at issue in this forum is that Dr. Falwell had to consciously leave a Biblical position on the nature of God in
relation to God and His Creation to do what he did. Dr. Falwell left a position of faith. Leaving the faith principle in
the one area has led to a very slippery slope for Liberty University. Whether he left the faith principle for reasons
of conviction or for economic expedience, or some other reason is not as important as the fact that he did, indeed,
depart from the faith in this area. Also, leaving the faith principle in the area of Bible textualism and translation has
led to many areas of compromise and apostasy within the fundamentalist Christian community of churches and
para-church organizations. This can only lead down a steep and slippery slope to full apostasy.
Although today it is widely believed among textual critics that God has not preserved His Word(s), stating
that the history, so-called, and the science, so-called, of modern textual criticism has proven that God has not
preserved His Word, this erroneous belief completely ignores a Bible principle which is the very basis for calling
oneself a Christian; the faith principle. The faith principle commands man, concerning any issue of Doctrine, to first
and foremost predicate or base any study in any area of life or Doctrine upon what God very directly states in His
Holy Word. To ignore, and even deny the existence of the Bible promise of the Theocratic Preservation of The
Scriptures is the same as ignoring any other Bible Doctrine.
The Roman Catholic Church denies the faith principle in the plain finding of Scripture in the definition of “what is a saint.” They make the defining of a saint of a very grotesque nature by putting man (the church hierarchy) as the determiner of who is a saint. According to what The Scriptures say about sainthood, man does not determine sainthood. The Scriptures define a saint as anyone who is a member of God’s family by faith in The Gospel of Christ. The Roman Catholic Church does not use The Scriptures as the Authority in such matters, so using the faith principle is not a consideration when assessing their position.
So also, the modern textual critics and translators deny the faith principle by wildly erratic, inconsistent, ever changing, and subjective criteria say that they are the determiners of what is God’s Preserved Word and what is not God’s Preserved Word. Instead of God’s very plain promises of the Preservation of The Scriptures being the measure, the canon, or the authority in this matter, modern critics say that they are the determiners, ignoring what God plainly says concerning the subject. They fail to recognize God’s Hand of Providence over the centuries in the provision of vast evidence of a Theocratically Preserved Word. Although they claim to use history to determine whether God or man has the duty to preserve God’s Word, they are very selective as to what history they utilize; largely ignoring early Church lectionaries and Scripture quotations of the early Church fathers which would disprove their narrow, humanistic, non-faith based criteria and presuppositions for research. They lump the vast majority of manuscript evidence into a tiny package they call less trustworthy than their proven corrupt Alexandrian texts.
This ignoring of the faith principle has caused erroneous doctrinal assertions regarding the nature of The Doctrine of Preservation of The Scriptures. The Hort and Westcott Theory of Textualism, upon which all new Bible versions are based, denies the very existence of The Doctrine of the Theocratic Preservation of The Scriptures. The fact that the Hort and Westcott edition of The Greek New Testament is vastly different than the Textus Receptus which history proves existed in vast majority status for 1800 years before Hort and Westcott’s Text shows a primary disregard for The Doctrine of Preservation of The Scriptures.
• Their theory (Hort and Westcott) of textualism states that no consideration of faith (no Biblical presuppositions) may be used in determining the best Greek New Testament text.
• Their theory of textualism states that the more grammatically incorrect a reading of the text is, the more probable that it is more accurate to the Original Text. If God gave The Word, then God is responsible for the grammatical accuracy in usage; therefore Hort and Westcott must have believed that God’s Holy Spirit did not know proper usage of the Greek grammar. However, what is more probable is that Hort and Westcott did not believe that The Scriptures were as much a God generated Document, than a man generated document.
• To demonstrate this theory that readings with poorer grammar are the better to use, they said that if an alternate reading was too smooth and grammatically accurate, it had been corrected at some point by copyists.
• Their theory of textualism states that although the vast amount of evidence is not in agreement with their theory, they conveniently box all evidence that disagrees with them into a tiny category of insignificant weight, thus making only their “approved” evidence “the best texts”. Dishonest weighting can only make dishonest assertions.
Modern textualists have followed in the pattern of Hort and Westcott in disparaging The Doctrine of Preservation of The Scriptures.
God supernaturally interfered with the normal human processes in the writers of Old and New Testaments to guarantee the
accuracy of His message in syllabic detail ... With regard to preservation, however, no Scripture explicitly declares anything of
this sort of guidance to apply to the manuscript copyists as far as the precise wording of the text is concerned [emphasis
added].
No Scripture that I know of uses the words, “manuscript copyist(s),” but there is ample Scripture to support that God supernaturally has and does guide men to insure that His promises of preservation of The Scriptures is carried out. Although it is not currently within the ability of men, today, or at any time in history to lay out an item by item lineage, this does not prove that God has not preserved The Scriptures to this generation. Men simply have not found the evidence. Obviously, The Lord would have men to have faith in His Promise of a Preserved Word simply because He promised. Nowhere in the neo-textualists’ basis or foundation of study is found the faith principle. One can find, however, evidence that neo-textualists abhor the faith principle.
Although Pickering has avoided an excessive reliance on theological presuppositions in his presentation, it is nevertheless clear
that a theological presupposition essentially undergirds his entire purpose.
Schnaiter’s term “theological presuppositions” is a camouflaged way of saying “Bible Doctrines.”
Another contemporary teacher of many current and new professors within militant Baptist seminaries says,
In sum, a theological a priori has no place in textual criticism. Since this is the case, it is necessary to lay aside fideism in dealing
with the evidence.
Wallace is saying this under the subtitle “The Doctrinal Underpinnings of the Traditional Text Theory.” He is saying that Doctrinal presuppositions are not allowed in the study of textualism of The Bible. Wallace’s “theological a priori” is the same as Schnaiter’s “theological presuppositions.” Wallace’s “fideism” is a sneaky way of saying the word, “faith,” to those who do not know the Latin (which are most preachers, today, including this writer). Why did Wallace not say, “faith?” It is refreshing when someone comes out and actually clearly says what one means. Sadly, they hide their view and disdain of the Doctrine of Faith in the occult language of academia until it is too late to correct the errors. When someone reveals that what they are really saying is an attack on Bible faith, they can counter that they have been saying the same things for decades, and no one disagreed with them, so it must be right.
What such men who speak in this manner do not do is give God’s Holy Word the benefit of the doubt; they do not exercise the faith principle. The fact that they try to hide this fact in occult and obscure language of the theological laboratory shows that they probably know exactly what they are doing, which is to lay a foundation upon which many will eventually stumble over the truths of God’s Holy Word.
Using Science, So-called, As The Criteria for Doctrine - Does Science Produce Faith?
Creation versus Evolution
Do we believe what secular science says until Bible believing scientists prove that evolutionary science
has
some major problems in producing a workable scientific model? Science, properly administered, can produce
knowledge to a point. Science can develop systems of explaining various phenomena in the Universe. However, as
secular science’s adulation of various forms of Darwinism, and consummate hate of the very idea of Creationism,
especially a young Earth, science has demonstrably fallen short of being able to keep their hate of God out of their
science, so-called. However, who would have believed that after a strong Creationism has been ably defended by
science, as well as The Scriptures, that Darwinism is rearing its grotesque head in allegedly Christian institutions?
Dr. Henry Morris, in one of the Creation Research Institute’s newsletters, has lamented the sad occurrence of some
form of evolutionary beliefs existing in almost all those educational higher learning places which call themselves,
evangelical. What has happened to the faith principle in these colleges? On the Internet much heresy abounds, but
the following is an example of who supports some of it. I am sure you may find it in your local Christian bookstore.
A New Look at an Old Earth: What the Creation Institutes Are Not Telling You About Genesis
By Don Stoner, With a Foreword by Dr. Hugh Ross.
[endorsements follow]
"I wish to congratulate Don Stoner for his courage and compassion in producing this excellent work. Courage because, though accurate, his views run contrary to popular fundamentalist dogma. Compassion because he cares for intelligent people who have experienced unbearable tension straddling scientific discovery and young earth theories produced by people who claim there is only one way to interpret the biblical data - their way. As Roman Catholic Cardinals were afraid to look into Galileo's telescope for fear of what they might discover, some closed-minded Christians may choose not to take a look at A New Look at an Old Earth. But those who do look are likely to find an important truth about our universe."
Chuck Smith Jr., Sr. Pastor, Calvary Chapel of Capo Beach
"In the book, he presents evidence and arguments showing that the 'young-earth position is incompatible with the scientific evidence which God's creation provides' ... Advocates of the young-earth position may not be convinced by Stoner's arguments against their view and his arguments for the old-earth position, but they need to read his book."
Dr. John A. Witmer, Archivist, Dallas Theological Seminary
The position that God’s Creation provides evidence of incompatibility with a young Earth is Biblically ludicrous, but scientifically sound. Which do you choose to follow? It should be no problem to have those in the fundamental camp following this new thought which is not new within just a few years. I would be astonished if some were not already following the neo-Darwinism of [c]hristianity.
As has been ably stated by someone, “The Bible is not a science book, but whatever The Bible states concerning science is true.” Therefore, if science and The Bible disagree, guess who is wrong. The Scriptures do not say in vain, “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science [gnw,sij] falsely so called:1Ti 6:20. The faith principle is the only Bible way to resolve such conflicts;
Isaiah 28:13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken. 14 ¶ Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.
By application to the matter at hand, it is my opinion that those who might fall backward, be broken, and snared, and taken are those of the intellectual head of Christian higher education who refuse to exercise the faith principle in all spiritual matters. The people who ruled Jerusalem, those who refused to live by the faith principle, were those who hounded and murdered the true prophets of God, as Cain slew Abel.
Using History, So-called, As The Criteria for Doctrine - Does History Produce Faith?
Nineveh versus no Nineveh
Do the disciplines of history and archaeology produce faith?
An associate of Zola Levitt was interviewing
a Jewish archaeologist in Israel concerning the dig of an ancient city destroyed by immense heat. During the
conversation the Levitt associate asked the question of the archaeologist whether or not archaeological finds had
done much to validate Scripture in the minds of skeptics as to what The Scriptures state concerning the finds; often
the very existence of the site is highly doubted prior to the find, let alone any assertions made about the site by The
Scriptures. The archaeologist stated that, indeed, many had come to more confidence in The Scriptures because
of what historical science had found. This revealed to me, immediately, that this could be the crux of the downgrade
of the faith principle in fundamental Christian circles. When someone does not have full confidence in what The
Scriptures state concerning a matter of history, science, or Doctrine until humanly discovered facts reveal the truth
of the matter, that individual is not a person of faith, but sight. That individual, in the element under consideration,
is a modern day “doubting Thomas,” whom The Lord Jesus did not commend for faith. The Lord Jesus did not
consider it an honor to be glorified by a man who had refused to glorify Him by faith, before the man saw with his
eyes the evidence of The Risen Lord.
Until men found the ruins of Nineveh, some men who professed Christianity believed The Scriptures where it referred to the existence of Nineveh; some men who professed Christianity did not believe of the city’s existence until the archaeologists’ spades uncovered it. Many supposedly Christian theologs followed the historians of their day rather than follow what The Scriptures plainly stated concerning Nineveh. It is probably certain that the “best” scholars and “best” colleges and seminaries of that day taught as truth what was erroneously and Bible denyingly being stated by historians. That did not mean that Nineveh did not exist until it was found. As certain as the Bible doubting attitude of many theologians of that day would have been the certainty of many so-called unsophisticated believers who simply believed all along that Nineveh existed as The Scriptures simply proclaimed. One can cite The New Testament quotes of The Lord Jesus to bolster the Bible believer’s view of Nineveh and Jonah. However, if only the Book of Jonah gave evidence of their existence prior to the archaeological dig, the individual living by the faith principle must accept the historicity of Nineveh and Jonah, or they are guilty of denying God’s Holy Word. The sadness is multiplied because those who chose not to believe prior to agreement by naturalistic history, had to, also, disbelieve The Lord Jesus.
The lack of evidence of the existence of an exact textual lineage bothers many within what is commonly called, the fundamentalist camp. For over one hundred years they have been looking, searching, investigating the textual archives, trying to find The Word of God. They cannot seem to find The New Testament; they cannot seem to find The Old Testament. They think they are on the right track, but one man’s opinion is as good as another in this eclectic exercise. What historical textual data put the blood of The Lord Jesus back in Colossians 1:14 in the last Nestle-Aland version of The Greek New Testament after an absence since the Hort and Westcott edition of over 100 years ago? Did someone find it in Scrivener’s TR? Did the pressure of folks of faith, not limited to, but such as The Dean Burgon Society coerce them to add back some precious words of our God?
What bothers me is that the neo-textualists refuse to simply allow God’s Holy Word to be their Authority in this matter, especially since most would state they believe God’s Word to be the Authority in matters of faith and practice. They appear to be being less than candid concerning what they really believe concerning matters of faith and practice. For how can God’s Word be their Authority if, in their minds, The Preserved Word does not exist, today, for everyday practical use? What the neo-textualist insists is that one may not use The Scriptures to support the Doctrine of Preservation of The Scriptures. He insists that one forget all that one, over the decades of one’s life, has been taught by The Scriptures, Themselves, and put oneself at the mercy of the neo-textualist exegete, that he might fully expunge or exorcize all faith in this Promise of God.
At this point I ask you, the reader, to take a Bible and check in your own text the verses we will discuss. I also ask you to remove
from your mind all your preconceived ideas about the biblical teaching on the preservation of Scripture and let the Bible,
interpreted in context, be the final judge concerning this doctrine.
[emphasis added]
The question should be, “Do you want to trust the exegesis of someone who has a naturalistic bias regarding Bible Preservation?” Theodore P. Letis, in the preface of Hills’ book, states that preconceptions are a fact of life in the study of any issue. The question should be, “Should a believer give God’s Word the benefit of any doubt when entering a study concerning God’s Word?” The question should be, “How can you refuse to use Scriptural presuppositions as The Foundation of your study of textualism if you say you are a Christian?”
. . . [I]t should be out of the question to engage in the textual criticism of the Scriptures in a "neutral" fashion—as if the Bible
were not what it claims to be . . . Whether one realizes it or not, one makes a decision for or against God at the beginning, middle,
and end of all one's investigating and thinking. [Letis goes on] . . .All along the line it is necessary to insist, as Hills does, that
‘Christian, believing Bible study should and does differ from neutral, unbelieving Bible study.’ He is quite correct when he reminds
us that ‘to ignore...the divine inspiration and providential preservation of the New Testament and to treat its text like the text of
any other book is to be guilty of a fundamental error which is bound to lead to erroneous conclusions.’ (The New Testament
Student Vol. 5,1982 pp. 5-6).
One of the real problems is that there is no “neutrality” when dealing with God’s Word.
An eclectic Bible version which one man possesses differs with the different eclectic Bible version of another man; both men cannot possess The Preserved Word, for God has only One Bible. If the words of those versions are translated or transliterated from varying original language texts, the very words of the translations must vary. God has only One Bible; God’s Words are not changed from day to day, or generation to generation. In today’s textualism, it is certain that both men cannot possess The Preserved Word, for they have forgotten, or have been ignorant of the faith principle regarding what is God’s Word.
If the critics had confined themselves to only the variances in the Majority family of evidence it would be one thing, but the prevailing view of modernistic textualism is essentially the same as the German Higher Critical school, which culminated in the work of Hort and Westcott. This view, in short, is that:
• Erasmus was a bad scholar as he compiled his Textus Receptus; thus, the TR is a bad document; (the only
man of whom it was said since his day, that “he knew all that there was to know”). It is not likely that even
with much reference material on computer today’s scholars could begin to know and follow in kind what
Erasmus knew and accomplished. Much of today’s myths concerning Erasmus’ lack is just myth, not fact.
But as Michael Maynard has revealed
, the neo-textualists continue to repeat exploded myths concerning
Erasmus.
Conclusion
Many other observations could be made concerning what the German Higher Critics wrought through their students, Hort and Westcott, others of that generation on both sides of the Atlantic, and sadly, those of this generation, who we would formerly think of as “those of like faith.” These latter individuals have taken the little used torch of their teachers and have started a forest destroying fire in a spiritually dry land in which the people are prone to “. . . heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; {2Tim 4:3}.” For which of their quoted teachers and mentors, but only behind closed doors, or whispered in graduate classes, would have said they were not out to destroy the King James Version, but then go on to attack it in a most vile manner? Today, the attack on King James Bible is being done quite openly in most avenues of graduate theology by those who call themselves fundamentalists and Biblicists.
What standard should be used in the discussion of which approach to textualism and translation is better? If the faith principle is forbidden from use in textual studies, there can be no discussion, for that is the foundational criteria of the TR/KJB position. The WH/Poly Version flock, in my opinion, are mostly willingly ignorant of what is very obviously God’s wonderful promises of the Preservation of His Word to all generations, not in thought or idea, but Word for wonderful Word. Their principle is that man is the measure (the canon) of all things textual. History and science can provide much data for drawing many enlightening findings about the evidences, however, without faith it is impossible to draw a Biblically, and thus an ultimately historically and scientifically correct conclusion, for God has not chosen to provide any smoking gun evidences which will prove in a scientific or historical sense either position. But I would not want to stand before God and explain to Him why I did not just choose to believe that His Promises were enough for me. I do not want to say that I did not have faith in the “things not seen” referred to in Hebrews 11:1, for the “things not seen” are the things if which I do not have faith concerning, I shall be rightly perceived by God to be without faith! And if I am perceived by God to be without faith, God’s Soul shall have no pleasure in me, according to Hebrews 10:38.
We all have a choice as to whether or not to exercise the faith principle.
6. Living by faith versus living by the intellect. (secular science, humanly recorded history)
7. Living by faith versus living by logic. (secular science, humanly recorded history)
8. Living by faith versus living by rationalism. (secular science, humanly recorded history)
9. Living by faith versus living for peer acceptance. (secular science, humanly recorded history)
10. Living by faith versus living by an inaccurate Doctrinal statement. (secular science, humanly recorded history)
11. Living by faith versus living by the fleshly mind. (secular science, humanly recorded history)
You may add any number of other faith versus ‘whatever’ options.
Faith does not require sight; what is seen does not require faith. The Lord Jesus asks the question, “. . . Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?” [Luke 18:8] The expected answer is not encouraging.
Charismatics deride Biblicists who rely on The Scriptures, alone. Charismatics castigate them because the
Biblicists reject the charismatics’ new-revelation ministries. Their divergent approach to Scriptural authority is easily
understood; they do not believe in Scripture, alone, as their foundation to ministry. Thus, Biblicists and charismatic
are opposed to one another’s approach. However, why is it true that many who claim to be Biblicists ridicule those
who use sola Scriptura as the first principle of looking at all Doctrinal issues, including all areas of Bibliology,
including textualism? Many advocates of new translations based upon the faithless product of the new textualism
are strong advocates of separation. If that is true, then why do they advocate using the textual product of Roman
Catholics and post modernists, who compile all of the ever changing texts of Nestle-Aland, and the United Bible
Society? Could it be possible they are unknowingly committing spiritual adultery with the coming “great whore that
sitteth upon many waters?”