|
|
 | | From: | admin | | Subject: | The Believing frame of Reference- #3 | | Date: | Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:50:58 GMT |
|
|
 | This a continuing post from the Book "Which Version is the
Bible" by Floyd Nolen Jones. Chapter 8, pages 113-120
Which Version is the Bible?
Copyright 1995 · Floyd Jones Ministries, Inc.
All Rights Reserved. This book may be freely reproduced in any form as long
as it is not distributed for any material gain or profit.
Shortly after his return from Leipzig, the Westcott-Hort text was published
(1882). Benjamin B. Warfield gave it a review that would forever endear it
to conservatives in the United States. Philip Schaff, himself an
accomplished textual scholar, was so impressed with Warfield's elucidation
of the Westcott-Hort method of "genealogy" that he invited Warfield to
explain it in his Companion To The Greek Testament And English Version. This
was tantamount to elevating Warfield to the first rank in this discipline in
America.
John Burgon, a high Anglican priest but opposed to ritualism, spent most of
his adult life at Oxford. Burgon, who eventually became the Dean of
Chichester, viewed Westcott and Hort in a much different light. He saw them
as guilty of importing the apostate German method into the British Isles.
Warfield despised Burgon, an irony as they were fellow inerrantist, because
he relied on theology to interpret textual data. Indeed, this is the correct
world view, frame of reference and approach that the Christian should bring
to every issue of life. To the contrary however, Warfield felt that the
faithful should follow the same method as did the "Enlightenment" scholars,
treating Scripture as any other piece of literature, without reference to
either its inspiration or uniqueness. Thus Warfield took every opportunity
to discredit Burgon's theological arguments in order to distance modern
Presbyterians from the suspicion of resisting "scientific" scholarship by an
appeal to theology.
Having been encouraged by A.A. Hodge to defend the Princeton view of verbal
inspiration against an attack by the critical theories of Charles S. Briggs,
Warfield found himself on the horns of a dilemma. His challenge was to act
as champion and come to the rescue of Princeton in response to Briggs and
other critics and still protect his own reputation as an emerging future
authority in text criticism. Yet text criticism was the one discipline which
seemed to undermine the Princeton view of verbal inspiration more than any
other! Warfield had become a contradiction. While admitting on the one hand
that in text critical matters the Bible was as any other literature,
Warfield had to contend that it was still the verbally inspired Word of God.
For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God (John 12:43).
This was a demanding task indeed, but not intellectually beyond Warfield's
abilities. Warfield's solution was to shift his doctrine of inerrancy to
include only the original autographa; no longer holding to the belief in the
inerrancy of the Bible of the Reformers, the Traditional Text. Thus he moved
that if the locus of providence were now centered in restoration via
"Enlightenment" textual criticism, rather than preservation of the
traditional texts, then we need not concern ourselves with the criticisms
lodged at the text of Scripture presently (and historically!) used in the
Church. This posture allowed Warfield to actually join with the critics of
the Princeton position as God's agents (or as some view it, as prophets) in
the task of restoring the inerrant original.
HOW THE CONSERVATIVE SEMINARIES WERE CORRUPTED Year after year,
Enlightenment critics wore down the orthodox Calvinist and other
conservatives by pointing out the many discrepancies (variant readings)
within the textual data. Warfield proved untrue to his original goal and
finally abandoned the scholastic, creedal approach. He determined that if
text criticism - German Enlightenment text criticism - could be separated
from the higher criticism that fathered it, with common sense at the helm,
it could lead the Church safely to the goal. Moreover, if errors and
"corruptions" within our present copies could be acknowledged, then perhaps
just around the corner lay the pristine autographa waiting to be restored by
God's good Providence. Yet textual criticism invariably leads to higher
criticism in rejecting eventually the historical and miraculous in God's
Word. The denial of this point has allowed the promotion of the many modern
translations over the past century. It is a myth that text criticism is
harmless to faith.
For the early Princetonians, authority had rested in the providentially
preserved text which had been employed by the Church throughout its history,
that same text having been used by the Spirit of God to bring about the
Reformation. It was B.B. Warfield who brought the Enlightenment to
Princeton. The following quote depicts the
|
|
| | From: | admin | | Subject: | Re: The Believing frame of Reference- #4 | | Date: | Thu, 25 Nov 2004 04:34:24 GMT |
|
|
| This is the end of Chapter #8, a continuing post from the Book "Which
Version is the Bible" by Floyd Nolen Jones. Chapter 8, pages 113-120 Which
Version is the Bible? Copyright 1995 · Floyd Jones Ministries, Inc. All
Rights Reserved. This book may be freely reproduced in any form as long as
it is not distributed for any material gain or profit.
depths of the deception into which he plunged after his return from Leipzig,
a deception which has greatly aided in the satanically guided move to bring
us back to the Roman Catholic "Bible" and - eventually - to the Pope.
"I have been surprised, in comparing the Revised Testament with other
versions, to find how many of the changes, which are important and valuable,
have been anticipated by the Rhemish (Roman Catholic) translation, which now
forms a part of what is known as the Douay Bible. ... And yet a careful
comparison of these new translations with the Rhemish Testament, shows them,
in many instances to be simply a return to this old version, and leads us to
think that possibly there were as finished scholars three hundred years ago
as now, and nearly as good apparatus for the proper rendering of the
original text." (author's emphasis and parenthesis). Soon after Warfield's
death in 1921, higher criticism entered Princeton and the Seminary was
reorganized in 1929 to more fully accommodate critical thought. The facile
certainty that Westcott and Hort's system seemed to offer Warfield vanished
as later text critics abandoned the notion of being able to reconstruct a
"neutral" text based on Codices B and A. "Eclecticism" (which has long
despaired of discovering an archetypal, autographic text - apparently
because in their judgment, no such entity ever existed!) became the standard
approach in text criticism, and it dominates to this hour.
The adoption of the German methods and the reorganization of Princeton are
part of Warfield's legacy. Another part of his legacy is that his position
on inerrancy was continued through the godly professors whose lives he had
influenced such as Robert Dick Wilson, J. Gresham Machen, Oswald Allis, and
Cornelius Van Til. These all left Princeton at the 1929 reorganization and
went on to establish Westminster Theological Seminary. Tragically, they
carried with them Warfield's warped reinterpretation of the Westminster
Confession which professes the "scientific" text criticism of Westcott and
Hort as God's means of eventually "restoring" the autographic text. As a
result, Westminster Seminary soon became "frozen in time".
The cancer of Warfieldian inerrancy spread rapidly from Princeton throughout
the ranks of the Presbyterians. From there it continued to infect other
conservative groups. During the early part of the 20th-century the Southern
Baptists adopted Westcott and Hort through the person of their greatest
Greek scholar, A.T. Robertson. Robertson greatly admired Warfield and
succumbed to his beliefs on text criticism. In 1925, Robertson dedicated his
handbook "to the memory of B.B. Warfield". To this very day, the poison
continues to infiltrate and dominate all conservative circles. Truly, "a
little leaven leavens the whole lump."
|
|
| | From: | admin | | Subject: | Re: The Believing frame of Reference- #5 | | Date: | Thu, 25 Nov 2004 04:34:40 GMT |
|
|
| Post #5- the end of Chapter 8- The believing frame of Reference
This a continuing post from the Book "Which Version is the Bible" by Floyd
Nolen Jones. Chapter 8, pages 113-120 Which Version is the Bible? Copyright
1995 · Floyd Jones Ministries, Inc. All Rights Reserved. This book may be
freely reproduced in any form as long as it is not distributed for any
material gain or profit
The reason that this wicked compromise began and goes on unabated, is that
brilliant Christian scholars have refused to humble their intellects -
placing their own education and intellect above the promises of God and
historic Church creeds on inerrancy. All too many find themselves unwilling
to stand in simple faith alongside the dauntless Reformers, Burgon, Miller,
Hoskier, Nolan, Hills, Van Bruggen, Fuller, Pickering, D.A. Waite, Green,
Letis, Moorman, etc., as well as many other men of God over the past
centuries - wishing instead to be admired by their peers as "progressive",
"informed", and "abreast of the latest scientific approaches". The vast
majority thereby blindly supports the "restoration" position.Though at first
the reader may be taken aback by the following, let him read it over several
times until it be comprehended. We are not interested in anything concerning
the "originals" or "autographs". God saw fit to destroy the original
autograph of the tables of stone upon which the Ten Commandments were
inscribed, as well as the second tables. Moreover, He allowed wicked King
Jehoiakim to cut up and burn the "original autograph" given to Jeremiah and
written by Baruch while at the same time the Lord preserved the original
text without error (Jer.36, esp. vv. 22-23, 28 and 32). Nor are we waiting
in anticipation for some archaeologist or textual critic to "find and
restore" to the Church the "original" text. In certain faith in God's many
promises to preserve His Holy Word, we know that we already have these ten
"Living Words" exactly as the Lord gave them to Moses, as well as those of
Jeremiah etc. Were we to discover the "original", by faith we know that it
would read exactly as we have had preserved for us in the TR/KJB.
Likewise, it is God Himself as Sovereign Lord and King who was pleased in
His wisdom to destroy the autographs of the N.T. Thus, it is tempting God
and sinful for us to say that there were (and can still be obtained via text
critical techniques) autographs better and more reliable than the
Providentially Preserved Bible that we have today. We are not, therefore,
interested in any discussion or so-called scholarship which seeks to
"uncover" what the originals were like. It is His preserved Bible that is
the Word of God, not the autographs. The autographs were the infallible Word
of God. As they no longer exist, they cannot be the Word of God - for God
has promised that He would preserve His Word forever.
Nearly everyone who invokes the autographs does so to alter (and thus
pervert) the Providentially preserved Scriptures. Most men and/or
institutions that claim to embrace the "Doctrine of Inerrancy," do so
intending it to apply only to the "originals". In so doing, they have
embraced Warfield's perverted version and definition of "inerrancy". Such
men and/or institutions lay claim to faith in "inerrancy," but have no
doctrine of Providential Preservation and thus they are still - sad to say -
looking for (or attempting to restore) the inerrant autographs. It is
deceitful for pastors to hold high the Bible and proclaim "I believe God's
Word is inspired from cover to cover" while saying under one's breath, "in
the autographs". To maintain that we must have the autographs today in order
to be certain of the text is as imprudent and needless as to insist that we
require the cup from which Christ drank before communion can be rightly
celebrated.
Thus, whereas we aver and asseverate that the "originals" were "inspired"
(Greek = qeopneusto" = theopneustos = inspired by God or God breathed) and
inerrant, we cannot subscribe to the modern version of the "Doctrine of
Inerrancy" as it embodies only the "originals" whereas it excludes
Providential preservation of the original text. The "Doctrine of Inerrancy"
must be recognized by the Church as un-scriptural, untrue, tainted,
prostitute, and depraved - a Canaanite idol - as it, in its current
Warfieldian form, holds only to a non-existent entity.
Moreover, it is MADNESS to attempt to attain something that one already has
as his possession. Hours upon wasted hours of study and research have
methodically been carried out, not only by lost apostates and liberals,
but - sadly - by brilliant conservative fundamentalists attempting to
produce that which we have had as our deposit all along - the infallible,
inerrant Word of the Living God, as He Himself promised. Oh Christian, gird
up the loins of your mind - make bare the arm!
And it is easier for heaven and earth topass, than one tittle of the law to
fail. Luke 16:17
|
|
| | From: | admin | | Subject: | Re: The Believing frame of Reference- #1 | | Date: | Wed, 24 Nov 2004 05:40:43 GMT |
|
|
| Post #1
This a continuing post from the Book "Which Version is the Bible" by Floyd
Nolen Jones. Chapter 8, pages 113-120 Which Version is the Bible? Copyright
1995 · Floyd Jones Ministries, Inc. All Rights Reserved. This book may be
freely reproduced in any form as long as it is not distributed for any
material gain or profit
VIII. THE BELIEVING FRAME OF REFERENCE THE CHURCH'S HISTORICAL TEXT Of
course, by faith we know that we do not have to wait for such a meticulous
lengthy undertaking as described in the previous chapter (see pp.
30 ff.) to be completed in order for us to finally possess the original
text. By faith, the child of God knows that he already has the Word of God
at his disposal. A study of the history of the transmission of the
Scriptures from their having been deposited by the Lord into the hands of
man will further serve to strengthen that faith; yet such a study will not
completely prove beyond all doubt that this is so. This cannot be over
emphasized, for unless we come by faith to a commitment that God has kept
His promises and providentially preserved His Word in the Textus Receptus
itself and not merely in the Greek majority readings, the final form of the
text will forever be unsettled in our hearts. The natural, rational mind
resents this method. However the pitfalls apart from such a theological
approach are many and dangerous. The late Dr. Edward F. Hills is
consistently Christian and perceptive in his logic when he addressed this
matter regarding its relation to higher education. "We must make God and
Jesus Christ His Son the starting point of all our thinking. But how can we
do this on the graduate level at a theological seminary or a university? How
can we know for example, whether the King James Version is a correct
translation or not? Don't we have to rely on dictionaries, such as
Brown-Driver-Briggs, Thayer, Kittel, and Liddel-Scott? And for grammar don't
we have to go to the great authorities in this field, such as Gesenius,
Bauer, and Blass-Debrunner? ... For our knowledge of the New Testament
manuscripts are we not obliged to depend almost entirely on the writings of
experts, such as Gregory, Kenyon, Colwell, Metzger, and Aland? When we study
the Bible on the graduate level, therefore, how can we begin with God? Must
we not rather begin with men? With the information provided by scholars,
most of whom are unbelievers? (emphasis added)
"Questions like these cause many conservative seminary students to panic and
become virtual unbelievers in their biblical studies. In order, therefore,
to prevent such catastrophes, we must always emphasize the Christian
starting point that all our thinking ought to have. If we are Christians,
then we must begin our thinking not with the assertions of unbelieving
scholars and their naturalistic human logic, but with Christ and the logic
of faith."... In biblical studies, in philosophy, in science, and in every
other learned field we must begin with Christ and then work out our basic
principles according to the logic of faith. This procedure will show us how
to utilize the learning of non-Christian scholars in such a way as to profit
by their instruction. Undeniably these unbelievers know a great many facts
by virtue of God's common grace. They misinterpret these facts, however,
because they ignore and deny God's revelation of Himself in and through the
facts. Hence our task is to point out the inconsistencies and absurdities of
unbelieving thought and then to take the facts which learned unbelievers
have assembled and place them in their proper framework of biblical truth.
Dr. Hills concludes: "... Begin with Christ and the Gospel and follow the
logic of faith. This is the principle that must guide us in our graduate
studies, especially in the biblical field. If we adhere to it, then
everything we learn will fit beautifully into its place in the Christian
thought-system. But if we ignore Christ and adopt a neutral approach to
knowledge, we will soon lose ourselves in a wilderness of details and grow
more and more chaotic in our thinking."
Indeed, if we only used the majority concept as our standard, we would
remain in constant uncertainty - in a state of flux. Who knows but on the
morrow the archaeologist's spade may uncover an ancient library containing
hundreds or even several thousands of Greek manuscripts embodying the
"Alexandrian" text? Thus, the true reading would always hang in doubt for
still later another library may be discovered with "Western" readings or
even "Syrian". But we need not be concerned, for God has not left us
depending upon the spade of the archaeologist to determine the true text.
Neither are we awaiting his discovering a new papyri hiding in a jar
somewhere. If we did so, our faith would always be wavering and we could
never be confident that a dealer would not soon appear with something new
from somewhere else. We would be wondering if the damming of the Nile River
had destroyed some Greek text which would show us a new wonderful truth. We
already possess and have had all along the actual TRUTH of Scripture! We
have, by faith in God's promises to preserve His Word, an assumed premise, a
priori, of God's providential preservation of the text. Someone may say
"prove it", but this fails to comprehend the nature of a priori premise. As
Letis has reminded us: "One does not prove a first premise. A premise by
definition is something one assumes, not something he proves." And even more
to the point - the context of these promises having been for the use of His
people throughout time - we rest with maximum certainty that we already have
those precious Words at our disposal as preserved in the Bible of the
Reformation. We are not lingering in expectation for the modern text critics
to "restore" them to us.
It is not our position that the text found in the majority is the true text
merely because it is found in the majority of mss (although some do so
argue). It is the reason that this text is found present in the majority
that is decisive. "The reason", says Letis, "that all defenders of the TR
since the Reformation follow the majority text is because it reflects the
actual text HISTORICALLY USED BY THE CHURCH - the believers in all ages to
whom Jesus promised to lead into all truth - as sacred text." True, the
supporting evidence such as that of Sturz' mentioned in chapter seven which
revealed that the papyri sustained many of the Byzantine readings as being
second century was encouraging, but our confidence is not in isolated
scrapes of old papyri or vellum. It is founded on a much surer foundation.
Our confidence is in God's never failing promises and in the text which has
been continuously in public usage by the Church. This is why the TR is the
true text, not merely because of its great statistical "superiority" or
"probability". Further, when we use such phrases as "the Word of God says
......", "the Scriptures say ..." or "the Holy Bible says ..." etc., we do not
merely mean the Hebrew Masoretic text and the Greek Textus Receptus (Syrian,
Byzantine, Traditional Text, or Majority Text). We are referring to
something contained between the covers of one Book, something that we can
hold in our hands as English speaking laymen or elders. We are speaking of
an entity which we can read daily for our own edification and read aloud to
our families, friends, and Church. That "something" is known as the
Authorized or King James Bible. We proclaim without reservation that it is
the Holy Spirit guided, absolutely faithful English translation and
rendering of God's original wording. As such, it speaks
|
|
| | From: | admin | | Subject: | Re: The Believing frame of Reference- #2A | | Date: | Wed, 24 Nov 2004 19:47:34 GMT |
|
|
| Post #2A
Post #1
This a continuing post from the Book "Which Version is the Bible" by Floyd
Nolen Jones. Chapter 8, pages 113-120 Which Version is the Bible? Copyright
1995 · Floyd Jones Ministries, Inc. All Rights Reserved. This book may be
freely reproduced in any form as long as it is not distributed for any
material gain or profit
HOW PRINCETON WAS CORRUPTED
How did such a dreadful situation arise in the
first place? Sad to say, the man responsible was a man of God, a Christian
brother. That brother's name is B.B. Warfield, and the following is a brief
description portraying the truth of how "a little leaven leavens the whole
lump." The time is in the late 1800's and early 1900's. J.S. Buckminster had
persuaded the officials of Harvard College to publish an American edition of
Griesbach's 1809 Greek New Testament, as he viewed text criticism "a most
powerful weapon to be used against the supporters of verbal inspiration."
Warfield, the eventual champion of the Princeton school, was well aware of
this "weapon" and determined to neutralize it. However, in attempting to
accomplish this goal he compromised his previous commitment and views on
inerrancy, altering them into a new doctrine. The result on American
conservatism was that lower (textual) criticism came to be viewed as "safe".
Princeton had for many years been a conservative Presbyterian bastion of
faith, fully dedicated to verbal inspiration and inerrancy. True, some
accommodations crept in after 1834, yet Princeton remained reasonably true
to the Word. Prior to Warfield's arrival in 1887, no Princetonian had
attained expert status in the young discipline of New Testament text
criticism (though his mentor Charles Hodge had studied two years in
Germany). Like Hodge, Warfield felt that one had to study in Germany to be
abreast of critical issues. He also was aware that in New England text
criticism (the so-called "lower criticism") was undermining the orthodox
view of verbal inspiration. With a letter of introduction from Philip
Schaff, Warfield entered the University of Leipzig in 1876 for a year's
study. Previously, as a firm believer in inerrancy, he had fully subscribed
to the Westminster Confession which upheld the doctrine of preservation with
regard to the Bible of the Reformation. After 1876, Warfield - guided by his
Common Sense philosophy - consciously rejected the "Scholastic" approach and
became the first American to become an authority in the theory and praxis of
"Enlightenment" New Testament text criticism at Princeton. During his year
at Leipzig, Warfield's resolve weakened under the constant barrage of
"variant readings" and Hortism. He had come to believe the true text had in
some places been lost though he still felt, for the most part, it had
remained untouched through time. Warfield and Hodge had come to embrace the
Westcott-Hort theory believing that these men were exemplary models of
evangelical scholarship while at the same time attuned to German methods.
Warfield now saw as his calling the integration of Biblical criticism with
the historic view of verbal inspiration. In short, neither Warfield, Hodge
nor most evangelicals since have realized that what they correctly recognize
as "that dangerous higher criticism" is inexorably interwoven with and
subtly tied to the "safe" discipline of lower criticism. Warfield had
intended to defend "verbal inspiration" from German attacks naively thinking
that lower criticism, dealing as it does with the "concrete facts", remained
immune to the "speculations" of the higher critics. B.B. Warfield's
Common-Sense philosophy allowed him to adopt the "scientific" text criticism
method of Westcott and Hort. He accepted their claim that they had
constructed a "neutral" text. The fact that W-H had arrived at such a
determination without any reference to theology made their arguments all the
more compelling for Warfield. He reasoned that this method must be God's
means of restoring the true text (humanistic). Thus he had shifted from his
former view of "providential preservation" to one of "providential
restoration" in the new text of Westcott and Hort. This was a radical change
of interpretation of the Westminster Confession. Eventually Warfield and his
colleague in textual studies, Philip Schaff, feeling that "enlargement is
not alteration, development is not revolution, elaboration is not
correction" (does not this sound akin to theistic evolution?) came to
delight in the notion of updating the old creedal standards. They came to
desire a revision of the Westminster creed that would be in accordance with
"the advanced stage of theology".
God Bless,
Steve Goltra
|
|
| | From: | admin | | Subject: | Re: The Believing frame of Reference- #2 | | Date: | Wed, 24 Nov 2004 19:46:59 GMT |
|
|
| Post #2
This a continuing post from the Book "Which Version is the Bible" by Floyd
Nolen Jones. Chapter 8, pages 113-120 Which Version is the Bible? Copyright
1995 · Floyd Jones Ministries, Inc. All Rights Reserved. This book may be
freely reproduced in any form as long as it is not distributed for any
material gain or profit.
to us as final authority (in context) against which all matters must be
measured and tested. It is "THE" Bible, the living Words of the Living God -
it is the Word of God. THE MODERN VIEW OF INERRANCY AMONG MOST CLERGY The
current vogue in conservative, fundamentalist scholarship will come as a
great surprise to the layman. Today, most conservative Protestant clergymen
have been brainwashed as mere youths in their late teens or early twenties
at the various denominational Bible colleges and seminaries concerning the
doctrine of inerrancy of Scripture. As a result, when most of these pastors
etc., declare that they believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration and/or
inerrancy (or some other similar declaration of faith in the Scriptures)
what they really mean is that only the original autographa were inerrant.
Now this is devastating, as we have no originals preserved for our use. But
the situation is even worse than that, for neither do the vast majority of
these men believe that the text contained in the original autographs has
been preserved intact. That is, they have been taught as very young men that
for hundreds of years many original readings have been lost to the Church.
They have also been taught, hence most subscribe to the teaching, that these
lost readings are in the process (and have been so for the past one hundred
years) of being restored back to their pristine original forms by the use of
modern textual criticism techniques and methods. Thus, if we were to ask one
of the scholars representing this school of thought whether he could show us
the "infallible Word of the Living God", he would take us to his private
study - wave his hand toward between 800-1200 books on his library shelves
and reply that somewhere contained within all those volumes exists the Word
of God. He would inform us that the problem was very complex, but all was
well as he and other brilliant scholars were working on putting the puzzle
back together. Besides, he would assure us, no major doctrinal issues are in
doubt in the meantime. If we pressed these men further to better define
their position, we would discover that very few believe that there exists on
the earth today between two covers such that it could be held in the hand -
the Bible. That is - in their view, is that which they hold in their hand
having the words "Holy Bible" inscribed thereon and read from the pulpit to
their flocks, the inerrant Word of God? If they were honest, regardless of
the version to which they personally subscribe, the answer would be "NO"!
When these men are interviewed by pulpit committees, deacons etc. and are
asked whether they believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures, they will
invariably reply in the affirmative. However, this is a deception. The
committee means something that they can hold in their hands, study, meditate
over, and read to their children. As outlined previously, the potential
local pastor being interviewed means something quite different. Thus a
deliberate wicked misrepresentation of beliefs is being foisted upon the
laity. The reason for the dishonesty is that most conservative congregations
would not knowingly select men of so little faith in God's promises to
preserve His Word to serve as their pastors. Truly of those the Scripture
has spoken and is verified in them: For the love of money is the root of all
evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and
pierced themselves through with many sorrows (I Tim.6:10).
|
|
|
