Contending In Truth and Love
Contending in Truth and Love
A Response to
“A Child of God Looks at
the Doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation”
“Every emotion of the mind is betrayed by the tell-tale countenance,
even though we do nothing with the intention of making it known.”
Augustine of Hippo
Christian Doctrine, II 1-3
Sometimes that which is said pales in significance to that which is not
said. The hidden content and intent of one’s words, as Augustine astutely
observed, are betrayed by the emotion. The paper, “A Child of God Looks at
the Doctrine of Preservation,” (The Burning Bush, July 2005) begins
with an emotional appeal. It is written by “one child of God to another.”
However, a child of God cannot be exempted from loving counsel if the
arguments presented in favour of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) are
flawed, and quotations used in support of the theory are selectively
skewed in its favour. When a person claims to be a child of God, it
behooves that he pursues truth unrelentlessly because God is truth, and
the conclusion that is derived from the pursuit must not take him one step
beyond what the Holy Scriptures have revealed; to do so would be to take
one’s personal conviction and turned it into a doctrine.
The Real Contention
Bible-believing Christians believe in the
verbal plenary inspiration of the Word of God. Bible-believing Christians
also believe in the providential preservation of the Word of God. The
Scriptural passages (pp. 69-72) that are offered in support of God’s
providential preservation of His Word, all Bible-believing Christians can
and ought to agree and subscribe to.
However, that is not
the real issue that is threatening to divide Calvary BP Church today. The
real issue, which is not stated in the paper, is that those who hold to
VPP as a doctrine believe that the Word of God is uniquely, miraculously,
and perfectly preserved His word in one single copy of Greek text, namely
the Received Text, also known as the Textus Receptus (TR).
The emphasis is on the miraculous and perfect preservation of God’s Word
in the TR and KJV.
The VPP theory holds
the view that “the
traditional Hebrew Masoretic Text and Greek Textus Receptus underlying the
King James Bible to be the totally inspired and entirely preserved Word of
God.” (Burning Bush, July 2004, p. 65). VPP proponents identify
themselves as “KJV/TR-Only advocates [who] affirm the twin doctrines of
the verbal and plenary inspiration and preservation of God’s words” (Burning
Bush, Jan. 2004, p. 3).
Contending in Truth
Can one be a God-fearing and God-honouring Christian who believes in
the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo but not hold to VPP as a
doctrine? Can one be a God-fearing and God-honouring Christian who
believes in the doctrine of a literal six-day creation but not VPP? Can
one be a God-fearing and God-honouring Christian who believes in the
doctrines of the virgin birth, bodily resurrection and ascension of our
blessed Saviour but not VPP? Can one be a God-fearing and God-honouring
Christian who believes in the doctrine of a literal heaven and hell but
not VPP? Can one be a God-fearing and God-honouring Christian and not
subscribe to the theory of VPP? The fact is that, over the ages, there had
been God-fearing and God-honouring Christians who believed in the plenary
verbal inspiration of the Word of God and not the VPP. Here are a few
examples.
1. Richard Baxter (1615-1691).
Baxter was the beloved pastor of
Kidderminster. He warned of two extremes: On one end are those who deny
the divinity of the Word of God. These, Baxter writes “give too little to
the Scripture who deny it to be indicted by inspiration of the infallible
Spirit of God, and be wholly true.” At the other end are “those give too
much (in bulk, but too little in virtue) to the Scripture,” and included
in this group are those who “say that God hath so preserved the Scripture,
as that there are no various readings and doubtful texts thereupon, and
that no written or printed copies have been corrupted. . . . All these err
in over-doing.” (A Christian Directory, p. 725)
2. John Owen (1616-1683)
Owen was a pastor, preacher and
vice-chancellor of Oxford University. He was described by one biographer
as the “greatest British theologian of all time.” He wrote, “the whole
Scripture, entire as given out from
God,
without any loss, is
preserved
in the copies [not one particular copy] of the originals yet
remaining; what varieties there are among the copies themselves shall be
afterward declared. In them all, we say, is every letter and
tittle
of the word. These copies, we say, are the rule, standard, and touchstone
of all translations, ancient or modern, by which they are in all things to
be
examined,
tried, corrected, amended; and themselves only by themselves. Translations
contain the word of
God, and
are the word of
God,
perfectly or imperfectly, according as they express the words, sense, and
meaning of those originals. To advance any, all translations concurring,
into an equality with the originals – so to set them by it as to set them
up with it on even terms – much more to propose and use them as means of
castigating, amending, altering any thing in them, gathering various
lections by them, is to set up an
altar of
our own by the
altar of
God, and
to make equal the
wisdom,
care, skill, and
diligence
of men, with the
wisdom,
care, and providence of
God
himself.” (The Integrity and Purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text of
Scripture, Works of John Owen, Volume 16. AGES Library).
3. John Wesley (1703-1791)
Wesley was the founder
of the Methodist Church. In his Explanatory Notes to the New Testament, he
writes, “I write chiefly for plain, unlettered men, who understand only
their mother tongue [English], and yet reverence and love the word of God,
and have a desire to save their souls. In order to assist these in such a
measure as I am able, I design, first, to set down the text itself, for
the most part, in the common English translation [which in Wesley’s time
was the King James Bible], which is in general (so far as I can judge)
abundantly the best that I have seen. Yet I do not say, it is incapable of
being brought, in several places, nearer to the original. Neither will I
affirm that the Greek copies from which this translation was made are
always the most correct.” (The Complete Works of John Wesley,
Volume 14. AGES Library).
4. John Gill (1697-1771)
Gill was a Baptist pastor. He was a
contemporary of Wesley and George Whitefield. He says that divine
inspiration is “to be understood of the Scriptures, as in the original
languages in which they were written, and not of translations; unless it
could be thought, that the translators of the Bible into each of the
languages of the nations into which it has been translated, were under the
divine inspiration also in translating, and were directed of God to the
use of words they have rendered the original by; but this is not
reasonable to suppose.”
On the differences between the
various Greek texts and the various translations, Gill says, “Let not now
any be uneasy in their minds about translations on this account, because
they are not upon an equality with the original text, and especially about
our own; for as it has been the will of God, and appears absolutely
necessary that so it should be, that the Bible should be translated into
different languages, that all may read it, and some particularly may
receive benefit by it; He has taken care, in his providence, to raise up
men capable of such a performance, in various nations, and particularly in
ours; for whenever a set of men have been engaged in this work, as were in
our nation, men well skilled in the languages, and partakers of the grace
of God; of sound principles, and of integrity and faithfulness, having the
fear of God before their eyes; they have never failed of producing a
translation worthy of acceptation; and in which, though they have mistook
some words and phrases, and erred in some lesser and lighter matters; yet
not so as to affect any momentous article of faith or practice; and
therefore such translations as ours may be regarded as the rule of faith.”
(A Body of Doctrinal Divinity, Book 1, Chapter 2. AGES Library)
5. Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892)
Spurgeon was the pastor
of the London Metropolitan Tabernacle. He is also known was the Prince of
Preachers and the last of the Puritans. In a sermon titled “The Bible
Tried and Proved” based on Psalm 12:6, Spurgeon said, “I do not hesitate
to say that I believe that there is no mistake whatever in the original
Holy Scriptures from beginning to end. There may be, and there are,
mistakes of translation; for translators are not inspired. (The
Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit. Vol. 35. AGES Library).
Spurgeon generally preached from the King James Bible, but it may surprise
some VPP proponents that he did not hesitate to use other versions and
readings from older manuscripts when he found it helpful. Case in point,
Spurgeon preached a sermon entitled “And We Are: A Jewel from the Revised
Version” based on 1 John 3:1. That three-word addition (and we are) in the
Revised Version, according to Spurgeon is correct, “I have not the
slightest doubt. Those authorities upon which we depend — those
manuscripts which are best worthy of notice — have these words; and they
are to be found in the Vulgate, the Alexandrian, and several other
versions. They ought never to have dropped out. In the judgment of the
most learned, and those best to be relied on, these are veritable words of
inspiration.” (The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit. Vol. 32. AGES
Library).
6. John William Burgon (1813-1888)
Burgon is popularly known in BP circles as
Dean Burgon. Burgon rightly took a strong stand against the inferior
textual methods and erroneous presumptions of Brook Foss Westcott
(1825-1903) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892). Burgon was right in
disagreeing with Westcott and Hort on the weight that they ascribed to a
few but older manuscripts. Burgon is correct: Age of the manuscript does
not equate to its quality.
However, on the Received
Text, Burgon states categorically, “Once for all, we request it may be
clearly understood that we do not, by any means, claim perfection
[emphasis Burgon’s] for the Received Text. We entertain no extravagant
notions on this subject. Again and again we shall have occasion to point
out . . . that the Textus Receptus needs correction. We do but
insist, (1) that it is an incomparably better text . . . infinitely
preferable to the ‘New Greek Text’ of the Revisionists. And (2) That to be
improved, the Textus Receptus will have to be revised on entirely
different ‘principles’ from those who are just now in fashion.” (The
Revision Revised, footnote on p. 21).
Burgon was not averse to
revising the Textus Receptus, meaning to say that he did not hold
the Textus Receptus to be perfect and on par with the autographs.
He only insisted, and rightly so, that any revision of the Textus
Receptus must not be done using the principles of Higher
Criticism.
Some of these men (Baxter, Owen) lived before the times of Higher
Criticism and German rationalism, which are the roots of liberal theology.
Others had to battle for the authority and purity of the Holy Scripture.
Burgon, in particular is a strong and able defender of the King James
Bible and Textus Receptus. However, he did not subscribe to the VPP
theory that the Textus Receptus is perfect and beyond correction.
All these men have been recognized as godly servants of the Almighty God,
mightily used by Him in the Gospel ministry. Their books are well read;
their writings well quoted by preachers and Bible teachers.
Can they be dismissed as “experts” and “godly
men” in the derogative sense? Are they twisting “God’s Word to make our
difficulties or problems go away” (p. 73)? Are they “hoodwinked into
believing the lie of the evil one” (p. 74)? Did they couch their words to
“appeal to our intellect and pride” (p. 74)? Are these men attacking the
doctrine of God’s providential preservation of His Word? Do they claim to
be smarter than God?
Various quotations have also been used in the paper to advance the
theory of VPP. Like the Scripture passages cited in the earlier part of
the paper, these quotations support only the doctrine of God’s
providential preservation. It is a cruel contortion to twist them into
support for the theory of VPP. Even more egregious is that these
quotations are selected to skew the argument in favour of VPP. Here is the
full picture.
1. Westminster Confession of Faith
GI Williamson’s commentary on the Westminster
Confession of Faith is used (endnote, p.80). Presumably, Williamson’s
commentary was used here because proponents of VPP have used his work to
support the VPP theory (see Dr Jeffrey Khoo’s KJV: Questions and
Answers, p. 23). In two separate e-mails, Williamson, a retired
Presbyterian minister writes to clarify his views.
----- Original Message -----
From: “G.I. Williamson”
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 5:25 AM
Subject: clarification
Dear ………
While I have great respect for the so-called Textus Receptus (TR), I do
not believe that it is quite equal to a photocopy of the autographa. You
may know of Dr. Edward F. Hills who has written defending the King James
Version as the best version because it is/was based on the TR. He was a
long time friend and we had many discussions of this very question. He
helped me to see the cogency of the argument for high respect for the
Byzantine/Majority text. Of all people in the ancient world the Greek
speaking Eastern Church surely would have been the place where changes -
even those made unintentionally by people making hand written copies -
would have been most likely detected. I accept that as a sound argument.
But even Dr. Hills was not quite willing to absolutize the TR. And neither
am I.
It must be remembered that the foundation of the argument for the
superiority of the TR is the doctrine of divine providence. God, who
controls all things, has seen to it that his word has been preserved.
True. But it is this same true God who has also preserved throughout the
are of the world in which the ancient church developed translations into
other languages, and some manuscript copies of the Greek N.T. which are
not always in complete agreement with the TR. I do not think we have a
right to automatically rule out as of no value whatever this component. It
may be true that the TR is right 99 times out of 100 - when there is a
textual question. But that does not, in my opinion, prove that it is
always right.
The bottom line for me, then, is that I give great deference to the TR.
But I cannot go along with those who think that it is so perfect that
there is no work for us to do in comparing the other ancient manuscripts,
etc. I think my own Commentary (pp. 15-17) makes this sufficiently clear
that no one should presume to quote me as one who thinks the TR (the
Byzantine/Majority/Received Text) is absolutely perfect.
I hope this is of some help. Don’t hesitate to come back if I can be of
further assistance.
In Christ,
G.I. Williamson
----- Original Message -----
From:
G.I. Williamson
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002
11:40 PM
Subject: More on TR
Dear ……..
I had to respond rather quickly
yesterday and now, in reading over your note again, feel that I should add
a bit.
In your letter you said: “There are some influential leaders in my Church
who understand and quote your statement to support the idea that God has
raised, among the midst of the Byzantine/Majority/Received Text, a single
purified Text which is the virtual ‘photocopy’ of the autograph.”
This is an interesting sentence because it could so easily be taken either
one or the other of two ways. It all depends on what is meant by the word
‘virtual.’ My dictionary says this word means: “having the essence or
effect but not the appearance or form of.” The same dictionary says of the
word ‘virtually’ that it means: “in effect though not in fact;
practically, nearly.” If the word virtually is intended in your letter to
mean this then I could agree with it. But if it is intended to mean that
the TR is a 100% perfect reproduction of the autograph, then I could not
agree with it. I’ve discussed this with various scholars - including the
late Edward F. Hills - and none of them ever went quite that far. I hope
that the people you describe as ‘influential leaders’ in your church do
not go that far either because, if they do, they have gone too far. But if
they mean what the dictionary defines as the meaning of virtual
(virtually) then I believe I could work with them.
Wishing you the Lord’s grace and
blessing,
G.I.
There is no doubt that Williamson is a strong
supporter of the TR, but he does not believe that the TR is perfect; nor
does he believe that his colleague and friend, Edward F Hills, would
subscribe to the VPP theory.
2. Writings of Francis Turretin (1612-1687)
In the jacket of his three-volume
Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Turretin is described as “the best
expounder of the doctrine of the Reformed Church” and “a towering figure
among the Genevan Reformers.” Did he believe that God had preserved His
Word in only one particular text? I quote extensively from Turretin not
only to show that he does not believe God’s Word is perfectly preserved in
one single Greek text, but also to highlight the fact that VPP proponent
choose to ignore – intentionally or otherwise – opposing views of the very
same authors whose works they cited to support the VPP position. More than
half the truth has not been told.
Do real contradictions
occur in the Scripture? (emphasis mine). Turretin defines what he meant by
real contradictions, “The question does not concern the irregular writing
of words or the punctuation or the various readings (which all acknowledge
do often occur); or whether the copies which we have so agree with the
originals as to vary from them not even in a little point or letter.
Rather the question is whether they so differ as to make the genuine
corrupt and to hinder us from receiving the original text as rule of faith
and practice. The question is not as to the particular corruption of some
manuscripts or as to the errors which have crept into the books of
particular editions through the negligence of copyists or printers. All
acknowledge the existence of many such small corruptions. The question is
whether there are universal corruptions and error so diffused through all
the copies by any collation of various copies, or of Scripture itself and
parallel passages.” (Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Volume 1, p.
71).
Turretin dispels the argument
made by those who hold to VPP that if the text is not perfectly preserved,
then the whole Bible is corrupt. Turretin is not concerned about the small
variations in the texts; these do not hinder the truth and discredit the
doctrine of God’s providential preservation of His Word. In other words,
the unity, veracity and the authority of Holy Scripture are not
jeopardized by variations (Turretin called these small corruptions) in the
manuscripts.
Turretin’s words have been quoted
in the paper to support the theory of VPP. This is neither the full nor
correct picture. Turretin writes, “Although we give to the Scripture
absolute integrity, we do not therefore think that the copyists and
printers were inspired (theospneustous), but only that the
providence of God watched over the copying of the sacred books, so that
although many errors might have crept in, it has not so happened (or they
have not so crept into the manuscripts) but they can be easily corrected
by a collation of others (or with the Scriptures themselves). Therefore
the foundation of the purity and integrity of the sources is not to be
placed in the freedom from fault (anamartesia) of men, but in the
providence of God which (however men employed in transcribing the sacred
books might possibly mingle various errors) always diligently took care to
correct them, or that they might be easily corrected either from a
comparison with Scripture itself or from more approved manuscripts. It was
not necessary therefore to render all the scribes infallible, but only so
to direct them that the true reading may always be found out.” (Institutes
of Elenctic Theology, Volume 1, p. 73).
On the purity of the sources, this
question is asked, “Have the original texts of the Old and New Testaments
come down to us pure and uncorrupted?” Turretin first defines what he
means by the “original texts.” “By the original texts, we do not mean the
autographs written by the hand of Moses, of the prophets and of the
apostles, which certainly do not now exist. We mean their apographs which
are so called because they set forth to us the Word of God in the very
words of those who wrote under the immediate inspiration of the Holy
Spirit. The question is not: Are the sources so pure that no fault has
crept into the many sacred manuscripts, either through waste of time
[aging process], the carelessness of copyists or the malice of the Jews or
of heretics? For this is acknowledged on both sides and the various
readings which Beza and Robert Stephanus have carefully observed in the
Greek (and the Jews in the Hebrew) clearly prove it. Rather the question
is have the original texts (or the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts) been so
corrupted either by copyists through carelessness (or by the Jews or of
heretics through malice) that they can no longer be regarded as the judge
of controversies and the rule to which all the versions must be applied.”
(Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Volume 1, p. 106).
The copyists’ errors,
notwithstanding, Turretin maintains that the sources for the Bible are
pure because God has providentially preserved it. How did God preserve His
Word? Turretin offers five suggestions: the providence of God, the
fidelity of the Christian Church, the reverence of the Jews to whom the
Word of God was given, the carefulness of the Masoretes [scribes], and
“the multitude of copies; for as the manuscripts were scattered far and
wide, how could they all be corrupted either by carelessness of librarians
or the wickedness of enemies?” (Institutes of Elenctic Theology,
Volume 1, p. 107).
While Turretin affirms the
doctrine of God’s providential preservation of His word, he in no wise
says that it is preserved perfectly and uniquely in the TR. On the
contrary, he writes that “although various corruptions might have crept
into the Hebrew manuscripts through the carelessness of transcribers and
the waste of time, they do not cease to be a canon of faith and practice.
For besides being things of small importance and not pertaining to faith
and practice . . . they are not universal in all the manuscripts or they
are not such as cannot be easily corrected from a collation of the
Scriptures and the various manuscripts.” (Institutes of Elenctic
Theology, Volume 1, p. 108-9).
Did Turretin believe in a
preserved perfect text? He writes, “it is not necessary that the scribes
should have been unerring (anamartetoi) . . . It is enough that
providence has so watched over the integrity of the authoritative codex
that although they might have brought into the sacred text many errors
either through carelessness or ignorance, yet they have not done so (or
not in all the copies), nor in such a way as that they cannot be corrected
and restores by a collation of the various manuscripts and of Scripture
itself. . . . Although we are bound to the present codex, it is not
necessary for it to represent to us the autograph (autographon) of
Moses and the prophets without even the smallest difference. (Institutes
of Elenctic Theology, Volume 1, p. 121).
Finally, on the various
versions of the Bible and its authority, Turretin writes, “all versions
are the streams; the original text is the fountain whence they flow. The
latter is the rule, the former the thing ruled, having only human
authority. . . . Hence it follows that the versions as such are not
authentic and canonical in themselves. . . . There is one perfection of
things and truth to which nothing can be added and from which nothing can
be taken away; another perfection of the version itself. The former is a
strictly divine work and is absolutely and in every way self-credible (autopiston).
Such perfection is the word carried over into the versions. The latter is
a human work and therefore liable to error and correction – to which
indeed authority can belong, but only human (according to the fidelity and
conformity with the original text), but not divine.” (Institutes of
Elenctic Theology, Volume 1, p. 126).
In the paper, this question is asked, “Do you object because of your
need to ‘see’ in order to believe?” (p. 77). The implication is that those
who do not hold to the perfect preservation of the Word of God in TR do
not have faith. They need to “see” in order to believe. Worse still, in
their desire to “see,” they are accused of twisting God’s Word and making
it say something else.
But who are the real doubting Thomases? It is not those who
do not hold to the VPP theory; rather, it is those who do. To those who
insist that VPP is a doctrine, “Why is it absolutely necessary for you to
‘see’ that God preserved His Word in a physical edition of the TR in order
for you to believe the doctrine of providential preservation?”
By faith, Bible-believing Christians believe
in the providential preservation of the Word of God in the totality of the
manuscripts. So, who then is the one who must, so to speak, put his
“fingers into the print of the nails” and handle the physical copy of a
perfect TR in his hands before he can believe the doctrine of God’s
providential preservation of His Word? To those who insist on the theory
of VPP, “Brethren, where is thy faith?”
The emotion betrays the intent. According to the paper, the acid test
that determines whether or not a person is teaching or twisting the Word
of God is his views on the VPP theory. If a Christian does not hold to VPP
as a doctrine, he is attacking the Word of God. If a pastor or church
leader does not hold to VPP as a doctrine, he is not watchful, not
diligent, not faithful, not courageous, not obedient, not teaching the
truth. Such a leader is charged with undermining “the root of our faith
and the root of all our doctrines” (p. 79); he is being “tossed to and
from, and carried about with every wind of doctrine.” The point made is
this: the pastor/church leader who does not hold to VPP as a doctrine is
derelict in his duty. What is the intent behind these charges?
How strange these charges! The
Bible-Presbyterian Constitution has remained largely unchanged for more
than half a century. Now there are some who insist that VPP is a doctrine
and are trying to amend the B-P Constitution despite the testimonies and
the collective wisdom of godly men down the years. Who, then, are the ones
who are really being tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind
of doctrine?
How strange these charges when one further considers the
implications of those who claim that VPP is a doctrine? Are they
suggesting that a preacher who uses the KJV but does not hold to the
perfect preservation of the Word of God in the TR as a doctrine is one who
preaches another Gospel? VPP proponents seem to think so.
But is VPP a doctrine? Consider this admission
by Dr DA Waite, the principal proponent of the VPP theory. He writes, “It
is my own personal conviction and belief [emphasis mine],
after studying this subject since 1971, that the WORDS of the Received
Greek and Masoretic Hebrew texts that underlie the King James Bible are
the very words which God has preserved down through the centuries, being
the exact words of the originals themselves.” (Defending the Kings
James Bible, p. 48). Waite maintains that VPP is a matter of personal
conviction. Are those who believe in VPP in our churches rejecting the
valued opinion of the man who had been studying this issue for the last
thirty years?
Contending in Love
This issue has brought much confusion into the B-P Church, Calvary
Jurong BPC included. When one takes a step back from the thick of the
controversy, it becomes painfully obvious that this confusion is
unnecessary because there is not one person who is clamouring for the
replacement of the King James Bible in Calvary B-P Church.
So why are suspicions being raised with regard
to a person’s faithfulness to the Christian faith? Why are divisions being
made with regard to a person’s orthodoxy? Why are reputations being
sullied over differences in opinion? Why are names being called bringing a
person’s integrity into question? Why are Christians being forced to
choose their allegiances based upon a personal conviction? I venture my
observation – “where envying and strife is, there is confusion and
every evil work.” (James 3:16). Why are there envying and strife among
God’s people? Only God knows.
Christians must look to the Word of God and be
reminded that when we employ godly wisdom and holy conduct in our defence
of the faith and the Word of God, righteousness and peace, not confusion,
will be its outcome. “Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among
you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of
wisdom. But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory
not, and lie not against the truth. This wisdom descendeth not from above,
but is earthly, sensual, devilish. For where envying and strife is, there
is confusion and every evil work. But the wisdom that is from above is
first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of
mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. And the
fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.”
(James 3:13-18).
This controversy is absolutely unnecessary.
The leaders of Calvary Jurong have been longsuffering in their silence.
However, I think a response is now needed because the peace and unity of
Calvary Jurong are at stake. More importantly, the glory of our blessed
Saviour and the testimony of His church are both on the line. Silence is
not an option because it has been perceived as weakness. Silence is not an
option because the other half has not been told. Silence is now not an
option when a matter of personal conviction is publicly presented as a
doctrine of the church. The gauntlet, as it were, has been thrown, and it
must be taken up.
When a person joins as a member of the church,
he takes an oath of membership; a promise to preserve the purity, peace
and unity of the church by not introducing false doctrines, disobeying her
constitution, or creating disharmony amongst her members. It seems to me
that those who hold to and insist on teaching perfect preservation of the
Word of God in the TR as doctrine and as a touchstone of Christian
fundamentalism have to do one of two things: (1) leave the Church and
start their own, and write in that point in their own church constitution,
or (2) amend the church constitution. If they would not do the first, and
could not do the second, then it behooves that those who hold to perfect
preservation of the Word of God in the TR admit that their particular view
is a matter of personal conviction and keep silent henceforth.
I find no joy in writing this response because I believe, as all
Calvarians do, that the King James Bible is the English Bible par
excellence. There is none more noble, more beautifully translated,
more quoted, more compelling in its presentation of the tenets of the
Christian faith, and more appealing to a man’s ears, heart, and soul.
Perhaps out of this dark episode, the
silver-lined consolations that all Calvarians should earnestly pray for is
that we will affirm the use of the King James Bible in our church without
having to make VPP a matter of contention in the church, that we will
unite to defend the Word of God against its real foes represented by the
modern day Bible perversions; that we will, by His grace, continue to take
a resolute stand for the authority of God’s Word, and that God will raise
godly men and women in Calvary Jurong who will “stand fast in one
spirit, with one mind striving together [and not striving against one
another] for the faith of the gospel” (Philippians 1:27).
May the Lord have mercy!
Isaac Ong
The
question also needs to be asked of those who hold to VPP as to which
TR do they think is the Word of God perfectly preserved. The phrase “
textus
receptus” is derived from an introductory passage to the second
edition of Greek New Testament published by the Elzevir brothers in
1633, over twenty years after the first publication of the KJV. In the
passage, the following statement in Latin was made: “
Textum ergo
habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum,” meaning “the text that you have
is now received by all.” So strictly speaking, the “
Textus Receptus”
must refer to this post-1611 work. In any case, the “text . . .
received by all” does not mean that God had miraculously preserved
this Greek text; it only means that Elzevir’s Greek New Testament was
the one that was generally accepted and used at that time.