1 Sunday, December 11, 2016 Grace Life Schl f Thelgy Frm This Generatin Fr Ever Lessn 39 Preservatin: Faith in the Prmise f Gd Review: What Have We Seen S Far? In Lessn 28 & 29 we began the secnd term f the class with an Intrductin t Preservatin. After reviewing sme key pints regarding inspiratin frm the first term we tk stck f the fllwing facts. Fact 1 the riginal autgraphs are nt extant i.e., they n lnger exist. Fact 2 n tw Greek manuscripts are exactly the same. Alexandrian manuscripts א (Cdex Sinaiticus) and B (Cdex Vaticanus), the tw s-called ldest and best, differ with each ther in ver 3,000 places in the gspels alne. The manuscripts cmprising the Alexandrian Text Type differ frm thse cmprising the Byzantine Text Type. N tw Byzantine manuscripts read exactly the same. Fact 3 n tw printed editins f the Greek New Testament are exactly the same. Editins f the TR are nt exactly the same. The TR differs frm the Critical Text Critical Text editins are nt exactly the same. United Bible Sciety Nestle-Aland Fact 4 n tw editins f the King James Bible are exactly the same. Fact 5 the King James differs frm mdern versins. Fact 6 n tw mdern versins read exactly the same. Pastr Bryan Rss
2 Summary Statement: If the preservatin f the Wrd f Gd depends upn exact preservatin f the wrds f the riginal dcuments, then the situatin is dire. N tw manuscripts cntain exactly the same wrds. N tw editins f the Masretic Text cntain exactly the same wrds. N tw editins f the Textus Receptus cntain exactly the same wrds. N tw mdificatins f the King James Versin cntain exactly the same wrds and the Bible nwhere tells us which editin, if any, des cntain the exact wrds f the riginals. These are nt speculatins, these are plain facts. (Bauder, 155) In Lessn 29 we used the Bk f Jeremiah as a case study t prve that Gd culd preserve his wrd withut preserving the riginal autgraphs. Jeremiah 51:61-63 Jeremiah writing at the bidding f Gd the Hly Spirit tells Seraiah t destry Original #2 by tying a stne t it and thrwing it int the Euphrates River after it is read in Babyln. Gd almighty rders the destructin f Original #2. Why wuld Gd d this? Didn t Gd knw that a bunch f Fundamentalists in the 20 th and 21 st century wuld be lking fr the riginals? Pastr Bryan Rss
3 Daniel 9:2 ver 70 years later Daniel cmes t understand, by reading the bk f Jeremiah, that the captivity was suppsed t last 70 years. Hw is that pssible if Original #2 was destryed? Cpies were made prir t the captivity. Once the cpies were made, Gd did nt care what happened t the riginal. The riginal cntents f Original #2 were preserved via the cpying prcess. Daniel had access t the inspired wrd f Gd thrugh the cpy he had in frnt f him. Matthew 2:17-18 cntains a qutatin frm Jeremiah 31:15. First, hw did Matthew have access t what Jeremiah said ver 470 years (70 year captivity + 400 years f silence) later if Gd had nt preserved His wrd. S Gd secured the cntents f the bk f Jeremiah despite directing Jeremiah t have Original #2 thrwn in the Euphrates River. In Lessn 30 after discussing the Cre Issue f Preservatin verses Restratin we studied hw the TEXTUAL FACTS presented in Lessn 28 & 29 have given birth t the fllwing three views n the dctrine f preservatin: View 1 Denial f a Dctrine f Preservatin View 2 Preservatin in the KJV/TR/MT Traditin View 3 Preservatin in the Ttality f Manuscripts With these three views in mind, Lessn 31 thrugh 38 were devted t determining whether r nt the scriptures teach their wn preservatin. Psalm 12:6-7 (Lessns 31 & 32) Psalm 119: 111, 152, 160 (Lessn 33) Isaiah 30:8; 40:8; I Peter 1:23-25 (Lessns 34 & 35) Matthew 4:4 (Lessns 36 & 37) Matthew 24:35 (Lessn 38) Intrductin In this Lessn we want t cnclude ur cnsideratin f the fundamental prmise f preservatin. In rder t accmplish this task we will cnsider the fllwing fur pints: Preservatin: The Bible s Claim Fr Itself Preservatin: Gd Keeps His Prmises Pastr Bryan Rss
4 Preservatin: The Superirity f the Fideistic Apprach Preservatin: The Histric Psitin f the Refrmers Preservatin: The Bible s Claim Fr Itself After studying the relevant passages as well as the schlarly cmments made thereupn, I unequivcally maintain that preservatin is the Bible s claim fr itself. In ther wrds, the Bible des assert and establish a dctrine f preservatin. Even Dr. William W. Cmbs, a supprter f View 3 cncludes that the Bible des establish a dctrine f preservatin. Cmbs als cncludes that the psitin f advanced by Wallace and Glenny (View 1) t discunt the frce f these passages n preservatin is uncnvincing. It has been demnstrated that many f the verses cmmnly claimed by thse in the KJV/TR camp t directly prve a dctrine f preservatin have been misinterpreted and misapplied. On the ther hand, at least tw verses Psalms 119:152 and 160, wuld seem t suggest a mre direct prmise f preservatin, with Isaiah 40:8 and Matthew 24:35 supplying mre indirect supprt. In additin Matthew 5:18 and Jhn 10:35 als strngly imply a dctrine f preservatin with their emphasis n the cntinuing authrity f Scripture an argument that will explred shrtly. The attempt by Wallace and Glenny t discunt the frce f these passages fr preservatin is uncnvincing. (Cmbs, 26) That being said, Cmbs des nt agree with View 2 either, he disagrees with the KJV/TR camp regarding the methd and extent f preservatin. Thus we cnclude that sme f the verses discussed abve d teach a dctrine f preservatin, sme mre directly and ther mre indirectly. Hwever, they d nt supprt the view f preservatin that is put frth by the KJV/TR camp that Gd has perfectly preserved the Bible t ur day. Instead, they nly suggest a general prmise f preservatin withut specifying hw (what methd) r t what extent (hw pure) Gd has chsen t preserve his Wrd. (Cmbs, 26) Questins regarding the methd and extent f preservatin will be addressed in further Lessns. Given the scpe f ur discussin s far, fllwing pints are inescapable: Gd did prmise t persevere His wrd. Psalms 12:6-7; 105:5; 119:111, 152, 160; Isaiah 30:8; 40:8; Matthew 4:4, 24:35; I Peter 1:23-25 Gd did nt see fit t preserve His wrd by preserving the riginals. Pastr Bryan Rss
5 This is self-evident because the riginals n lnger exist. Gd did nt supernaturally ver-take the pen f every scribe, cpyist, r typesetter wh ever handled the text t ensure that n differences f any kind entered the text. Differences exist at every level f this discussin. If the standard fr preservatin is plenary r pristine identicality, i.e., exact sameness why did Gd nt just preserve the riginals and thereby remve all dubt. Preservatin: Gd Keeps His Prmises Given the fact that Gd has indeed prmised t preserve his wrd, the belief in preservatin is really a questin f faith in the prmises f Gd. The fllwing scriptures demnstrate that Gd keeps his wrd and is incapable f lying. I Kings 8:24 Gd prmised and fulfilled with His hand. He prmised the temple. It was built by Slmn wh praised Gd fr His faithfulness in keeping His prmises. (Waite, 15) Rmans 4:20-21 Here, the capability f Gd is exalted, as well as the fact that Gd keep His prmises. Thugh bth Abraham and Sarah had passed the age f being parents, Gd tld Abraham that he wuld have a sn by Sarah. He was fully persuaded t believe the prmise f Gd. (Waite, 15) Titus 1:2 Here is a prmise-keeping Gd, One wh has nt lied, One wh cannt lie, and One Wh keeps His prmises. (Waite, 15) Hebrews 10:23 Yes, Gd is faithful and He keeps His prmises. (Waite, 15) Preservatin: The Superirity f the Fideistic Apprach Gd s fundamental prmise f preservatin cupled with His inability t lie as well as His faithfulness t accmplish His prmises, serve as the basis fr the Fideistic Apprach t Textual Criticism. Either Gd kept his prmise regarding preservatin r he did nt. If Gd did s act it wuld be inapprpriate and high minded fr humans t think they can recnstruct what Gd prmised t preserve. The hypthesis that Gd did nt preserve His Wrds, s man needs t restre them, lies at the rt f textual criticism. This line f thinking rejects what Scriptures sate abut preservatin, depending instead n the uninspired wrds f men, bth cntemprary and histrical... Any applicatin f the pertinent passages n preservatin that des nt leave ne with the assurance the he has a Bible will all the Wrds f Gd cannt be accepted Pastr Bryan Rss
6 frm a psitin f faith. The psitin that all the Wrds exist smewhere, but are still yet t be fund, des nt fit int the teaching f Scripture, and, therefre must be rejected. (Brandenburg in Thu Shalt Keep Them, 262) Man s wisdm wrks cntrary t Gd s wisdm as hst f scriptures attest. Prverbs 3:5 Isaiah 55:8-9 I Crinthians 1:27-31; 2:5 what is yur faith abut Gd s wrd standing in? The wisdm f men r the pwer f Gd. Kent Brandenburg summarizes the situatin as fllws: The basis fr perfect preservatin is faith; ther views are built n human ratinalism, the dctrine f human reasn, unaided by Divine revelatin, is an adequate r the sle t attainable religius truth. Peple wh take a view that is unaided by Divine revelatin are nt nrmally knwn as Bible-believers, therefre, mst peple that prfess t be Bible-believers d nt usually want t cnsider their psitins ratinalistic. Thse wh espuse the majrity text view claim t simply determine what wrds are fund in the majrity f the manuscripts, and the wrds that survive that test are essentially deemed t be the text f Scripture. Cunting is the sle criterin. This is ratinalistic. The prpnents f the minrity text view use the humanely devised laws f textual criticism, which treat the Bible like uninspired bks, in an attempt t ascertain the readings mst likely fund in the riginal manuscripts. This view als applies human reasn as the sle guide. Neither f these culd be cnsidering that Gd f the Bible, fr neither f them prvides perfectin, and Gd is perfect. He is perfect, and He is pwerful enugh t keep smething perfect, frm the sul f a man t every Wrd f Scripture. In cntrast, the received text psitin receives what Gd has supernaturally preserved by faith. Sme advcates f the received text d nt believe in perfect preservatin, basing their psitin upn Divine prvidence alne. Hwever, received test peple at least depend n Scriptural principles t defend their psitin. In many cases, the ther pints f view d their best t argue away as many texts n preservatin as pssible (cites Cmbs in the ftnte), and cntend that faith is an invalid criterin fr receiving the perfect text f Scripture (cites Larry D. Pettegrew s essay in The Bible Versin Debate: The Psitin f Central Baptist Thelgical Seminary in the ftnte). (Brandenburg in Thu Shalt Keep Them, 263-264) Later Brandenburg pints ut that the psitin f the ratinalist-preservatinist is nthing mre than cnceptual preservatin. Pastr Bryan Rss
7 Instead f just believing Gd, men speculate n the percentage f errr assumed t exist. The wbbly fundatin upn which the ratinalist preservatinist stands is the assertin that all f the dctrines alne have been preserved, which effectually leaves the believer with a cnceptual preservatin. (Brandenburg in Thu Shalt Keep Them, 265) Since Gd set frth his dctrine via wrds written in a bk what sense des it make t argue that Gd culd preserve the bk but nt the wrds. Yet, as we will see in a future lessn, this is precisely the psitin f Dr. W. Edward Glenny; Gd preserved the dcuments but nt the wrds that cmprise thse dcuments. Wallace n the Fideistic Apprach Wallace excriates the fideistic apprach arguing that the thelgical a priri belief in preservatin has n place in textual criticism. The fideistic frmula vilates all knwn histrical data. Such a dgmatic affirmatin results in a prcrusteanizing f the data n a massive scale in the name f rthdxy. Fr example, the Byzantine text did nt becme the majrity until the ninth century and even then majrity must be qualified: There are almst twice as many Latin MSS as there are Greek and, t my knwledge, nne f them belngs t the Byzantine text. (Wallace in JETS, 202) In sum, a thelgical a priri has n place in textual criticism. Since this is the case it is necessary t lay aside fideism in dealing with the evidence. The questin, since we are dealing fundamentally with histrical inquiry, is nt what is pssible but what is prbable. With the stance f faith f the traditinalists in place, textual criticism becme s intertwined with rthdxy that the evidence cannt bjectively be interpreted. But nce dgma is evacuated frm the discussin, n psitin can be cmfrtable merely with what is pssible. (Wallace in JETS, 204) Ntice plainly what Wallace is asserting: 1) the dctrine f preservatin has n place in the discipline f textual criticism, 2) the faith apprach is a hindrance t dealing with the histrical evidence, and 3) nly when the dctrine f preservatin (dgma) is abandned can ne bjectively evaluate the histrical data. Explaining away the dctrine f preservatin is just as central t Wallace s psitin as faith is t the preservatinist. This is why he must declare that passages such as Isaiah 40:8 and I Peter 1:23-25 d nt assert a dctrine f preservatin. He must first explain away the verses befre he can advance his s-called bjective argument. Traditinalists make the rather facile assumptin that when Gd s wrd is mentined the reference must be t the written text specifically, the text f the NT. Yet neither the written text nr the NT per se is in view in these passages. The mst satisfactry exegesis f all such passages is that they are statements cncerning either divine ethical Pastr Bryan Rss
8 principles (i.e., mre laws that cannt be vilated withut sme kind f cnsequence) r the prmise f fulfilled prphecy. (Wallace in JETS, 202-203) Wallace is arguing fr a naturalistic apprach t textual criticism using ratinalistic means. This apprach rted in the ntin that the Bible is same as anther bk and shuld be apprached by the same principles. Preservatin: The Histric Psitin f the Refrmers The fllwing dctrinal Cnfessins f the Refrmatin Era all allude t the dctrine f preservatin. 1646 The Westminster Cnfessin f Faith (Refrmed) 1658 The Savy Declaratin f Faith and Order (Refrmed) 1689 The Lndn Baptist Cnfessin (Baptistic) 1742 The Philadelphia Baptist Cnfessin (Baptistic) Given that the wrding is virtually identical in all fur Cnfessins, we will limit ur qutes t Chapter I Of the Hly Scriptures, Article VIII frm The Westminster Cnfessin f Faith: The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language f the peple f Gd f ld), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time f the writing f it, was mst generally knwn t the natins), being immediately inspired by Gd, and, by His singular care and prvidence, kept pure in all ages, are therefre authentical; s as, in all cntrversies f religin, the Church is finally t appeal unt them. But, because these riginal tngues are nt knwn t all the peple f Gd, wh have right unt, and interest in the Scriptures, and are cmmanded, in the fear f Gd, t read and search them, therefre they are t be translated in t the vulgar language f every natin unt which they cme, that, the Wrd f Gd dwelling plentifully in all, they may wrship Him in an acceptable manner; and, thrugh patience and cmfrt f the Scriptures, may have hpe. All fur Cnfessins hld that Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament were inspired by Gd and kept pure in all ages. If this is nt a belief in preservatin I dn t knw what is. Mrever, the saints respnsible fr these Cnfessins assert the need fr these pure Hebrew and Greek wrds t be translated in the vulgar language f every natin unt which they cme. This is a strng appeal fr the accurate and prper translatin f the pure Hebrew and Greek wrds int the vernacular languages f all peples. Pastr Bryan Rss
9 These Cnfessins demnstrate the histric Prtestant belief in the ntin f preservatin r the idea that Gd kept his wrd pure in all ages. This belief was held acrss denminatinal traditins (Refrmed & Baptistic) as well as gegraphical bundaries (Old & New Wrld). It is als imprtant t nte that the drafters f these Cnfessins were ascribing these statements t the Masretic Hebrew Text and the Greek Textus Recptus, the nly Greek text they had available t them. It was the act f translating the Textus Receptus int the vernacular languages f Eurpe that drve the Refrmatin and tuched ff the greatest era f Christian missin wrk the wrld has ever seen. These are histrical FACTS that cannt be disputed. Cnclusin Befre we g further let me ask yu the fllwing series f questins. Hw many f yu believe the fllwing? Gd created the wrld in six days? Gd destryed the earth thrugh a fld saving nly Nah and his family? Gd cnfunded the languages f men and scattered them acrss the face f the earth? Gd thrugh Mses delivered Israel ut f Egyptian slavery thrugh the Red Sea? David killed Gliath? Jnah was swallwed by a whale? Jesus Christ was the incarnated, Virgin Brn Sn f Gd wh died n the crss fr ur sins and rse again the third day? The resurrected and ascended Lrd Jesus Christ appeared t Saul f Tarsus n the Damascus Rad. Why d yu believe these things? Because yu believe the Bible. S then why when it cmes t the issue f textual criticism and the identificatin f the Biblical text and its translatin int English why d s many believers leave the viewpint f faith in favr f naturalistic textual theries? We need t believe what the Bible teaches abut itself. We need t remember that the Bible is Gd s bk. Remember frm ur studies f inspiratin in term ne, when we deal with the Bible we are dealing with Gd himself. We need t adpt the viewpint f faith. If Gd prmised t preserve his wrd, and Gd cannt lie, and Gd always fulfills his prmises then it wuld make mre sense t believe in preservatin than t deny it. In rder t adpt a cntrary psitin ne wuld have t subprime t ne f the fllwing suppsitins regarding Gd s fundatinal nature and character: Gd didn t mean what He said (Never issued such a prmise.). Gd s wrd cannt be trusted (Because he can and has lied.). Pastr Bryan Rss
10 Gd is unwilling r unable t fulfill his prmises. Frm this we cnclude that f the fllwing three views, View 1 is false and is t be rejected utright. There is a Dctrine f Preservatin; this is Bible claim fr itself. View 1 Denial f a Dctrine f Preservatin View 2 Preservatin in the KJV/TR/MT Traditin View 3 Preservatin in the Ttality f Manuscripts In the cming weeks we will begin studying the nature and extent f preservatin by beginning an investigatin int whether r nt preservatin is the crllary f inspiratin. Frm this we will endeavr t determine the accuracy f Views 2 and 3. Wrks Cited Bauder, Kevin T. An Appeal t Scripture in One Bible Only? Examining the Exclusive Claims fr the King James Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publicatins, 2001. Cmbs, William W. The Preservatin f Scripture? in Detrit Baptist Seminary Jurnal. Fall 2000. Waite, D.A. Defending the King James Bible. Cllingswd, NJ: The Bible Fr Tday Press, 2006. Wallace, Daniel B. The Majrity-Text Thery: Histry, Methds, and Critique in Jurnal f the Evangelical Thelgical Sciety. June 1994. Pastr Bryan Rss