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