The "Historic, Orthodox Position" regarding the inspiration and preservation of the Holy Bible.
The "Historic, Orthodox Position" regarding
the inspiration and preservation of the Holy Bible.
The "Historic, Orthodox Position" regarding the inspiration and preservation of the Holy Bible.
We often hear those who criticize the King James Bible and do not believe that any Bible or any text in any language is the inerrant, complete, and inspired words of God, appeal to their alleged "historic position" to support their views. They tell us that "only the originals" were inspired and that no existing texts or Bible translation is now the inerrant word of God.
However, as we shall see from the following actual and historic Confessions of Faith regarding the inspired word of God, the historic position supports the King James Version believer's view, that is, that we presently possess an inspired and inerrant Bible. Nowhere in any formalized Confession of Faith regarding the Holy Bible will you ever see such common phrases as used by the Inerrant-Bible Deniers of today like "only in the originals" or "only in the autographs". These expressions, which in fact deny the existence of an inerrant Bible, do not begin to appear in the formalized Confessions until well into the 20th century, when the multitude of conflicting and contradictory bible versions began to gain ground in the seminaries which had abandoned faith in an inerrant Bible.
A student of the Confessions of Faith knows that various articles were placed in the Confessions when certain problems arose over doctrine. Some of the early Confessions of Faith said nothing about the inspiration of the Bible. Yet it would be unfair to say that they did not believe that the Bible was inspired of God. The historical Confessions of Faith have a definite bearing on the Bible version issue.
The Westminister Confessions of 1646 is probably the most famous Confession of Faith ever written. It says, "The Old Testament in Hebrew, and the New Testament in Greek, being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them." This is of course not a Baptist Confession, but it has had great influence among Baptists. This Confession says that the Scriptures were "inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages..." How could anyone make such a statement, unless they believed that they had reliable copies of the originals and reliable translations?
Confession of Faith - C - The Helvetic Consensus Formula of 1675 says, "God saw to it that His word, which is with power unto salvation to everyone who believes, was entrusted to writing not only through Moses, the prophets and apostles, but also He has stood guard and watched over it with a fatherly concern to the present time that it not be destroyed by the cunning of Satan or by any other human deceit." If these people had no reliable text and no reliable translation, how could they make such a statement? If their Greek and Hebrew texts were not pure, and they had no pure translation, why would they make such a foolish statement?
Confession of Faith - C - The Midland Confession, 1655, was adopted unanimously by the messengers of the churches meeting at Warwick, England. This group of Baptists said, "We profess and believe the Holy Scriptures, the Old and New Testament, to be the word and revealed mind of God, which are able to make men wise unto Salvation, through faith and love which is in Christ Jesus, and that they are given by inspiration of God, serving to furnish the man of God for every good work; and by them we are (in the strength of Christ) to try all things whatsoever are brought to us, under the presence of truth. II Tim. 3:15-17; Isaiah 8:20." We hardly see how the critics of the KJV can find any comfort in that statement of faith. Those who adopted the Midland Confession of 1655, believed in the inspiration of the Scriptures, they believed they had those Scriptures, and they believed that by those Scriptures they could "try all things whatsoever are brought to us, under the presence of truth." In 1655, you can well know what English version they used, and they had never heard of the Westcott & Hort text, and we can thank the Lord for that.
Confession of Faith - C - The Standard Confession of 1660 (Baptist), said, "That the holy Scriptures is the rule whereby Saints both in matters of Faith, and conversation are to be regulated, they being able to make men wise unto salvation, through Faith in Christ Jesus, profitable for Doctrine, for reproof, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." While they mention no version, and said nothing about the originals, yet they believed that they had the holy Scriptures. We are confident that they were using the KJV.
Confession of Faith - C - The Second London Confession of 1677 (Baptist) says, "The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain and infallible rule of all saving Knowledge, Faith, and Obedience. . ." We ask, how can the Holy Scriptures be a certain and infallible rule if we have no infallible Bible? To hear Dr. Rice and others tell it, all versions have errors in them, and if this be so, we are left in a tragic situation. The Second London Confession of 1677 says, "The Old Testament in Hebrew, (which was the Native language of the people 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; so as in an controversies of Religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them." The Baptists of 1677 believed that the Scriptures were inspired of God, and that "By His care and Providence kept pure in all Ages." They believed that the Church in all ages could appeal to the pure Scriptures. That is quite different than some of our modern fundamentalists who talk about inspiration, but who are constantly finding errors in the Bible.
Which Bible were the Baptists of 1677 using? It surely wasn't the NASV, ASV, RSV or the Living Bible. Don't you suppose that it was the King James Bible of 1611?
Confession of Faith - C - The General Baptists of England published the "Orthodox Creed" In 1678. It says, "And by the holy Scriptures we understand the canonical books of the Old and New Testament, AS THEY ARE NOW TRANSLATED INTO OUR ENGLISH MOTHER TONGUE, of which there hath NEVER been any doubt of their verity, and authority, in the protestant churches of Christ to this day." They then list the books of the Old and New Testament and then say, "All which are given by the inspiration of God, to be the Rule of faith and life." What Bible do you suppose these people were using in 1678? It was English and there can be little doubt, but what they are talking about the Authorized [King James] Versionof 1611.
Confession of Faith - C - The Philadelphia Confession of Faith was adopted in 1742 at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. This Confession was printed for the Baptist by none other than the famous Benjamin Franklin. It states, "The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience. . . " It further says, "Under the name of holy Scripture, or the word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testament, which are these. . . " They then list the 66 books of our English Bible, and end that paragraph by saying, "All which are given by the inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life."
It is clear that they were talking about an English Bible, and we do not have to guess as to which one they were talking about. Further on in this article they state that the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament were "inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in as controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them." It is clear that they are talking about something they had at that time, and could appeal unto.
They did not appeal to the "pure Word of God" preserved in heaven. No doubt God's Word is pure in heaven. However, we cannot appeal to something that we cannot see. No doubt the "originals" were pure and uncorrupted, but we cannot appeal to the "originals", because they are not available. We dare anyone to prove that any mortal man ever saw all of the originals on this earth. We know it cannot be done. If we do not have the pure Word of God today, it is extremely doubtful that anyone on this earth ever had all 66 books of the pure Word of God!! What kind of a God do we serve? Would He leave us in such a mess?
Other Baptist Confessions Of Faith
More Confessions of Faith - C - In 1888, the Baptist Union of Great Britain adopted a doctrinal statement which contained the following: "The following facts and doctrines are commonly believed by the churches of the Union, The Divine Inspiration and Authority of the Holy Scripture as the supreme and sufficient rule of our faith and practice; and the right and duty of individual judgment in the interpretation of it." This is their entire statement so far as the inspiration of the Bible is concerned. They mention nothing about the "originals" or any particular version of the Bible. However, there can be no doubt as to what version ranked supreme with them at this time.
More Confessions of Faith - C - The New Hampshire Confession of Faith was adopted in 1833, and it states, "We believe the Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired, and is a perfect treasure of heavenly instruction; that it has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter, that it reveals the principles by which God will judge us; and therefore is, and shall remain to the end of the world, the true centre of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and opinions should be tried." Please note that they mention no "originals" and no version. There was one version that ruled supreme in the English language of 1833 and it was the King James Bible.
It should be apparent that if the Baptists of 1833 had a "supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and opinions should be tried," it could not have been the originals, since not one of them had seen even the original manuscript of even one book of the Bible! Their "supreme standard" had to be a Bible, to which they had ready access.
Notice this personal confession of faith by a man named Mr. Kinney (no known relation to W.K.) and the date when he wrote it. LeBaron W. Kinney wrote in 1942, "When a Bible teacher refers to the original languages of the Bible, there is a danger of giving a wrong impression about the authority and true value of the standard King James Version. Too many are ready to say that they have a better rendering, and often in such a way as to give an impression that the King James Version is faulty, or that other versions are much better. We believe that God overruled His gift of the King James Version of 1611, so that we have in it the very Word of God. We believe that no other English Version will ever take its place. Every one of the various English versions claims to be nearer the original than the others. This could not be true of more than one of them." (Hebrew Word Studies, Acres of Rubies" page 9, published by Loizeaux Brothers).
David Cloud writes concerning the famous lawyer - "Philip Mauro (1859-1952) is another example of the many fundamentalists of old who defended the King James Bible. Beginning in the early 1920s, Mauro wrote in defense of the King James Bible and in opposition to the critical Greek text which had been published by Westcott and Hort thirty years earlier, and to the modern versions which were beginning to flow from it. Mauro's 1924 work "Which Version? Authorized or Revised?" was reprinted 50 years later, and other times since then. This brilliant lawyer carefully represented the side of the Traditional or Received Text. The thing that characterized Mauro is that which characterizes each defender of the Received Text and the KJV: faith in God's providence and an emphasis on Bible preservation.
"In view also of the leading part the English speaking peoples were to play in shaping the destinies of mankind during the eventful centuries following the appearance of the Version of 1611, we are justified in believing that it was through a providential ordering that the preparation of that Version was not in anywise affected by higher critical theories in general, or specifically by the two ancient Codices we have been discussing. For when we consider what the A.V. [Authorized Version] was to be to the world, the incomparable influence it was to exert in shaping the course of events, and in accomplishing those eternal purposes of God for which Christ died and rose again and the Holy Spirit came down from heaven--when we consider that this Version was to be, more than all others combined, 'the Sword of the Spirit,' and that all this was fully known to God beforehand, we are fully warranted in the belief that it was not through chance, but by providential control of the circumstances, that the translators had access to just those Mss. which were available at that time, and to none others." [ 7 Source Cited] (Mauro, Which Version?)
Thus, the claim that fundamentalist leaders of bygone days ignored the Bible version question, or refused to make Bible versions an issue, or came down consistently on the side against "King James Onlyism" is simply false. The position held on the Bible version issue in the 1920s and 1930s by Philip Mauro was held by thousands and thousands of people who took the King James Version to be the Word of God and understood it accurately to be such.
The Historic Confessions of Faith give little or no comfort to the critics of the KJV. The KJV was the English Version that reigned supreme from the time of the London Confession of 1677, the New Hampshire Confession of 1833, the Baptist Bible Union of 1923, and all of the other Confessions in between and afterward.
It all boils down to how big of a God we serve. Did He have the power and desire to preserve the word in written form for us today, so that we are not left in the dark concerning what is the word of God? Is His power so weak or His Divine purpose so unsure, that we must now search out all the manuscripts, all the Hebrew and Greek texts, and all the versions, in order to say that we do have the word of God mixed in with all the errors. If we are reduced to this state, may the Lord help us, for the Church today is in absolute confusion unmatched in human history. If we are still looking for the word of God, and do not have an infallible Bible, it should be obvious to all, that we never will have such a Bible. This means that God has not kept His promise, and where do we stand, if we have such a God?
Regarding the practical outworking of the doctrine of the preservation of God's words, the modern version proponents either believe the true words of God are "out there somewhere" in all the variant manuscripts but we are not sure which ones they are; or they reduce "preservation" to the idea that the general, overall message is in all "reliable translations", though the particular words and numbers, many whole verses and the meaning of much of Scripture remains uncertain or even lost. Neither view really means that "every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" has actually been divinely preserved through history to the present day.
Instead of "heaven and earth shall pass away, but MY WORDS shall not pass away" (Matthew 24:36), the modern versionist really thinks along the lines of "heaven and earth shall pass away, but most of the general sense of what I said won't pass away."
In contrast to the historic Confessions of Faith regarding the Holy Bible, let's now look at some quotes and polls from the Evangelical community of today.
The following quotes come from men prepared the way for and later adopted the textual theories of Westcott and Hort, whose Greek text forms the basis of most modern New Testament versions, as the NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV, and Holman Standard.
As early is 1771, the Bible-Mutilating German Textual Critic Griesbach wrote, "The New Testament abounds in more losses, additions, and interpolations, purposely introduced then any other book."
In 1908 Rendel Harris declared that the New Testament text had not at all been settled but was "MORE THAN EVER, AND PERHAPS FINALLY, UNSETTLED."
In 1910 Conybeare gave it as his opinion that "the ultimate (New Testament) text, IF THERE EVER WAS ONE THAT DESERVES TO BE SO CALLED, is FOR EVER IRRECOVERABLE."
In 1941 Kirsopp Lake, after a life time spent in the study of the New Testament text, delivered the following judgment: "In spite of the claims of Westcott and Hort and of von Soden, WE DO NOT KNOW the original form of the Gospels, AND IT IS QUITE LIKELY THAT WE NEVER SHALL."
In 1960 H. Greeven also has acknowledged the uncertainty of the neutral method of New Testament textual criticism - "In general, the whole thing is limited to probability judgments; THE ORIGINAL TEXT, according to its nature, must be and REMAINS A HYPOTHESIS."
In 1963 R. M. Grant adopts a still more despairing attitude - "The primary goal of New Testament textual study remains the recovery of what the New Testament writers wrote. We have already suggested that to achieve this goal is well-nigh impossible."
Modern Evangelicalism: Evangelical Leaders departing from the Truth
The following testimonies about the character of Evangelicalism today were not made by Fundamentalists; they were made by key Evangelical leaders.
"A GROWING VANGUARD OF YOUNG GRADUATES OF EVANGELICAL COLLEGES WHO HOLD DOCTORATES FROM NON-EVANGELICAL DIVINITY CENTERS NOW QUESTION OR DISOWN INERRANCY and the doctrine is held less consistently by evangelical faculties. ... Some retain the term and reassure supportive constituencies but nonetheless stretch the term's meaning" [ 7 Source Cited] (Carl F.H. Henry, first editor of Christianity Today, chairman for the 1966 World Congress on Evangelism, "Conflict Over Biblical Inerrancy," Christianity Today, May 7, 1976)
"MORE AND MORE ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS HISTORICALLY COMMITTED TO AN INFALLIBLE SCRIPTURE HAVE BEEN EMBRACING AND PROPAGATING THE VIEW THAT THE BIBLE HAS ERRORS IN IT. This movement away from the historic standpoint has been most noticeable among those often labeled neo-evangelicals. This change of position with respect to the infallibility of the Bible is widespread and has occurred in evangelical denominations, Christian colleges, theological seminaries, publishing houses, and learned societies" [ 7 Source Cited] (Harold Lindsell, former vice-president and professor Fuller Theological Seminary and Editor Emeritus of Christianity Today, author of The Battle for the Bible, 1976, p. 20).
"WITHIN EVANGELICALISM THERE ARE A GROWING NUMBER WHO ARE MODIFYING THEIR VIEWS ON THE INERRANCY OF THE BIBLE SO THAT THE FULL AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE IS COMPLETELY UNDERCUT. But is happening in very subtle ways... What may seem like a minor difference at first, in the end makes all the difference in the world ... compromising the full authority of Scripture eventually affects what it means to be a Christian theologically and how we live in the full spectrum of human life"
[ 7 Source Cited] (Francis Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster, 1983, p. 44).
A Recent Poll
Amazing Statistics - I was listening to my radio today, and happened to catch Pastor Michael Youseff's Message on His "Leading The Way" program. The title of todays message was "The Bible, The World's Most Relevant Book.
In his message he gave statistics of a poll that was conducted. Here is what the poll revealed:
85% of students at America's largest Evangelical Seminary don't believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.
74% of the Clergy in America no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.
That means that MOST of the leaders who will soon be Pastors in Evangelical Churches are departing from the Truth that the Bible is the Word of God. Most of them were believers when they entered INTO Seminary. But with the help of so-called Textual Critics and Bible-attackers, they leave the Seminaries with doubt and thoroughly schooled in the approach that even when it comes to the Word of God, they "Aught" not come to any conclusion about its inspiration. How can they help BUT lead those congregations into error, when they have accepted so much of this from Anti-God professors in their Secularized Seminaries ?
How did this happen ? between 1880 and 1930, certain large Foundations stepped in to the area of Organized Religion. Using slogans of Academic Freedom, they convinced most Seminaries to detach themselves from their historic affiliations, and to detach themselves from their historic denominations. These foundations proposed that they - the Foundations - would replace the funding that these Seminaries has previously received from their denominations. Many professors foolishly embraced the process. The results have been disastrous: Most Seminaries still CLAIM to be the "same" as before: they still bear the Denominational Label of their origins (though even that is changing), only they have abandoned their own historic doctrines.
The Foundations today continue their control of most Seminaries, and certainly most of the Higher Protestant Denominations. That is not an accident. It is hard to push and promote Globalism, Pantheism and the New Self-Godhood unless those same foundations can find Mechanisms through which they can promote their own Doctrines, even when they oppose the Word of God.
Most Seminary Leaders live in such a state of Fear about Tenure (their Job), and remaining Politically Correct, that they are afraid to take any action where the result would be to loose their 1. grants or 2. their endowments.
In other words, Seminary Leaders and Seminary Administrators have yielded to the decision to serve Money instead of God. In addition most Seminaries today have ties to Publishers, and rather than freeing authors to state the truth, this has had the opposite effect. Contracts for Future Books would not be granted, if the Seminaries cannot prevent dissent from within their own ranks.
The result is "enforced orthodoxy", though it is an orthodoxy that is opposed to the Word of God, and to the teaching of History and Historic Christian Doctrine.
"Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled...Let no man deceive you by any means; for that day shall not come, except there come A FALLING AWAY FIRST, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition..." 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3
For those who may be interested, Dr. Jason Gastrich challenged Mr. Kinney to debate the King James Only position over at the Baptist Board. The BB has since removed the whole debate, but Mr. Gastrich was kind enough to leave it up at his site. I think you will find it very interesting.
http://jcsm.org/1on1/KJVOnlyismDebate.htm
For those who object to this article
I understand that If I object to this article, that I need to take certain steps:
1. I need to clearly understand for myself what is the specific basis of my objection
2. I need to remember that other people cannot read my mind and may not understand what I have a problem with, and I will need to be patient in explaining my objection.
3. I need to examine my own motives and decide what is pushing me or motivating me to respond about this article. If there is an issue of lack of accuracy, then I do need to bring this up.
But if the issue is that the article is accurate, then I need to understand how I should be responding to the parts that I already know and understand are true.
4. I need to be wise, so that I do not use my own lack of knowledge, as the basis for objecting too fast. There are many questions and much documentation that can be provided to those who may object. If I have a problem I can ask for this documentation, but I need to be sure and ask myself just what I am placing my SECURITY in, as a fellow Christian.
5. does the article upset me because it may be TRUE, and I am disturbed because I am finding that I have put my security in a Version of the Bible that either is NOT accurate or that was NOT accurately translated ?
6. does this mean that I may be in spiritual danger, and that I need to do much more research personally, for myself, and stop taking the word of some Pastors or leaders who are simply telling me NOT to worry about these issues, but to be warm and filled and go back to sleep ?
7. Do I need to undertand that even though some of these Pastors who "bless" all versions may have good intentions, that they may not have the gift of Biblical Discernment, and therefore they may not understand either their own need to do a great deal of personal research on this matter, so that they do not endanger the Congregation and individual Church members that they have been entrusted with ?
8. Is the church that I am going to either part of a denomination that now is Liberal or has turned its back on God or historic Christianity, or part of a group that is endorsing Unbliblical or Anti-Historic Practices such as Word of Faith or selling the Gospel by Trends such as using Church Consultants that are far more committed to Church NUMBER growth, and NOT the individual Spiritual Maturity of the Christians that are ALREADY there ?
____________________________________
The Real Question is what are you going to do with the information that was presented in this article.
Is the Information True ?
Is the Information Accurate ?
Is the Information documented ?
Do I - before God - have a responsibility if I am a Christian to accept and act on the information in this article ?
Am I comfortable in the knowledge, that some leaders under the guise of clarifying the text of the Bible, are actually changing that text, and changing MY understanding of what God wants to share with me through His Holy Word, the Old Testament and the New Testament ?
Do I understand that these "small" changes number from the hundreds to the THOUSANDS depending on which Modern Versions I use, and that these changes serve to cut away the clarity and the specific understanding found in the Greek New Testament, that these new modern versions are preventing me from understanding ?
Do I understand that most of these new Modern Versions were not developed because there was a genuine need, but because the teams of Bible Translators were Hired by PUBLISHING companies who are eager to make a profit on the Word of God, which remains the Number ONE bestseller every week of every year, and that these Publishers decided to cash in ?
Do I understand that the problem was that if these Bible Adjusters and Correctors did NOT make the changes that they chose to, that they would not be able to claim copyright protection, and therefore they would not be able to make a financial Profit from their new versions ?
Do I understand that there are Spiritual Forces that want to prevent me from having GREATER spiritual understanding about God, but that God himself is always in MORE of a hurry than I am, for Me to get to know HIM ?
Do I realize what my personal state of preparation will be, within me, when Islam becomes the Dominant Religion in the United States, as it is already in Europe, and how I will personally be required to defend my Faith, by argument and persuasion, using knowledge of the Bible and of History and of Christianity, and that God will rightly hold me accountable because I am claiming to be His Child and a personal follower of Jesus Christ ?
In view of these facts, should I try to set aside more time for the study of the Word of God, and more time for the study of History and the true history of the Christian Church, and to learn about how other Christians in the past, actually learned to have and to gain GREAT spiritual strength ?
If no one reaches out to help prepare me for the coming challenges, whose job is it STILL for me to be prepared to answer these challenges and questions ?
FREE Ebooks for your encouragement, consideration and learning (PDF) Page can be found here: http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/free_ebooks_instant_downloads_pdf.htm
I Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in
your hearts: and be ready always to give
an answer to every man that asketh you a
reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
II Timothy 2: 15
Study to show thyself approved
unto God, a workman that needeth not to be
ashamed, rightly dividing
the word of truth.
FREE GENEVA BIBLE NEW TESTAMENT (1560) IN PDF
FREE For WINDOWS P.C. - MAC - VISTA - LINUX -
FREE EBOOKS
[
CFree
Ebooks
P
]
- DOWNLOAD
EBOOKS
IN PDF 
FORMAT
We would love to hear from you at our E Mail Address HERE