Von Mastrict on Apographa

X. Isti autem utriusque Instrumenti libri, pro canonicis & authenticis non habentur, nisi in linguis suis primigeniis & authenticis: cum 1. Sint instrumenta publica, quae iis tantum linguis valent, quibus condita sunt. Ut apparet, in diplomatis Regum, in Testamentis aliisque: ubi, oborta controversia, solum exemplar originale, agnoscitur pro authentico. Cum 2. Soli Prophetae & Apostoli, quippe immediate & infallibili Spiritus S. duetu instructi 2 Pet. I. 21. Scripturam  θεόπνευστος & authenticam, edere potuerint 2 Tim. III. 16. Sed quaenam tandem sunt linguae istae authenticate? Vetus Testamentum, Ecclesiae Judicae particulari datum, lingua hebraea conditum, omnes agnoscunt nisiquod particulae ejus quaedam, in Esdra, Daniele, Esther, Jeremia, lingua prostent Chaldaea. Novum, Ecclesiae Christianae universali scriptum, sola lingua Graeca conscriptum agnoscitur. Proinde, istis solis linguis, Scripruram recipimus, pro canonica & authentica. Idque non in Autographis tantum, quas, multas ob causas, sapientissimo consilio, providentia divina, perire passa est: sed in Aprographis quoque. Et sie olim Ecclesia Israelitica, nullam, praeter Hebraam V. T. nee Christiana, praeter Gracam N. Test. Habuit pro authentica.

X. But these books of both Instruments are not considered canonical and authentic, except in their original and authentic languages: since 1. They are public instruments, which are valid only in those languages in which they were created. As appears, in the documents of Kings, in the Testaments, and others: where, when controversy arises, only the original copy is recognized as authentic. Since 2. Only the Prophets and Apostles, since instructed immediately and infallibly by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1. 21.) could publish Scripture θεόπνευστος and authentic (2 Tim. III. 16). But what are these languages in terms of authenticity? The Old Testament, given to the Jewish Church in particular, was written in the Hebrew language, and is acknowledged by all, except some parts of it in Ezra, Daniel, Esther, and Jeremiah, are written in the Chaldean language. The New Testament, written for the universal Christian Church, is acknowledged to have been written solely in the Greek language. Therefore, in these languages alone, we receive Scripture, as canonical and authentic. And this not only in the Autographs, which, for many reasons, by the wisest counsel and providence of God, suffered to perish: but in the Apographs also. And the ancient Israelitish Church had none, besides the Hebrew Old Testament, nor the Christian, besides the Greek New Testament, as authentic.

XI. Neque tamen, istis linguis, adeol est affiz Scriptura S. ut non prossit, & debeat etiam, in alias linguas transundi, ad commune usum Ecclesiae: quibus itidem linguis, pro authenticis habentur, omnes versions, quatenus fontes exprimunt, ad quos semper sunt exigendae.

Yet, Holy Scripture is not so attached to these languages that it is not desirable, and should also be, translated into other languages for the common use of the Church: in which languages, likewise, all versions are considered authentic, insofar as they express the sources, to which they must always be referred.

Petro Van Mastricht (Petrus van Mastricht 1630 –1706), Dutch Reformed theologian, Theoretico-Practica Theologia (Theoretical-Practical Theology), The Rhine: W. Van de Water, et al., 1724, pp. 20-21.

Bibliology 101

Bibliology is a branch of systematic theology that deals with the nature of the Bible itself.

I think my own theology of the Bible might quickly and briefly be summed up in the following brief set of words.

• Eternal. Psalm 119:89. Settled in heaven, forever.
• Inspired. 2 Timothy 3:16 given by inspiration. 2 Peter 1:21.
• Infallible, completely true and incapable of error or untruth. Psalm 12:6; Proverbs 30:5; John 17:17.
• Authoritative. Let God be true, but every man a liar. 1 Corinthians 14:37.
• Sufficient, for all things that pertain to life and godliness. 2 Timothy 3:17.
• Preserved. Psalm 33:11; 119:160; Isaiah 30:8; Matthew 24:35.

A “Standard” Bible

Oddly, there is one body, and one Spirit, one hope of our calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all … and hundreds of English Bible translations!

Though there are hundreds of translations, there are over a dozen vying to be the “standard sacred text.” How do we know? Because they tell us so by including “standard” as part of their names.

Notice all of these Bibles that use “Standard” in their names (with their most recent edition, if known):

• American Standard Version (1901)
• Aramaic English Standard Version (1987/2006) (English translation of the Peshitta)
• Berean Standard Bible (2023)
• Christian Standard Bible (2017)
• English Standard Version (2025)
• Holman Christian Standard Bible (2009)
• International Standard Version (2014)
• Legacy Standard Bible (2021)
• Literal Standard Version (2020)
• Majority Standard Bible (2022) (majority text version of the BSB)
• New American Standard Bible (1963/2020)
• New Revised Standard Version (2021)
• Revised Standard Version (1952/1977)
• Refreshed American Standard Version (2022)
• Updated American Standard Version (2022)

Additionally, some Bibles aspire to be “International” or “World” Bibles. The ISV incorporates two ideas, “International” and “Standard.” This all seems to suggest that there is a heart longing to have one standard Bible. (Or maybe it is just clever marketing.)

A number of these “standard” Bibles – far from being standard – have fallen by the wayside. Some may have never made it as far as the wayside! When all is said and done, the King James Bible is still the standard – the one that every other Bible wants to be or to replace.

The Synoptic Problem?

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God…” (2 Timothy 3:16)

The “Synoptic Gospels” are Matthew, Mark, and Luke, called this because of their similarities (taking the same point of view) as opposed to being quite different from John. A long-held general view has thought chronologically of the four Gospels in the order they stand in the New Testament – Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Synoptic Problem.

This “problem” concerns the similarities and differences of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) and their relationships to one another – in the sense of dependence, independence, or interdependence. A human explanation is sought. For simple Bible believers, the “problem” is not a problem because God is behind all of these Gospels and they are the way they are because of his divine choice. For many of the rest, the “problem” is resolved by settling on two sources for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke – the Gospel of Mark and an imaginary document called “Q.”

Markan Priority.

Liberal New Testament scholars in the 19th century began to reject the priority of Matthew’s Gospel in favor of Mark’s Gospel. “Markan Priority” theorizes that the authors of Matthew’s and Luke’s Gospels drew from or depended on the Gospel of Mark as a source of information in their own writings. This “resolves” the parts of these three Gospels that are similar. Since not all of the material that Matthew and Luke have in common is found in the Gospel of Mark, “Markan Priority” only resolves part of the “problem.” This necessitates another source for the parts that Matthew and Luke have in common with each other, but not with Mark.

“Q” or “Q source”.[i]

“Q” (aka “Logia Source Q”) is therefore the hypothetical document imagined as a “solution” to the so-called “Synoptic Problem,” when combined with “Markan Priority.” According to this hypothesis, Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source and also a second source for the material they have in common that is not found in Mark.[ii] This source does not exist, but it has been created in the imaginations of unbelieving scholars. Usually the “Q” material is a single theoretical lost written source, though some may include oral resources as well.[iii]

The real problem.

The real problem is the havoc caused among Bible believers who read so-called conservative commentators who spread the virus of unbelief in the inspiration of the Scriptures. Thomas Ross illustrates this in “Q, Synoptic Gospel Dependence, and Inspiration for the Bible.” John Nolland, author of The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), who passes for a conservative in evangelical circles, writes:

“On the basis of the tensions and difficulties in the account [in Matthew 25:31-46, rlv] many scholars have held that Matthew has cobbled this account together out of traditional fragments and OT resources…the adjustment is likely to be pre-Matthean, but this time it may be Matthew himself who is responsible for the change…With some brief, now-lost beginning to introduce the king, the restored parable is free of the tensions and difficulties that have been identified in the Matthean account.”[iv] 

A brief summary of what Nolland thinks is this. He posits that whatever Jesus Christ actually said got changed to something different than what Jesus said! This kind of talk is replicated in far too many “conservative” evangelical commentaries, sermons, etc.

The solution to the problem.

The solution to the “Synoptic Problem” begins with “Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.” That is, I understand that the Synoptic Gospels are inspired by God, and I believe this even in light of the things I do not understand. “Let God be true, but every man a liar.”

My objection to “Markan Priority” and “Q” starts at a the most basic level – the inspiration of the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16). “Markan Priority” and “Q” theory emphasizes the human element in the writing of the Gospels. It essentially removes the divine element. Men imagine these Gospels rising from three authors without due emphasis on these three Gospels rising from one author using three inspired penmen. Since the human element is overemphasized, a need to fix the “problems” lends to the imagining of writers (particularly Matthew and Luke) copying their Gospels from Mark and an artfully invented fictional source – in order to explain why these books are the way they are. However, if God wrote the Gospels, that in itself explains why they are the way they are. They are how he wants them. This view may not suit our human curiosity in explaining all we think we want to know. Nevertheless, that must be the beginning point for the Bible believer.

Ultimately, we have gotten ourselves into this mess by rejecting the older view of inspiration that is closer to dictation than superintendence. “Dictation” has been pooh-poohed by modern evangelicals. Good people have rejected the term and preferred superintendence instead. Certainly, there is a human element to the writing of Scripture. That said, we cannot resolve “problems” by rejecting God as the divine author of Scripture. The majority of evangelicals in the United States may be emphasizing the human element to the removing of the divine element – while still giving lip service to inspiration. “Markan Priority” and “Q” are symptoms of the sickness of overemphasizing the “humanness” of the Gospels.

Considering the human standpoint of the authors, the Synoptic Gospels are independent accounts by three independent witnesses. That is, they do not need to depend on one another or any fictional sources. “Q” source is an inspiration-denying view, even if some of those who repeat it do not themselves deny inspiration.

There is one original ultimate source of the Synoptic Gospels. The Synoptic Gospels, the Gospel of John, and the whole of Scripture (all 66 books of the Old and New Testaments) are pure words from one source – God who gave the word. Believe it. Lord, help thou mine unbelief.

---

[i] “Q” is an abbreviation of the German word “Quelle”, meaning “source.” This should give the reader the hint that these doubts arise in large part from German higher criticism, which is an unbelief in the supernatural element of Christianity.
[ii] In addition to the Two Document (or Two Source) Hypothesis, there also exist hypotheses for three sources or four sources. When you start making this stuff up, there is no limit to how many sources there could be.
[iii] “Q” does not exist. There is no proof it ever existed. It exists only in the minds of those who need it to resolve their problems.
[iv] To read a long excerpt of John Nolland, with Thomas Ross’s comments, see “Q, Synoptic Gospel Dependence, and Inspiration for the Bible.”

The slow method of insulated assault

George Junkin addresses the problem of gradually removing biblical support for a doctrine versus the outright denial of that doctrine.

Before proceeding in the matter of this charge, allow me three observations. 1. It is possible to teach error by denying the truth—to take away sound doctrine positively, by a series of detail in the negative, ex gr.: Certain texts of Scripture, say twenty in number, have been depended on to prove the doctrine of the Trinity. I wish to reject that doctrine and yet do not feel it to be prudent to do it openly. It may be done more successfully and safely by denying in the detail, that it is taught in any of these passages. I put a gloss upon the passage which contains a history of Christ’s baptism, and conclude, by saying, whatever may be the truth or falsehood of the doctrine of the Trinity, it is not taught here. I take up the words used at baptism, “in the name of the Father, &c.” and gloss over and conclude, that doctrine has no foundation here. And so throughout the whole. Have I not really denied the doctrine of the Trinity! And yet I have not in any one instance said “It is not true—it is not taught in the Bible.” Is there a more effectual mode of attacking truth than this partizan war; this slow method of insulated assault?

But then it will be said in reply, “I have only removed certain texts which have been usually supposed to prove the doctrine of the sinners inability,” there are yet scores of others left. Very true, but the same process may take away the rest. Now my position is, that when a writer displays a disposition to take away the Scripture props from any doctrine, it is evident he dislikes the doctrine itself.

George Junkin in The Vindication, containing a History of the Trial of the Rev. Albert Barnes, George Junkin, Philadelphia, PA: W. S. Martin, 1836, pages 41-42.

Two Old Paths

Jeremiah 6:16 Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.

Introduction

In many of our like faith churches, when we begin to speak of “the old paths,” our minds often run immediately to church truth, local & visible congregations, immersion is baptism, strict communion, etc. And rightly so. However, in the 21st century, we find ourselves in a quandary where we must go back to the beginning, to two “old paths” that are older than (before) the rest: (1) The doctrine of God, and (2) The doctrine of Scripture.

Our church statement of faith lays out two foundational truths, from which all our church doctrines grow: We believe that God is, and that he has revealed himself in the sixty-six books we call the Holy Bible.

1. God is eternally self-existent. Genesis 1:1; Exodus 3:14; Hebrews 11:6.
2. The Bible is inspired by God. Psalm 119:160; Proverbs 30:5; 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

The doctrine of God

God is the Creator.

a. The Bible begins on that note, in Genesis 1:1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. It does not stop there, but continues to reiterate the message. Isaiah 40:28

Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding. Acts 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

b. His creation is to and for his own ends or purpose.

Proverbs 16:4 The Lord hath made all things for himself:

c. He sustains and upholds the world by the power of his might

Hebrews 1:3 who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power

God is Sovereign.

a. He does whatsoever he pleases in heaven and earth Psalm 115:3 But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased. Psalm 135:6 Whatsoever the Lord pleased, that did he in heaven, and in earth, in the seas, and all deep places.

b. Who can say anything against him? Romans 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

c. God is true; he is truth alone. Romans 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar

Nebuchaddnezzar recognized the sovereign God. Daniel 2:47 The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret.

God is our Saviour.

a. There is one God. Isaiah 45:21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the Lord? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.

b. There is one Saviour. 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

c. Neither is there any other. Acts 4:12  Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

We must reject the unknown God of the Athenians, the unknowable God of the Deists, the “no” God of atheists and agnostics, and return to the God of the Bible, the God of our fathers, the God who sees and knows all things, who does all things as he pleases and does them all well!

The doctrine of Scripture

God revealed himself to Moses from a burning bush, and to us from a burning Bible. Jeremiah 23:29 Is not my word like as a fire?

Scripture is inspired.

a. God gave the word (Psalm 68:11); God breathed the word. 2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

b. The Holy Ghost moved the prophetic speakers and writers. 2 Peter 1:20-21 knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Scripture is preserved.

a. God gave his word as he wanted, without addition or subtraction. Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is pure… Add thou not unto his words

b. His purpose in giving his words stands in his purpose to preserve his words. Psalm 33:11 The counsel of the Lord standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations. Psalm 12:6-7 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

c. God stands by and watches over his word; it will not return void; it will stand; it will not pass away. Ezekiel 12:25 For I am the Lord: I will speak, and the word that I shall speak shall come to pass… Isaiah 55:11; Matthew 24:35; 1 Peter 1:24-25

d. We will be judged by his forever words. Revelation 20:12 and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books…  John 12:48

Scripture presents the Saviour.

a. The holy scriptures make one wise unto salvation 2 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. When Eve saw the tree in the midst of the garden was a tree to be desired to make one wise (Genesis 3:6), she partook of it. Rather than making she and Adam wise, it made them dead in trespasses and sin.

b. The holy scriptures testify that eternal life is in Jesus Christ. John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. 1 John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard? (Isaiah 40:28) Yes, we have heard and we know because we have the inspired preserved Scriptures which testify of the Lord Jesus Christ.

In Why I Preach from the Received Text, Tanner Dikin wrote, “If the reliability of the holy Scripture is in question, we have no solid ground for our faith.” I agree, and would add, “If we cannot trust that God has kept his word, which says he keeps our souls, how can we trust that he keeps our souls?” Where is the end of rejecting the inspired preserved word of God? Despair. What is the answer to despair? Jesus. John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Conclusion

Psalm 11:3 If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do? Perhaps we at times have been like a man defending his roof and walls, blissfully unaware of the attack on the very foundation itself. We must return to these two old paths and aggressively contend for this part of the faith once delivered to the saints.

“Why I Preach from the Received Text” quotes

Below find 25 quotes by 25 authors from 25 chapters of Why I Preach from the Received Text.

“The Bible teaches that the triune God is the primary author of the Scripture, and he never makes a mistake.” Archibald Allison, p. 27

“There is a sad and distressing discrepancy in the very supposition that no exact superintending or peculiar providence has watched over the inspired books of Scripture and the text contained in those books.” Jonathan Arnold, p. 41

“The purity of God’s words within creation is a testimony of God himself unto his creation.” Doug Barger, p. 51

“God did not donate or reveal his Word into the hands of a group of random secular academics, but he gave it to his Church.” Gavin Beers, p. 57

“The Bible itself teaches that God himself preserves the Scriptures by means of his covenant people…(Romans 3:2)…(I Timothy 3:15)…” Poul de Gier, p. 66

“If the reliability of holy Scripture is in question, we have no solid ground for our faith.” Tanner Dikin, p. 78

“Textual criticism has never been, and never will be, a neutral enterprise carried out by scholars who just want to know the ‘facts.’” William O. Einwechter, p. 88

“It is the written Word of God that is able to search our hearts (Hebrews 4:12), not we who are able to search the hearts of those that copied it.” Brent C. Evans, p. 97

“I was delighted when I received my first copy of the NIV, but was soon disappointed when reading the book of Job. Simply having a modern translation did not make that book any easier to understand!” Philip Gardiner, p. 102

“We can confidently say that no document in the history of the world has been more commented upon, picked through, preached, examined, or critiqued than the Received Text of the Bible via the Authorized Version [of the Bible].” Dane Johannsson, p. 112

“Some argue that no doctrine has been compromised by the differences [between the ‘stable TR’ and ‘unstable Critical Text’ rlv] One could remove the texts of Genesis 1:1 or John 3:16 and argue that no doctrine is compromised when considering the Bible as a whole, but this is unpersuasive.” Howie W. Owen Jones, p. 121

“God never promised to preserve the manuscripts upon which the text was written; rather, he promised to preserve the words. This is an important principle which is too often overlooked.” Trevor Kirkland, p. 126

“In ministry...I had to preach the text, but before I could preach it, I had to be sure what it was.” Brett Mahlen, p. 136

“In his opening salvo, the devil focused his attack on undermining the Word of God and nothing has changed since.” Robert McCurley, p. 143

“…I preach from the Received Text through the Authorized Version.” Christian McShaffrey, p. 160

“In certain respects, the Christian academy has devasted by wicked unbelief parading as scientific objectivity, and the churches have largely followed suit.” D. Scott Meadows, p. 164

“I have found that having a standard, textually stable, theologically faithful, accurate Bible is necessary in a faithful pulpit and evangelism ministry.” Pooyan Mehrshahi, p. 170

“The New King James was being recommended to me as a good translation, so it gave me cause to ask, ‘Why not try the King James Version itself?’ After all, it has stood the test of time...” Mark L. R. Mullins, p. 181

“The Word of God is invincible.” Christopher Myers, p. 185

“If the preaching of the Word was to be at the center of my ministry, I had to have confidence and certainty as to what the Word of God is.” Jeff Riddle. pp. 200-201

“I did not set out to disprove the claims of the modern Critical Text, only to understand them; but as time went on, I became increasingly convinced that the modern Critical Text and the philosophy which undergirded it, was an affront to the honor of God, the glory of Christ, and the good of the Church.” Christopher Sheffield, p. 206

“Surely God’s people want a Bible that they know is God’s Word in its entirety, not one that has parts of its New Testament either excised, or accepted in a qualified fashion.” John Thackway, p. 223

“‘Is this Scripture?’ is a canonical question, whether we are asking it of a book, or even of a particular reading within a canonical book. Under the term canon, we recognize what is (and what is not) authoritative Scripture.” Robert Truelove, p. 225

“I simply do not understand how evangelicals can defend German rationalism and an approach to Scripture that dishonors the sovereign providence of God.” J. D. “Doc” Watson, p. 238

“I became convinced that a significant shift had take place in the doctrine of scripture...No longer was the church serving as the proper curator of holy writ, but this task had been subcontracted out to those who were unorthodox.” Joshua White, pp. 248-249

See my Book Review: Why I Preach from the Received Text.

Taking the Bible “literally”

Mark Wingfield of Baptist News Global reports on a Gallup poll that shows Belief in a literal interpretation of the Bible at all-time low among Americans. He seemed a bit giddy that the “conservative evangelical view of the Bible” might be is out of step with the U.S. population. Those who hold the Bible is the “actual word of God, to be taken literally” dropped from 24% in 2017 to 20% in 2022. 49% of the people polled say that the Bible is “inspired by God, not all to be taken literally” (a gain of 2% since 2017). Those who believe it is “fables, legends, history and moral precepts recorded by man” are at 29% – up from 26% in the 2017 poll.

It struck me as a bit odd that Wingfield did not link to the Gallup poll. I went searching and found a Gallup story about the poll HERE. At the bottom of that report is a link to a PDF download of “complete question responses and trends.” On the second page of that download, one can see how the question was asked:

Which of the following statements comes closest to describing your views about the Bible -- the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word, the Bible is the inspired word of God but not everything in it should be taken literally, or the Bible is an ancient book of fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by man?

The question wording is a bit suspect in how well it represents the way conservative Bible believers would express their view. I suppose an upside is that Gallup has apparently been asking the same question since 1976, making a direct comparison over the years possible. However, the wording of the question can skew the answer and introduce error into the findings of the poll. For example, I believe the Bible is the inspired inerrant word of God, preserved pure in all ages. I believe it is the Christian’s sole rule of faith and practice. Nevertheless, though I believe and teach that we can believe and trust every word, I do not think all of it is to be taken “literally.” The normal grammatical-historical method of interpretation understands the use of figures, allegory, and such like are not taken interpreted literally in the sense many people are likely to understand the word literally. This distinction may cause a number of strong Bible believers who hold inspiration and inerrancy to choose the second option since they do not take everything “literally.”

The 1st and 2nd options can send a mixed message, turning on how the respondents take the word “literally.” On the other hand, it seems the third question sends a clear message to all those who would agree on denying the authority of the Bible. And I doubt any of us would disagree this is a rising trend among U.S. residents.

Proverbs 30:5 - Every word of God is pure…

John 14:6 - Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. 

Writings of Edward Freer Hills

This began as an effort to document the writings of E. F. Hills. I decided there should be a brief bit of biography.

Biography

Edward Freer Hills (1912–1981) was a preacher and scholar in the Presbyterian & Reformed tradition. He is perhaps best remembered as a defender of the Textus Receptus or Greek Received Text of the New Testament.

Hills pastored Presbyterian churches at Handsboro and Ocean Springs, Mississippi in the late 1940s and early 1950s, as well as Crossroads Fellowship Christian Reformed Church (then known as Des Moines Christian Reformed Church) from 1954 to 1962. He also served as president of Iowans for Moral Education (Des Moines Register, October 29, 1979, p. 3A).

Edward F. Hills died in December of 1981 and is buried at the Glendale Cemetery at Des Moines, Polk County, Iowa.

Writings

• “The Teaching of the Scriptures concerning Slavery: the Attitude of the Church toward it, and their Significance for Present-day Social Problems,” Edward F. Hills, ThM Dissertation, Columbia Theological Seminary, 1941
• “The Caesarean Family of New Testament Manuscripts,” Edward F. Hills, ThD Dissertation, Harvard University, 1946.
• “Harmonizations in the Caesarean Text of Mark,” Edward F. Hills, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 66, No. 2 (June, 1947), pp. 135-152
• “The Inter-Relationship of the Caesarean Manuscripts,” Edward F. Hills, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 68, No. 2 (June, 1949), pp. 141-159
• “A New Approach to the Old Egyptian Text,” Edward F. Hills, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 69, No. 4 (December, 1950), pp. 345-362
• The King James Version Defended: A Christian View of the New Testament Manuscripts, Edward F. Hills, Des Moines, IA: Christian Research Press, 1956
• Space Age Science, Edward F. Hills, Des Moines, IA: Christian Research Press, 1964
• Believing Bible Study, Edward F. Hills, Des Moines, IA: Christian Research Press, 1967
• Evolution in the Space Age, Edward F. Hills, Des Moines, IA: Christian Research Press, 1967
• “Introduction” (pp. 17-67) and “Bibliographical notes” (pp. 69-72), Edward F. Hills in The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark, John William Burgon, Grand Rapids, MI: Associated Publishers and Authors, circa 1971
• “A History of My Defense of the King James Version,” Edward F. Hills, published in The Burning Bush, Volume 4, Number 2 (July 1998)
• Text and Time: A Reformed Approach to New Testament Textual Criticism, Edward F. Hills, Mary E. Hills Mueller (editor), Ankeny, IA: Christian Research Press, 2018 (Kindle Edition with original title; same book as The King James Version Defended)

Des Moines Register, December 28, 1979, p. 4C

See also Forgotten Pilgrim of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and Edward Freer Hill’s Contribution to the Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text by Theodore P. Letis (Emory University, Philadelphia, PA: Institute for Renaissance and Reformation Biblical Studies, 1987).

Expressive Individualism

Carl Trueman’s writing “How Expressive Individualism Threatens Civil Society,” and his book The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self: Cultural Amnesia, Expressive Individualism, and the Road to Sexual Revolution have caught the attention of some on the internet. Here are some related thoughts/posts.

9marks.org

• An Ecclesiological Take on “The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill” -- “Pragmatism is a results-driven orientation, especially results that can be measured, like dollars in the plate or bodies in the pew.”
• Do 9Marks Churches Foster Expressive Individualism? -- “Beware of whatever draws people to your church that’s not biblically essential. What’s trendy now will change.”
• Why Pastors Need to Understand an Abstract Topic Like “Expressive Individualism” -- “First, through the influence of Rousseau and other post-Enlightenment thinkers and poets, the self became ‘psychologized.’”
• You’re a Pastor, Not a Therapist -- “Pastor, you’re not a therapist. You hold a longer-term position in the lives of your people.”

StandardSacredText.com

• Expressive Individualism and Multiple Version Only-ism (Part 1) -- “The Bible is the rule of all faith and practice...If you get to choose the rule book you get to choose how the game is played.”
• Expressive Individualism, A SCOTUS Nominee, and the Textual Issue (Part 2) -- “Judge Jackson, being a woman, cannot give a definition for the word “woman” because she has chosen a Rule, a Standard which allows her to be ambiguous about that which is ruled, because of the Expressive Individualism that pervades her worldview.”
• Does the American Church at Large Foster Expressive Individualism? (Part 3) -- “We’re offering the version(s) of the Bible you are looking for.”
• The Unintended Consequences of Multiple Version Only-ism’s Expressive Individualism (Part 4) -- “here are unintended consequences to our churches’ expressions both of our members’ individual preferences of the version they read and our pastoral preferences regarding the version he reads.”

TR and KJV blogs and resources

TR and KJV blogs and resources

• Agros Church blog
• Another King James Bible Believer
• A Systematic Defense for the Textus Receptus
• Articles in Defence of Verbal Plenary Preservation
• Bridge to Babylon Documentary
• Confessional Bibliology
• Dean Burgon Society
• King James Bible Dictionary?
• King James Bible Online Resources
• King James Bible Research Council
• KJV Today
• Pastor Scott Ingram What is the Difference Series (search for these among much other stuff)
• Purely Presbyterian, scripture blogs
• Robert Paul Wieland, You Tube
• Robert Truelove on Texts and Textual Criticism
• Robertus Stephanus’ Greek New Testament editions online
• Stylos blog, by Jeffrey Riddle
• Textus Receptus Bibles
• Textus Receptus.com
• The Bible For Today HomePage
• The King James Version Defended, by E. F. Hills
• The Young, Textless, and Reformed
• Trinitarian Bible Society

I post links to the above because I believe they contain useful and helpful information. I do not endorse all points maintained by each of them. Further, it must be understood that each site stands on its own and does not necessarily endorse or even have any connection to any of the others.

Erasmian Myths

In debates and discussions about Bible versions, Greek manuscripts, and such like, sometimes certain tall tales about Erasmus come up. Perhaps there are some tall tales that should be told about Erasmus. However, the tallest Pinocchio-nosed tales most often contributed are resurrections of tales that have long since been debunked. Like a bad penny, they keep coming back!

Chris Thomas, an Administrator at Confessional Bibliology, has compiled a four-part series on the four most persistent “Erasmian Myths.” It is worth the read.

• Erasmian Myths: The Comma Wager -- “In conclusion, whenever you hear someone repeating the story that Erasmus only included the Comma Johanneum as part of a “rash wager” and was presented with a “made to order text” by a Froy or Roy, keep in mind that it has no foundation in the writings of Erasmus himself, nor his opponents such as Edward Lee, nor in men who criticized the inclusion of 1 John 5:7 such as the Roman Catholic Priest Richard Simon or the writings of John Mills who also specifically dealt with the Comma Johanneum.”
• Erasmian Myths: Codex Vaticanus -- “...we see that not only did Erasmus have access to readings of Vaticanus, but through his correspondence with Bombasius he could have requested readings of any portion of the codex. And we see that Erasmus did not consider Codex Vaticanus equal to the texts with which he worked, but instead considered the codex inferior because he believed it had been back-translated in portions and because it did not follow the Scripture citations of the orthodox church fathers.”
• Erasmian Myths: The Rush to Print -- “One of the more pernicious myths circulating about Erasmus concerns the quality of his Greek New Testament. The story goes that it was filled with errors because Erasmus was rushing to print. This myth was decimated by the eminent scholar Dr. M. A. Screech back in 1986 in his introduction to the Annotations of Erasmus.”
• Erasmian Myths: Revelation Back Translated from the Vulgate? -- “One of the more notorious myths about Erasmus is that he backtranslated the last 6 verses of the book of Revelation. There are many articles on the internet purporting to prove conclusively that Erasmus did in fact back translate from the Latin Vulgate the last few verses of Revelation.”

In addition to the blogs by Thomas, Jeffrey T. Riddle deals with the rash wager and rush to print in Erasmus Anecdotes, Puritan Reformed Journal Vol. 9, No. 1 (January 2017): 101-112. You probably have to have an Academia.edu account to access it.

Scripture dictation, mechanical or otherwise

When you get older, your mind plays tricks on you (or so I am told). I thought I had recently posted an essay on biblical inspiration and the dictation theory. I looked and looked and did not find it, so I guess my mind was playing tricks on me. I did find I had written a bit nine years ago, HERE and HERE.

For information, dictation in dictionary terms:

• dictate, verb. lay down authoritatively; prescribe; say or read aloud (words to be written down, typed, or recorded on tape).
• dictation, noun. the action of saying words aloud to be typed, written down, or recorded on tape; an utterance that is typed, written down, or recorded. the action of giving orders authoritatively or categorically.

Dictation seems an unpopular term in the current climate of the discussion of inspiration. Added to that unpopularity is the tendency of detractors to use the term “mechanical dictation.” It seems likely that liberals invented and used the term “mechanical dictation” to mock the views of evangelicals and fundamentalists. Two additional considerations are that:

• 1. Fundamentalists and evangelicals have changed their expressions in reaction to liberal attacks on biblical inspiration (e.g., older writers do not seem afraid of the word dictation, neither of describing writers as musical instruments played by God or God’s secretaries).
• 2. Fundamentalists and evangelicals have now adopted the liberal term “mechanical dictation” as a pejorative descriptor of a view they themselves claim is false. Conservative writers often set it over against and different from verbal plenary inspiration. That is unhelpful.

Verbal plenary inspiration, at its simplest, means that all the words in Scripture are God’s words, completely true and without any error. Those who hold a dictation theory of inspiration hold that just as firmly as those who verbal inspiration but not dictation. Dictation is simply one explanation of how the process of inspiration took place.[i]

God did indeed dictate at least some of his word (for speaking or writing; Isaiah 38:4ff.; Jeremiah 30:2; 36:2, 27-32; Revelation 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14). That seems to be a fact that few to none who hold verbal plenary inspiration would dispute. The disagreement for most, then, is whether God did this consistently with the total revelation of scripture. Those on the contrary-wise point out that the writings show variations in style, word choice, grammar – revealing the personalities of each individual writer. So, say they, if the words had been dictated by God to the writers they would show a consistent style throughout the Bible. Is this a necessary inference?

• Could God have infallibly guided men to write his word perfectly and without error, while allowing them to express their own language, emotions, backgrounds, and personalities?
• Could God have dictated his word to men perfectly and without error, while preserving the language, emotions, backgrounds, and personalities of the writers?

I am reviewing the idea of dictation. I have usually been among people who do not regularly use the term. Additionally, I have never thought the how of God giving the Scriptures was so important as long as we understand that the finished product is the perfect word of God, totally true without any mixture of error. However, we can find in the scriptures that at least some of the word is given by what might be called dictation (that is, in the way the Bible describes it being given in specific instances). It seems the majority view is that since the Bible does not say that about all of it on every occasion, then it must only be true concerning the times when dictation is specifically mentioned. On the other hand, might it not be more likely that God gives us specific examples of what he did on a regular basis? And which view might best accord with 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 2:21?

The prevailing view (that God did not dictate the words of Scripture) seems not primarily based on the scriptures saying what happened, but mostly on the observation of how the styles – the writers’ own language, emotions, backgrounds, and personalities come out in the writing. This is based on an a priori assumption that God could not dictate the word in a way that each writer’s “style” could or would be preserved. Why not? If God is able to allow the writers to express their own language, emotions, backgrounds, and personalities while infallibly guiding them to write his word perfectly and without error, why is he not able to dictate his word to men perfectly and without error, while preserving the language, emotions, backgrounds, and personalities of the writers? That different writers wrote in different “styles” only proves that they wrote differently, not how they came to do so.[ii] It is not outside God’s ability to give his word to men perfectly and without error, while preserving the language, emotions, backgrounds, and personalities of the writers.

Is it possible that we argue over something where there is not a “dime’s worth of difference” in the outcome? God is the source. He made sure we got his words. Perfectly. Without error. Do you believe that?

Many people do not like the appeal to “mystery.” (Yes, sometimes it can be an excuse.) However, in things relating to Almighty God and puny man there is reason to realize we do not or cannot fully comprehend the power of God. He can do things that we struggle to explain. We try to explain using ideas/things to which we can relate. It is more important to agree on the results of what God did with inspiration – God made sure we got his words. Perfectly. Without error – even though we may struggle expressing how he accomplished it. All Scripture comes from God. 100%!

---

[i] There can always be exceptions to the rule. However, I have never known anyone who held an idea of God dictating the scriptures to the writers who denied that inspiration is verbal and plenary. They merely disagree on the details with others who also believe inspiration is verbal and plenary but processed in a different way. 

[ii] 2 Corinthians 10:10 at the least suggests that the writing style of Paul was not the same as they perceived of him in person.

Confessional Bibliology and Ecclesiastical Text

Confessional Bibliology - a specific view of bibliology (the study of the Bible) that affirms God’s providential preservation of Scripture in the traditional Reformation-era texts of the Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament. The view establishes as “authentical” the consistent text of this era and rejects modern text critical reconstructionism. Confessional Bibliology holds the Masoretic text in Hebrew and the Textus Receptus in Greek as the pure and authentic “ecclesiastical text” of the churches. The view is “confessional” through being rooted in and supported by confessions such as Westminster (1646, Reformed), Savoy (1658, Congregational), and 2nd London (1677, Baptist). Chapter 1 (Of The Holy Scriptures), section 8 of these Confessions states:

“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; so as in all controversies of religion the church is finally to appeal unto them.”

Confessional Bibliology argues that the authentic text had been kept pure, already existed at the time these confessions were adopted, and therefore is not to be changed, discovered, or reconstructed through means of modern textual criticism.

Note 1. Paragraphs two & three of the confessions define the canon of Scripture. Note 2. Similar views, if not rooted in and supported by Reformation-era confessions, technically are not Confessional Bibliology but may be consistent with it. Note 3. Confessional Bibliology should not be conflated with so-called “King James Onlyism” (which itself is often caricatured by opponents through most extreme examples); Confessional Bibliology is rooted in the original languages of Scripture, while so-called “King James Onlyism” focuses on the English translation.

Ecclesiastical Text (also, Confessional Text, Received Text, Standard Sacred Text) - The standard biblical text that has been used over centuries in the mainstream churches (particularly or especially in those of Baptist, Congregational, Independent, Protestant, and/or Reformed heritage). These are the texts that were copied, preached, and used in these churches. For the New Testament Greek, this means the Byzantine manuscript tradition, most particularly the family of printed texts called the Textus Receptus (in practical terms, the 1881/1894 Scrivener text being most commonly used). For the Old Testament Hebrew, this refers to the Masoretic Text, especially the 1525 Daniel Bomberg Hebrew text.

Various KJVO Statements by Baptists

The following statements are random, based on search results I easily found with the DuckDuckGo search engine (plus a few from my minutes collection). They begin to demonstrate the faithfulness to the King James Bible across a wide variety of Baptists both by theology and location.

Free Will Baptist
Statement of Faith, Original Stone Association of Free Will Baptists, Tennessee
B.  We believe the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and the only rule of faith and practice (II Timothy 3:16-17; II Peter 1: 20-21).  The King James Version of the Bible shall be the official and only translation used by the Association.

Articles of Faith, First Free Will Baptist Church, Greenwood, SC
6. Scriptures — we believe that holy men of old wrote the Bible as they were moved, (lit. “Being borne along”) by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21, which harmonizes with 2 Timothy 3:15, which teaches that all Scripture is inspired.” (Lit. “God breathed” or “breathed out by God”).  This means that the Holy Spirit so superintended the writers of the Holy Scripture that, although they utilized their own vocabularies and  experiences, they wrote the very exact message God intended without any omission, addition, or error which means that the Bible is theologically, historically, scientifically, and geographically correct since the Holy Spirit is incapable of erring.  Being plenary verbally inspired by the Holy Spirit guarantees the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible in every area in which it speaks and makes it the highest authority and guide for the believer.  The King James Version of the Bible shall be the official and only translation used by the church.

Christian Unity Baptist Association
Articles of Faith of the Christian Unity Baptist Association, North Carolina
2. We believe the Bible, the Old and New Testaments, is the scriptural word of God given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. John 5:39, Rom. 16:25-26, II Tim. 3:15-17, Acts 28:23-28, II Pet. 1:20-21. We believe in using only the King James version of the Bible.
[The Christian Unity Baptist Association was formed September 27-28, 1935 in Ashe County, North Carolina. Historically tied to the Regular Baptists of the region, the Christian Unity Baptist Association varied from its predecessors, becoming a somewhat primitivistic Arminian body. They continued the rite of feet washing, taught falling from grace, allowed women ministers, and practiced open communion. The Articles of Faith that include the King James Bible were adopted at their first meeting in 1935.]

Missionary Baptist
First Landmark Missionary Baptist Church, Springfield, Oregon
“Only the Authorized King James Bible contains the Word of God.”

Sovereign Grace Missionary Baptist Church, Texarkana, Texas
“We believe and teach the King James Bible; while you are welcome to use any bible translation you choose, we only use the King James Bible. We believe the scriptures both Hebrew and Greek text was properly translated for King James and completed in 1611.”

Statement of Faith, Louisiana Missionary Baptist Association
I. We believe in the infallible, verbal inspiration of the whole Bible (2 Peter 1.19-21; 2 Timothy 3.16) and specifically, that the Bible is the Word of God and does not merely contain the Word of God. We reject any and all modern translations and or versions which are not substantially in keeping with the 1611 Authorized Version of the Bible.

Old Regular Baptist
Articles of Faith, Fifty-Ninth Annual Session of the Northern New Salem Association of Old Regular Baptist of Jesus Christ, August 5-7, 2016 (Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio)
Article 2. We believe the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments of the 1611 Authorized King James version of the Bible are the written words of God, and the only rules of Faith and practice. 2nd Peter 1:21, 2nd Tim. 3:16

Articles of Faith, One Hundred and Eighteenth Annual Session of the Sardis Association of Old Regular Baptist, September 10-12, 2010 (Kentucky)
Article 2. We believe the scripture of the Old and New Testaments of the Authorized King James Version of the Bible are the written words of God and are the only rules of faith and practice.

Primitive Baptist
Articles of Faith, Senter District Primitive Baptist Association, Ashe County, North Carolina (From the Minutes of the Nintey-third Annual Session, Senter District Primitive Baptist Association, September 6-8, 1946)
2. We believe that scriptures of the Old and New Testament as translated in the 1611 King James version of the Holy Bible, is the written work of God and the only rule of faith and practice.

Articles of Faith, Minutes of the One Hundred Fifth Annual Session of the Roaring River Primitive Baptist Association, September 21-23, 1951, (North Carolina) p. 6
2. We believe the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments (as recorded in the authorized King James Version) are the words of God, and the only rule of faith and practice.

Articles of Faith, Mars Hill Primitive Baptist Church, Hoboken, Georgia
2nd. We believe the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, of the original King James Bible, are the words of God, and the only rule of FAITH AND PRACTICE. References: 2 Peter 1:21; Romans 15:4; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; Luke 24:45; Isaiah 8:20 (Also “Our beliefs and preaching are from the King James Bible.”)

Separate Baptist
Articles of Doctrine for All Associations, Separate Baptists in Christ
Article 1. We believe that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the infallible Word of God, and the only safe rule of faith and practice, using the King James version of the Holy Bible for English-speaking people (We believe that non-English speaking people should use a Bible comparable to the King James version of the Holy Bible.). Rom 15:4, I Cor 10:11, II Tim 3:16-17, Gen 1:1 through Rev 22:21.

Union/Regular Baptist
History of White Oak Mountain Union Baptist Church, Helton, Ashe County, North Carolina
“None of those preachers had been to college, and none had had any religion or divinity courses, but t hey all knew the King James Bible (the only acceptable Bible there was) inside out.” (by Pamela Spencer Sizemore)

United Baptist
Articles of Faith, Old Zion Association of United Baptist, Kentucky
Article 5.  We believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament of the Authorized King James Version to be the infallible Word of God, taken then for our only rule of faith and practice; and nothing to be added or to be taken from them.

Articles of Faith, Paint Union Association of United Baptist, Kentucky
5. We believe in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, as recorded in the AUTHORIZED KING JAMES VERSION of the BIBLE, to be the infallible Word of God, take it for our only true rule of faith and practice, and nothing is to be added or taken from it.

Other Associations
Articles of Faith, Barren River Association of Baptists, 1830 (Kentucky) 
“While on a trip with the Baptist History Preservation Society, I traveled to Barren County, Kentucky. There I read the Articles of Faith of the Barren River Association adopted in 1830. There were twelve articles listed. 
“The Articles of Faith of the Barren River Association, adopted at her constitution at the Mount Pleasant Meeting House, Barren County, Ky., Sept. 15, 1830. 
“1st We believe that the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as translated by the authority of King James, to be the words of God, and is the only true rule of faith and practice.” From Pioneer Church Records of South Central Kentucky and the Upper Cumberland of Tennessee 1799-1899, C. P. Cawthorn & N. L. Warnell, Dayton, OH: Church History Research & Archives, p. 23 (as mentioned in Chapter 17 — “Bible Roots” in One Book Stands Alone by Douglas D. Stauffer)

Articles of Faith, Minutes of the Forty-First Annual Session of the Central Baptist Association, Inc., August 1-3, 1996 (TN,VA), p. 20
2. We believe that the Old and New Testament scriptures as recorded in the King James translation of 1611 to be the written and revealed word of God, and are the only rules of faith and practice. II Tim. 3:16; II Peter 1:20-21.

Articles of Faith, Minutes of the One Hundred Seventy Second Annual Session of the East Washington Association of Regular Baptist Churches of Christ, September 15-17, 2005 (Arkansas) p. 12 
2. We believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments (King James Version) are of Divine Authority, and the only Rule of Faith and practice. II Peter 1:21; II Tim. 3:16.

Constitution, Minutes of the 101st Annual Session of the New Hope Baptist Association, September 22-24, 1984 (Georgia) p. 15 
Article 2. We believe and receive the Original King James Version of the Old and New Testament as the revealed Word of God, and that they contain the only safe rule of faith and practice.

According to John Sparks in The Roots of Appalachian Christianity (p. 304) the articles of faith of the Paint Union had been changed only once in the life of the association (up until the time he was writing, of course), and that was “in 1989 to advocate the use of the King James version of the Bible and no other.”

In Giving Glory to God in Appalachia: Worship Practices of Six Baptist Sub-Denominations, Howard Dorgan (p. 16) tells of the Mountain District Primitive Baptist Association peacefully changing one of their articles of faith in 1978. “The article had read: ‘We believe that the scriptures of the Old and New Testament is [sic] the written word of God and the only rule of faith and practice.’ The change resulted in the following: ‘We believe that the scriptures of the Old and New Testament, as translated in 1611 into the King James Version of the Holy Bible, is the written word of God and the only rule of faith and practice.’” Such changes in most cases reveal a change in the articles of faith to reflect practice, rather than a change in practice.