Tag: Bible

Inerrant in the Original Is Not a Christian Doctrine

The Young, Textless, and Reformed4 Comments

I’m going to take a quick break from my Christianity in America series to briefly address a topic related to the textual discussion. There are so many errors with the modern doctrine of Scripture, this being one of the most significant. This doctrinal statement comes from Article X of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.

“We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid of irrelevant.”

This statement sounds great, until you begin to understand what it is saying. In the first place, the original manuscripts (autographic text), are no longer extant. So the first line of Article X is utterly meaningless. It would be the same as saying, “We affirm that unicorns have rainbow horns, which can be ascertained from historical account with great accuracy.” That is to say, that Article X is purely an assertion to which some undefined number of people agree is correct. The second part of this sentence declares the parameters that support this assertion, “available manuscripts” in addition to the level of confidence, “great accuracy.” The impact of this doctrine, according to the Chicago Statement, is that all copies and translations should be considered the Word of God to “the extent that they faithfully represent the original.”

Let me insert this statement into reality.

  1. Inspiration only applies to the original Scriptures, which have not survived, and we do not possess
  2. The autographic text of Scripture should only be ascertained from surviving (extant) manuscripts
  3. Manuscripts are destroyed and lost every year, we are only to use that which we have access to right now
  4. We can only attain the level of “great accuracy” from the extant manuscript tradition
  5. “Great accuracy” is not defined, but commonly means, “above average”
  6. The Chicago Statement does not describe how to handle passages which are uncertain, other than to say that “essential elements” are not affected
  7. The Chicago Statement does not define the “essential elements” of Christianity or the “non-essential elements”

As my reader can see, the Chicago Statement is not a meaningful doctrine. Further, if we consider what the foremost scholars have said in the past decade, we see the frivolity of the statement, “Can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy.” First, let’s examine what the credentialed textual scholars have said regarding what can be ascertained.

“We do not have now – in any of our critical Greek texts or in any translations – exactly what the authors of the New Testament wrote. Even if we did, we would not know it. There are many, many places in which the text of the New Testament is uncertain” (Elijah Hixson & Peter Gurry. Myths & Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism. xii. Quote by Dan Wallace.)

“I do not believe that God is under any obligation to preserve every detail of Scripture for us, even though he granted us good access to the text of the New Testament.” (Dirk Jongkind. An Introduction to the Greek New Testament. 90.)

“The New Testament philologist’s task is not to recover an original authorial text, not only because we cannot at present know on philological grounds what the original text might have been, nor even because there may have been several forms to the tradition, but because philology is not able to make a pronouncement as to whether or not there was such an authorial text” (DC Parker. Textual Scholarship and the Making of the New Testament. 27.)

“We are trying to piece together a puzzle with only some of the pieces” (Peter Gurry. A New Approach to Textual Criticism: An Introduction to the Coherence Based Genealogical Method. 112.)

All of these statements point to the reality that the modern Scriptures are viewed by the scholars as an above average representation of the authorial text. Since this doctrinal statement uses a surprisingly casual definition for how the Scriptures are preserved, I will use a casual interpretation and determine that great, or above average, equates to something along the lines of 80-89%. According to the Chicago Statement, there is not a single translation or copy that shares above 89% consent with the authentic original. If we consider the words of textual scholars, that number could be interpreted to be much lower.

Of course this reality is addressed by simply asserting that, “No major or essential doctrines are affected.” This is an absurd assertion due to the fact that there is no way of actually knowing that to be true. It is more accurate to say, “We believe that no major or essential doctrines is impacted by our uncertainty.” In colloquial English, one might say, “Just trust me, bro.” The bottom line is, we must believe the doctrines and the scholars at face value. If they say, “We only have 80-89% of Scripture,” believe them. I cannot count the amount of times I have been accused of slander for simply pointing to the words and doctrinal statements of the modern scholars and church. Ironically, these doctrines are offensive enough to be considered “slander,” unless they are presented by a man in a bow tie. As a side note, bow ties should only be adorned if you are in a barbershop quartet or are wearing a tuxedo, and do not actually lend to credibility. I could write an entire article (let me know if there is any interest in this) on how informal bow-tie use is an analog for the decay of Western culture, but I digress.

These are the doctrinal structures for the statement, “Inerrant in the original.” Just like modern Christianity, it has the veneer of something true without any of the substance. What exactly does this statement mean if we do not have the original? It means that we must rely on our verification method to demonstrate the quality of our modern texts. According to the scholars and the Chicago Statement, that verification method is capable of certainty up to 89%. That is a lot of missing Scripture at the highest estimate. When you hear, “greatly accurate,” it is important that you hear, “above average.” This is not a Christian doctrine. It is a secular view of Scripture dressed up in Christian language.

You will often hear that the Bible has “more manuscripts than the Iliad,” but scholars accept that we have the full text of the Iliad. Do not be fooled by these modern apologetic lines. Once you realize that the vast majority of New Testament manuscripts are partial copies or come much later in the timeline, you will realize the misrepresentative nature of modern apologetics. The bottom line is, the modern doctrine of Scripture can say, at most, that we have the original to an 89% degree of accuracy, though modern scholars would never put a number on it, because they aren’t even that certain. Abandon this secular doctrine, dear Christian, and embrace your Christian heritage and tradition.

The Interpretive Tradition of Modern Evangelicalism

The Young, Textless, and Reformed1 Comment

Introduction

In the last article, we established that the idea of “solo scriptura,” or reading the Bible in isolation, is not a feature of Protestantism. Unfortunately, during the 19th century, this became one of the main pillars of American Evangelicalism. There aren’t many great histories of the church after the 19th century, so much of my views here will be my own interpretation of events as I know them to have occurred. I’m sure many people have a different perspective on what exactly caused Protestants to move away from Reformed confessions, but I might find agreement with my peers that a significant shift began in the late 1800’s in London with what is called “The Downgrade Controversy.” Charles Spurgeon was at the center of this controversy, wherein he fought back against the denial of infallibility of Scripture, Christ’s atonement, hell, and the affirmation of universalism. While this was happening in London, we see a similar phenomenon in America with the Second Great Awakening (early-mid 1800’s) and the birth of revivalism, Mormonism, Seventh-day Adventism (late 1800’s), Jehovah’s Witness, and eventually the publishing of the Scofield Reference Bible in 1909.

Chaos in the Western Church

It is difficult to organize the amount of chaos that occurred in the Western church in the 19th and 20th centuries, but the easiest observation here is that there was a lot of schisms and chaos. In all of the major splits, we see the common through line of the belief that there was no single interpretive tradition of the Bible. Charles Taze Russel rejected Presbyterianism, and advocated for personal Bible study and the establishment of Christ’s Kingdom on earth. Joseph Smith received private revelation from what he perceived to be an angel, in opposition to Galatians 1:6-9 and 2 Timothy 3:16. Seventh Day Adventism was born out of the Second Great Awakening and the reinterpretation of Daniel’s prophecies and the Christian Sabbath. The most egregious example of abandoning the interpretive lens of the Protestants was obviously John Nelson Darby’s dispensationalism, which I will handle in a much more thorough article. Protestantism quickly devolved from confessional tradition to revivalism, private interpretations, and an abandonment of the Reformed Catholicism that was born out of the Protestant Reformation. In order to try and organize this chaos, here is a partial list of departures from Reformed Orthodoxy between the 19th and 20th centuries:

  1. The acceptance of private interpretations of Scripture over the confessional interpretive traditions (1689 LBCF, 1646 WCF, Three Forms of Unity, Augsburg Confession, 39 Articles, Savoy Declaration, etc.)
  2. The allowance of new revelation via prophecies, dreams, visions, and angels (Mormonism, Eschatological Cults, etc.)
  3. The reinterpretation of passages to account for cultural changes, world events, and wars (Dispensationalism, Seventh Day Adventism, etc.)
  4. The shift from covenant family discipleship to revivalism and missions (Billy Graham Crusades, etc.)
  5. The rise of perfectionism and Wesleyanism (Oneness Pentecostalism, Methodism, Fundamentalism, etc.)
  6. Denominational downgrades in the academy and response to Darwin and other scientific theories (PCUSA, Princeton, Harvard, etc.)

There of course is a lot more that I could list, but these were significant departures from the Protestant tradition that had held for several centuries. The Protestant churches were going through a reformation of their own. Unlike the Protestant Reformation, which had “Ad Fontes” as its battle cry, this new reformation hurtled forwards, exploring new theological paths. By the mid 20th century, there was not a single version of Protestantism characterized by its lineage to the Reformation, there was a brand of Western Evangelicalism who had sectarianism and isolationism as her main features. As far as I can tell, there was not a single thread that tied all of these movements together, though they all shared one thing in common with the Downgrade Controversy, rejection of the infallibility of Scripture and/or rejection of historical interpretive principles. Western Evangelicalism was facing its own crisis, similar to when Rome had three popes at the same time during the Western Schism (1409-1417).

Chaos, and More Chaos

I know it’s exceedingly difficult to keep track of all of the church authorities in the West, but the end product of the 19th and 20th centuries was the full adoption of pluralism in Western Evangelicalism. Every branch, denomination, and sect could believe antithetical things about the faith while still being considered “Protestant.” Here’s a list of just some of the things that are considered Protestantism in the West.

Protestantism is:

  1. Arminianism and Calvinism
  2. Peadobaptistic and Credo baptistic (Infant baptism vs. adult believer’s baptism)
  3. Unitarian, Modalism, Social Trinitarian, and Classical Trinitarian
  4. Cessationist and Continuationist (No more prophecy vs. ongoing prophecy)
  5. Covenantal, Non-Covenantal, and Dispensational
  6. Synergistic and Monergistic (Faith and works salvation vs. Salvation by faith alone)

It’s clear that the average person has adopted the understanding that anything can be Christianity. Many church historians credit the Enlightenment for the widespread adoption of relativism in the age of reason. The enlightenment, among other things, emphasized empiricism, individualism, religious tolerance, natural rights, and constant progress. BB Warfield, known as the Lion of Princeton, was the Charles Hodge Chair at Princeton Theological Seminary in 1887. It is common to say that he was the last bastion against the enlightenment at Princeton, though others say he actually ushered it in. Some of you might be shocked to learn that Princeton, the fourth oldest university in the US and one of the premier ivy league institutions in the world, was founded as a Reformed Presbyterian seminary in the aftermath of the Great Awakening. The point is, something happened to Christianity in the US, and it happened nearly overnight.

It’s overwhelming to try and organize all of the events of the 19th and 20th centuries into one, unified story. It’s almost as if the Western Protestant movement was hit from every side, all at once, by a multitude of attacks. The result is that Christianity was placed in a blender with everything else in the world and pureed into an indistinguishable goo. Now in the 21st century, we have the aftermath of the storm that hit Western Christianity over the last 150 years or so.

Christianity Today

Despite the aforementioned theological tribulation of the church, there was one thing that American Christians did not lose until very recently – the traditional Christian ethic. Even though the theological core of Protestantism had been dismantled, Christians maintained traditional views on marriage, children, the role of men and women, the household, modesty, substance abuse, justice, and a general aversion to degeneracy. In the last 25 years, perhaps 50 years, the church has abandoned most of those values. This is no surprise, considering the theological foundation which held these views together had been deconstructed. The theological rot came first, followed by the cultural rot. It just took longer to shake the moral frameworks. It is important to note that the Roman Catholic church was infected this way as well, and she too struggles internally with many of the same issues as the Protestants. Roman Catholic apologists will deny this, but Pope Francis often taught universalist doctrines and pro-progressive politics, in addition to publicly holding views against Vatican I. Such is to say, that Roman Catholic apologists claim that Rome has insulated herself from the same rot as Protestantism, though they would be mistaken or lying.

In the wake of the 20th century, an amorphous blob of Christian tribes emerged, all bearing the name, “Protestant.” Though there are distinct Christian identities in the US, such as Assemblies of God or the Southern Baptist Convention, it is more reasonable to say that American Christianity is defined by radical individualism. Every Christian, across all denominations, is taught that individual belief is what makes one a Christian, and everything after that is a simple matter of preference. The problem with this is that the only Christian distinctive remaining is not concerned with the substance of what one believes. If everybody had the same understanding of who Jesus Christ is and what faith means, then this individualism certainly wouldn’t be any cause for serious concern. At face value, it seems perfectly simple and effective to say that anybody who places their faith in Jesus is a Christian. However, in a pluralistic society, there are dozens, if not hundreds of versions of Jesus. If a bike is defined as anything with wheels, then saying, “I rode my bike to the store” could mean that you rode in your car, or even that you scootered. Many American Christians believe that Jesus is just the Father in human form. That is a distinctly different Jesus than that of the Reformed or even the Roman Catholics. Having two friends named “Bill” doesn’t make them the same person because they share the same name.

In the same way, America has multiple versions of Jesus, therefore multiple Christianities. The question is not, “Do you follow Christ?” it is “Which Christ do you follow?” Now combine this reality with the fact that the vast majority of churches do not define these things in their doctrinal statements, a person believing any number of versions of Christ can be a communicate member of a church while not believing what the church teaches by virtue of semantics. This is further evidence that the term Protestant doesn’t serve much of a purpose. Protestants in the US, in many cases, do not share the same Jesus, the same liturgical practices, or even the same ethics. This is even true within denominational agreement. Note how different one PCA church can be from another. This radical individualism makes it impossible to have any unity in American Christianity. It also makes it quite difficult to point at a Christian church or denomination, and say with confidence, “This is what they believe.” The reality is, you can’t know unless you personally survey every member of that church.

This of course is true in the Western and Eastern magisterial churches, but these institutions at least attempt to create unity through church structure and bureaucracy. Rather than being a bug, this is actually a feature of how Protestants behave in the US. Every Christian is taught to engage in their own private study, come up with new interpretations, new translations, and to neglect historical orthodoxy. I cannot count how many times I have been in a church small group where somebody attempted to share their crazy thoughts on what Paul was really saying, or that they have come up with a new translation of Scripture that is the closest to what the original actually says. The simple observation here is that in America, there are endless versions of Christianity, even within the mainline Protestant denominations.

That is why, when somebody says, “America is a Christian Nation,” I don’t know what to think of it. What version of Christianity is America? It’s not the version that I was taught in my personal or pastoral studies, that’s for sure. Of course there are many that will try to invoke the no true Scotsman fallacy, but it does not apply here at all. In this case, the Scotsman is actually an Ethiopian and the sugar is salt and the porridge is actually spaghetti. Which is to say that in our case, we are not discussing a Scotsman putting sugar in his porridge, we are discussing an Ethiopian putting salt on spaghetti and saying, “Ah but no true Scotsman would put sugar on is porridge.” The no true Scotsman fallacy isn’t a blanket excuse to violate the law of identity.

If we are to gain progress in our discussion, we must be willing to acknowledge that Christianity can be defined, and that there are ways to practice it, and ways not to practice it. Right now, in America, we mostly see example after example of how not to practice it. With this analysis, I believe I have finally laid the groundwork for discussing what exactly Christianity is in America. I fear it will be a difficult task to identify all of the various parts, but I will do my best.

Solo Scriptura, Semper Reformanda: The Great Downfall of American Protestantism

The Young, Textless, and Reformed3 Comments

Introduction

I have stated the fact that Protestantism, or Reformed Catholicity, is nearly endangered in the world today. It is important to ask ourselves, “How did the rich tradition of the Protestant Reformation nearly die?” In the last article, I pointed to weak, unlearned, stupid men who allowed wolves to desecrate their churches. That is not the entire story, however. Underneath the men who allowed the church to be compromised at every turn were two doctrinal beliefs: Solo Scriptura and Semper Reformanda. Now let me first be clear, Solo Scriptura is not the same as Sola Scriptura. It is the common misinterpretation of one of the pillar doctrines of Protestantism. Solo Scriptura is the belief that there are no interpretive traditions of Scripture and that every person is correct to read the Bible and interpret it how they see fit. Jerome, speaking of Origen on this matter, stated, “Origen thinks the acuteness of his genius is a sacrament of the church.” In other words, many men believe themselves to be so intelligent that their analysis of Scripture supersedes that of every man who came before them. Now combine this interpretive principle with the battle cry of “Semper Reformanda,” and you have the perfect formula for endless schisms.

Solo Scriptura is a False Doctrine

When people use the term “Sola Scriptura,” they are often using it to describe “Solo Scriptura.” Solo Scriptura is the belief that the only source of Christian faith and practice is the Christian’s private pursuit of the Scriptures alone. This is often called “Biblicism,” which results in Christians to believe that consulting history, confessions, creeds, and commentaries is unbiblical. As a result, this practice produces an infinite number of novel interpretations of Scripture. This is one of the primary apologetics used against Protestants by Rome. They say that without the Papal authority, humans will create infinite amounts of interpretations, and therefore the Roman Pontiff and councils are necessary to decide what is true and what is not.

Turretin says on this matter, “The question is not whether the Scriptures are the rule and standard of controversies. This the papists do not object to, at least they appear to be willing to hold it, although what they give with one hand they take away with the other, arguing their obscurity and imperfection. But the question is whether the Scriptures are a total and full rule, not a partial and imperfect rule” (Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. I, p. 154.) This is the common mode of argumentation for the Roman Catholic. They will agree with a point, and then in the nuance of their agreement, disagree with the substance of what is being said while maintaining that the statement itself is true. They agree that Scripture is the rule and standard while also saying that contradictory councils are also true. They agree that there is one mediator in heaven between God and man, Jesus Christ, while also practicing that Mary and saints can intercede on behalf of the believer. The modern man is not discerning enough to handle this kind of double-speak, and is easily seduced by the Roman doctrine.

Yet, the problem is not Rome, it is the Protestants for abandoning the historical traditions of the church and inventing new doctrines without ceasing. In order to discern this kind of occurrence, you must understand how this form of argumentation works. The entire strategy is to use historical terminology to trick people into thinking that they are grounded in truth, while at the same time using that same terminology to mean something entirely different. In many, many cases, the original terminology has been replaced with a new, subverted definition. The prime example of this being the reinterpretation of Sola Scriptura to mean the same as Solo Scriptura. In the first place, the critique by Rome is correct, if our assumption is that by Sola Scriptura we actually mean Solo Scriptura. Yet, Scripture itself condemns this practice of Biblicism, “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation” (2 Peter 1:20, KJV). Ironically, those who believe that it is Biblical to hold private interpretations of Scripture due to Sola Scriptura, cannot maintain a doctrine of Sola Scriptura because the Bible teaches against private interpretations. In other words, these Biblicists have used the term Sola Scriptura, while at the same time using a definition that, in its substance, means something else (Solo Scriptura).

What is Sola Scriptura

We have already established that Sola Scriptura does not mean, “Every Christian is to interpret the Bible for himself.” What it does mean, is that the Scriptures are the final rule and authority on all matters of faith and practice (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Now, the important question to ask is, “How are we to do that?” The Solo Scriptura crowd believes it is their divine right to create a fresh interpretation of every passage of Scripture. The Roman Catholic believes it is the Roman Pontiff’s divine right to do the same. Sola Scriptura teaches that neither of these are true because no one man can be the final authority, because men are fallible. The fact remains that the Scriptures must be interpreted, “To ascertain the true sense of the Scriptures, interpretation is needed” (Turretin, Institutes, Vol. I, p. 153). So the question is not, “Does the Bible give Christians the true faith?” All Christians agree. The question truly is, “How do we know who has the right interpretation?”

In the first place, the Reformed believed a doctrine of self-authenticating and self-authoritative Scriptures (αυτοπιστος). If the Scriptures are inspired and preserved by God for men, then they must be true, harmonious, without error (inerrant), and cannot fail (infallible) in their purpose. Which is to say, that the Scriptures do have a definitive interpretation and meaning. Even if men misinterpret the Scriptures, this does not stain the true nature of the Scriptures. Turretin once again says, “The ignorance and blindness of man are not to be compounded with the obscurity of the Scriptures” (Ibid. 145.) Therefore, the idea that every man can come away from the Scriptures with his own meaning is incompatible with the doctrine that the Scriptures are without error. The Bible has a definitive message (Nehemiah 8:8). Just because many people believe different things about Scripture, does not logically mean the Bible then has many different meanings. It simply means that some people are wrong, and some people are right.

The Reformed believed in a threefold interpretive method. First, analysis of the grammar, rhetoric, and logic to interpret the meaning of the words in context. Second, comparison of passages to each other. Third, they had a doctrine called the analogy of faith, which they ascertained from Romans 12:6. Turretin says, “The analogy of faith (Rom. 12:6) signifies not only the measure of faith granted to each believer, but also the constant harmony and agreement of all heads of faith exhibited in the clearer expressions of Scripture (to which all expositions ought to be conformed) that nothing may be determined at variance with the articles of faith or the precepts of the Decalogue…For as the Spirit is always undoubtedly self-consistent, we cannot consider that to be his sense which is opposed to other truths delivered by Him” (Ibid. 153). Simply put, Scripture should be interpreted by other Scripture, seeking harmony, because God cannot disagree with Himself. Turretin concludes, “As a prince must interpret his own law, so also God must be the interpreter of his own Scriptures – the law of faith and practice” (ibid. 157).

Sola Scriptura does not mean that men will always interpret the Scriptures correctly, and in fact, the doctrine highlights that men are often in error (which was the complaint against Rome). The Reformed said that all of the Fathers, the councils, and the creeds must be in harmony with the Scriptures in order to be valid. The Sola Scriptura doctrine of the Protestants simply exalts the Scriptures as the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. It does not write off the importance of historical councils, creeds, or the Fathers. It simply recognizes that men can err, and God cannot. This belief of authority recognizes that in some sense, man will never be 100% correct on interpreting every word of Scripture, which takes a certain amount of humility to acknowledge. Despite this truth, it also recognizes that there are necessary truths which are plain to all and cannot be obscured. These are the pillars of the Christian religion, which are often framed as “open and closed hand issues.” In other words, dividing lines which make one Christian or non-Christian.

The Modern Doctrine of Scripture

The modern view of Scripture has decimated ordinary faith and practice in the West. If you survey the average church’s website, none of them include any method by which their church interprets Scripture. They will tell you (vaguely) what Scripture is, but they will not explain in any depth what guard rails they have applied to keep their church in line with what has always been considered Christianity. This is why more traditional churches are gaining traction the US. Traditional churches not only have a standard, organized form of worship, but they also are exceedingly clear on how they will be interpreting Scripture. Rome and the East have their formulation for interpretation, and modern Protestants, with the exception of somewhere around 1% of the churches, do not. The Bible can always be read afresh, with new meaning, and new interpretations. Combine this with the progressive notion of Semper Reformanda (always reforming), and you have a recipe for infinite schisms. As a result, there is no uniformity and no stability in modern Protestant churches.

What the modern Protestant church should desire is not something new, contrary to popular belief. Protestantism was not always a progressive religion or one that conformed itself to every whim of culture or political happening. The 20th century was devastating to Western Christianity. It hollowed out every doctrine, every sacred practice, every sense of distinction, and the result is evident to see today. The abandonment of Sola Scriptura and the incessant need to always reform was a recipe for disaster, because instead of reforming herself to Scripture, the church conformed to the world.

Revival or Revolution

The Young, Textless, and Reformed1 Comment

Introduction

In order to properly address the state of American Christianity, I feel the need to explain why I am compelled to write in the first place. When I was dealing with the textual discussion, I expressed my desire that everybody would take up and read the Scriptures with full faith and assurance that they were reading the divinely inspired word of God. I turn my attention now to the state of American Protestantism and Christianity at large, because as a Christian, I have the hope that we are nearing a revival. My fear is that without revival, this country is on the brink of civil strife, civil war, or revolution. Some already say that we have been in a civil strife phase for some time now.

Now, if there is a revolution or conflict brewing, I do not believe there is much I can do about that. However, if this nation is blessed instead with revival, it is my most sincere desire that we do not follow the example of Charlies Finney and the Second Great Awakening. If it is the case that we are on the cusp of revival, and given recent events it is not outside of the realm of possibility, I hope to add clarity to the conversation as to what the substance of that revival must be. Perhaps I can aspire to be one small voice of many that steer this revival towards the echoes of Jonathan Edwards and George Whitfield.

In my first two articles, I began to set the stage to explain what American Protestantism has become in the last 100 years, but I hardly touched the surface. Not only are the Roman Catholics unfamiliar with what Protestantism is, but Protestants are, broadly speaking, ignorant of what was formerly called “Reformed Catholicism.” This Reformed Catholicism, confessional Christianity, is represented at most by 1% of churches in the united states. The vast majority of churches do not represent the true nature of Christian catholicity that emerged from the 16th century, and grew in the 17th and 18th centuries. Returning to the Puritans would be great from my perspective, but it is more important to me that whatever form Christianity takes in the upcoming decades, it conforms to “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life” (1 John 1:1, KJV).

That Which Was From the Beginning Is Not What You See Now

It is plain to see that many, if not most churches in the United States have fallen from grace. Before I delve into the nuances of these churches, I wanted to make three critical observations. First, the American Christian, above all other things, is cowardly, weak, and desires approval from men more than approval from God. Second, the American Christian has not exercised his mental or spiritual faculties such that even if he is brave, he is too dense to provide a coherent presentation of the faith in the public sphere. Third, the American Christian is ignorant of his Christian heritage and history, so that even if he is brave and intelligent, he knows not from whence he come.

This deadly trifecta of spiritual apathy has allowed wolves to outright conquer the church with very little resistance. This is why I started my fight with the Scriptures, because I surveyed the American religious landscape and realized that most men were completely lacking spiritual fitness. If we are fortunate enough to be blessed with revival instead of revolution, we need competent and uncompromised men to guide the church away from pseudo revivals, and towards a rich, historical, scriptural, Christianity.

If we fail to navigate this critical time in church history, we may see revival, but it will only multiply the likes of Steven Furtick, David Platt, Tim Keller, Bill Johnson, Kenneth Copeland, Joel Osteen, and so on. So before I pursue a full analysis of the American Christian landscape, I want to emphasize what is at stake here. In true Puritan fashion, I will argue that it is not just the quantity of Christians that matters, it is the quality which we should be concerned with. Even if such revival never happens, we must stop lowering the standards for what Christianity is, lest Christianity transmogrifies itself even further into agnosticism with extra steps.

Agnosticism with Extra Steps

Many modern voices have come out of the wilderness to shout this message, most notably men like Paul Washer in his sermon, “Ten Indictments Against the Modern Church.” This is by no means a new message, and I am not the first messenger here. If we are to truly engage in an objective analysis, we must acknowledge that Christian men have failed to keep the guard rails on what constitutes a Christian church. It is no longer the time for irenic, scholarly conversations. While I do appreciate decorum and formality, the church is not dignified enough to deserve it. A man who demands polite vocabulary and a gentle tone is genuinely not made for this moment in time and space.

The weak, gentle, servant leadership of our fathers has led us down a dark road, where heresy and false worship is excused. There is a valid reason young people are flocking to Rome and the East, and it is primarily because they enter a magisterial, liturgical church, and think, “These people respect the institution.” Few modern Protestants know that our churches used to be that way too, but weak men abandoned the rich, Christian tradition of their great grandfathers. What that has left us with is a Protestant church that is nothing more than agnosticism with a building and a band.

We must be willing to abandon this effeminate version of Christianity and begin to demand more from our institutions. The vast majority of people believe Christians to be gullible, weak, and easily manipulated, and they are correct. If true Christianity is to survive in America, we must begin by drawing lines in the sand. We must expect more from Christians, not less. If this sick and dying country does see revival, we must dutifully ensure that it is a revival full of spirit and truth, and not more of the same.

Schisms Upon Schisms

The Young, Textless, and Reformed1 Comment

Introduction

Rome was right about one thing, the Protestant Reformation was a recipe for endless schisms. Despite this reality, the Reformation was still utterly necessary. The church was not healthy, and many would say was in some regard, apostate. The Vatican had been littered with scandal for hundreds of years, and anybody that denies this fact is either ignorant or lying. I’ll give one example, though there are many. In the 14th century, the Avignonese Captivity (1309-1376) of the papacy turned the “vicar of Christ” into a French political pawn, which ended in two popes (Urban VI and Clement VII) being elected by the same body of cardinals, who proceeded to excommunicated each other. It was an act of divine comedy, as if God Himself were saying, “I recognize neither of you.” By 1398, the French Monarchy took control over the papal powers in France, highlighting the secular and political nature of the church. If you’re confused as to why the Reformation was so successful, the Catholic church had been discrediting itself for hundreds of years by the time Martin Luther comes onto the scene.

Rome, You Asked for It

During the time of the Avignonese captivity, the first steps of the Reformation began with a theologian named John Wyclif from Oxford. Wyclif wrote a book called, On the Church, where he argued that the church was comprised of the body of the elect with Christ at the head, not the organization controlled by the papacy. Wyclif argued that the proper view of eucharist had vanished from the western church since the 11th century, but remained true in the east (Transubstantiation vs. Real Presence). Most importantly, Wyclif set into motion the production of the first English Bible in 1384. Up until then, the Bible in the west was confined to the Latin, which meant very few could read it. Three decades later, the church desecrated his grave and burnt his body. Wyclif’s writings birthed the Lollards, who condemned transubstantiation and prayers for the dead, and advocated for clergymen to marry. The Catholic church used political influence through King Henry IV to burn the Lollard heretics at the stake. In fact, around the Christian world, many scholars and influential men rose up, espousing similar ideas, including John Huss, whose last words before being martyred were, “I shall die with joy today in the faith of the Gospel which I have preached.”

For any of my freshly catholic friends, your church has been apostate for centuries. The only reason the Reformation didn’t happen earlier was because the Roman church was so quick to use violence and political corruption to solve its problems. If Rome wanted unity, she would have been open to reform. Yet, any time a reformer came along, trying to work within the walls of the church, the church responded with violence. Roman Catholics, this Protestant schism is on your hands. I think my reader will agree with me that the schism was necessary while also acknowledging the negative reality of such schisms.

The Reality of Schisms

Yes, the Reformation was inevitable. Rome had fallen too far from her original purpose to be redeemed. I am not saying that modern Roman Catholics endorse any of the actions taken by the church against Christians seeking reform, what I am saying is that modern Roman Catholics are worshiping in a corpse. Unfortunately, this is something that the Roman Catholics have in common with many Protestants today. The problem is not necessarily that there are schismatics, it is that such schismatics are willing to worship without Spirit, and without truth.

The number of schismatic movements had multiplied exponentially since the 16th century, practically bursting from the seams in the 19th and 20th centuries. I would argue that almost every single one of these movements is illegitimate. With every new movement, heresies old are revived, and heresies new were born. Though we know that there is nothing truly new under the sun, churches are born daily on the premise of “sing a new song.” The overwhelming reality is that there is no unified church in the world today, in the US or globally. Even the Catholic and Eastern magisterial churches are not united in themselves, they have their own schisms.

There are many likely reasons for the endless schisms in the Protestant world, but most stem from the insane behaviors of churches in the 19th and 20th centuries. In the first place, churches became obsessed with counting heads and massive pseudo-revivals. This is often called the, “Second Great Awakening,” though I argue that very few souls were stirred genuinely from that effort. The role of the church became less about discipleship, and more about evangelical outreach. We see the effect of this today, where pastors have famously said things like, “If you are a Christian today, this service is not for you.”

Secondly, American churches became obsessed with converting every last person from every third world village, building houses and wells in some foreign country, spawning revivals in India, and so on. Think of all of the Apologists of the last century. The chief assumption was that all of the Buddhists, Muslims, Atheists, and Hindus needed to be converted. Many of the church’s most able bodied men were sent abroad, meanwhile the church at home suffered a painful decline. Many of us grew up hearing the stories of heroic missionaries being slaughtered by unreached people, only for the next missionary to come back to find them all worshipping Jesus. Yes, it is important to reach all with the Gospel, but not at the expense of Christians in your own land hearing the gospel. 20th century Christians seemed to ignore the fact that God had desired them to be born in a place, and perhaps He even desired that place to be their mission field. Ironically, America would do well if foreign missionaries could come to our shores and convert some of our people. In 2025, it is not only the Hindu that has not heard the gospel and rejected it, it is the American Christian.

The ongoing obsession with global missions is only one piece of the puzzle. The churches at home sacrificed purity of doctrine for cultural acceptance at every turn. Instead of the church shaping the culture, the culture shaped her. Finally, you have the abandonment of historical covenant theological teaching for dispensationalism, which came furiously on the scene at the end of the 19th century and dominated American and European Christianity in the 20th century. This pernicious theology teaches, among many things, that the true church and Israel are separate, a departure from historic covenantal teaching of the church throughout all time. The Christian is to believe that all prophecy should be viewed through the lens of modern day Israel and modern day Jewish people. There is no greater calling to the dispensationalist than to serve the interests of Israel. In short, Christianity is just a side quest to the main storyline.

Organizing the Schisms

There are many ways to interpret the schisms of modern day Protestantism, but I am going to split them into three main categories.

  1. Dispensationalist
  2. Covenantal
  3. Non-Covenantal/Personal

In the first category we have dispensationalists. This schism is new to the end of the 19th century, gaining popularity in the 20th century. This schismatic group views the plan of salvation of man in two categories: Jew and Gentile. The Gospel is for the gentile, and the Jew holds a special status of being “God’s chosen” in perpetuity, regardless of covenant faithfulness. There is the church, and then there is Israel. These two are not the same, and God’s promises to Israel are not fulfilled in the New Covenant. Estimates put these churches between 30% and 35% of American churches.

In the second category we have Covenantal Christians. This encompasses much of your mainline, conservative denominations who believe that God has had, and still has, one plan of salvation for man. The church is truly Israel, and the only way to gain entry to the church, to be a part of Israel, is through Jesus Christ. Estimates put these churches between 15% and 20% of American churches.

In the third category we have Non-Covenantal or Personal Christians. This covers the vast majority of American Christians who believe, in the most extreme, that faith is a personal journey. They do not view the church as a covenantal institution, but rather a personal one. There is no physical church on Earth, only in heaven. Estimates put this number between 45% and 55% of American Christians.

Making Sense of the Schisms

This is where I can easily find myself in trouble, because I’m sure many of my readers will tell me that they know a very well-meaning dispensationalist, or that some of the strongest Christians they know don’t go to church. That is not the point of what I am saying. I am not here to decide the eternal status of anybody’s soul. I am simply laying out the landscape of American Christianity. Out of the churches that are Covenantal, roughly 2,400 of these subscribe to a Protestant era confession, with nearly 2,000 of those being the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA). If we include the PCA as adhering to a confessional standard, roughly .7% of all American churches would be recognized by the Reformed and Post-Reformed. This means that less than 1% of all American churches are actually in the Protestant tradition.

An important thing to note here is that if we really want to nitpick about who is a Protestant in the US, it’s less than 1% of all churches. This further emphasizes my point from the previous article, that if somebody says, “I left Protestantism for Catholicism,” it is almost a certainty that they didn’t. They left some vague version of Christianity that does not stand in any historical tradition. The vast majority of churches in the United States are mostly cultural or community centers that represent the American religion. Hardly any of these churches actually function as a church, with discipline, a fenced table, membership, and a coherent doctrinal statement. In a way, Protestantism had its own Great Schism, wherein only 1% of the churches remained in that historical tradition. At the very highest estimate, 20% of churches in the US are covenantal, meaning that they retain some semblance of Reformed catholic doctrine. A very small fraction of these churches actually stake that claim on a written document such as a confession.

Maybe it is a good idea for us, who understand how little Protestant actually means, to view the vast majority of American churches as a product of the Reformed version of the Reformation. Protestants had their own massive schism, but unlike the Roman Catholic church, it has hardly survived. In order to understand the American Christian landscape, we have to understand these schisms, and that is what I will begin to explore in the follow articles in this series.

The Problem with Protestantism

The Young, Textless, and Reformed6 Comments

Introduction

The problem with Protestantism is that it cannot be defended by any apologetic method. This is due to the fact that the label itself has always been used by Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. The fathers of the Protestant Reformation referred to themselves as “reformed” or “evangelical.” It was actually the Roman church who labeled them “Calvinist” or “Lutheran” or “Zwinglian,” in hopes of demonstrating that these were traditions of men, and not God. In other words, the term “Protestant” was a polemic label, a pejorative. Later on, many of these Protestants adopted these labels, the most notable being the Lutheran church and Calvinists. Herein lies the chief problem, that as time has passed, every tradition that is not Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox is called “Protestant.” In order to defend something, that thing needs a formal definition. Since the term Protestantism is applied so broadly, it cannot be defended specifically.

Churches within the New Apostolic Reformation, Calvinist Bible churches, Pentecostals, Independent Fundamentalist Baptists, and Methodists are all “Protestants.” If you know anything about these church traditions, you understand just how unhelpful the term “Protestant” is to describe these vastly different traditions. Unfortunately, the terminology is set, and there is very little any of us can do to change the fact that this label is applied so broadly. In this article series, I want to try and define what Protestantism is, and offer evidence to make the case that it is not actually Christianity according to any definition of the term.

This Isn’t Your Father’s Protestantism

In the first place, it is important to acknowledge that the theological tradition of the Protestant Reformation, the Reformed, is nearly dead in the United States and even abroad. While it is true that the label persists, the theological core is akin to an endangered species. The churches born out of the Protestant Reformation were clearly defined. There were counsels, creeds, and confessions. Blood was spilled by the Roman Catholic church in addition to the Protestants pursuing doctrinal purity (See Servetus). In short, the original “Protestants,” the Reformed, fought long and hard to carve out a specific doctrinal legacy for themselves. In the 17th century, when somebody used the term “Protestant,” it meant a specific tradition. Today, the term “Protestant” is just as vague as the term “Evangelical” or even “Born Again Christian.” It doesn’t actually mean anything specific.

This is due to the fact that Western Christianity has been hollowed out of its core doctrines, oftentimes in the guise of “Semper Reformanda.” The reality is, that the Western Christian church needs another Reformation, for she has fallen into the same sins as Rome in the 15th and 16th centuries, and even worse. For those that are not familiar with the Protestant Reformation, some of the chief catalysts were the selling of indulgences to improve the status of the soul, financial corruption of the Vatican, works based faith, spiritual laziness, and neglecting the eternal nature of the faith for the physical present, the sufficiency of Christ, among other things. In modern Christianity, we see parallels to all of this within the realm of “Protestantism” or “Evangelicalism.”

The Wayward Protestant Church

One of the primary sounding bells of the Reformation was the abuse of indulgences. Instead of focusing on inward spiritual transformation to improve the state of the soul, the Roman church was selling indulgences for the same effect. In short, one could purchase repentance with money. The most obvious parallel to this in the modern church is what is often called “The Prosperity Gospel.” In short, if you bless the church, God will bless you. According to Lifeway Research, 52% of churchgoers reported that their church teaches God will bless them if they donate more money. Some of the largest churches in the US teach the most radical form of this message, such as Lakewood Church (45,000 weekly attendees + broadcast), World Changers Church (25,000 weekly attendees + millions TV reach), Kenneth & Gloria Copeland Ministries (76 million households), Trinity Broadcasting Network (120M annual income), Yoido Full Gospel Church (830,000 members), just to name a few.

These numbers are so high, that when you meet somebody in the US that identifies as Christian, there is a more than 1 and 2 chance that they believe in some sort of prosperity Gospel. This is alarming, but the Prosperity Gospel isn’t the only problem in modern Protestantism. Another Lifeway Research study found that 55% of US Protestant pastors allow women to serve as senior pastor, 76% of churches Lifeway identifies as “Mainline Protestant.” Further, according to a Religion in Public survey (not Christian friendly FYI), they found that 1 in 4 Christians believed in ongoing prophecy and prophets.

Despite the fact that 2 out of 3 of Americans describe themselves as Christian, only 16% of self-identified Christians affirm a trinitarian doctrine, according to a very recent Barna Poll from the Cultural Research Center at Arizona Christian University. The overwhelming conclusion of these data points is that American Protestantism has evolved into something entirely different than Reformed Protestantism from the 16-19th centuries. If we take the Barna poll as representative, we can say that at the very most, 16% of American Christians would be considered orthodox by the original Protestants. This demonstrates my point that the term “Protestant” does not mean, “People who believe what the Protestant Reformers believed.” This term means today what it has always meant, which is, “Anybody who is not Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.”

What is American Christianity?

Well, it is certainly not the child of the Protestant Reformation, as many Roman Catholic apologists will tell you. It shares almost zero theological or traditional ties to the historic Reformation and Further Reformation. In fact, the modern American church believes in doctrines that the Reformers and post Reformation theologians wrote treatises against. The Protestants would have been fundamentally opposed at almost every level to what is called “Protestantism” today. Now, I am not saying that one must believed the Reformed were right about everything in order to be a Christian in America. What I am pointing out, is that American Christianity isn’t remotely close to the Protestant Reformation. It is something altogether foreign to historical, western Christianity.

So why does this matter? Well, this blog has been focused on defending the historical scriptures of the church. Who are the current stewards of the scriptures today? Western Christians. Modern Protestants. If the scholars that serve as stewards for the scriptures are represented by the data, then that means that most of them, even if they were to believe that we have scripture, wouldn’t believe what’s in scripture anyway. I have argued that this is related, though many people call me out for saying such things. Yet, I believe I am correct. If you believe that the Scriptures are not preserved and fully available, why would you think it reasonable that any doctrine is set in stone?

I will end the first article in the series with my answer to the question of, “What is American Protestantism?” American Protestantism, also called Western Evangelicalism, is something that very few would have even considered Christianity 100 years ago. It is an R.L. Stein Goosebumps novel of choose your own religious fancy. It is a build-your-own-avatar religion where you can check and uncheck doctrines, turn up or down various practices with a slider, or even add new customizations. There isn’t one Christianity in America, there are Christianities. So when a Roman Catholic says, “Protestants are leaving for the Catholic Church,” it doesn’t actually mean anything. What exactly are they leaving? They are leaving a choose-your-own-adventure religion that has nothing to do with historic Protestantism.

American Protestantism does not have a crisis of people leaving for Rome or Eastern Orthodoxy, it has a crisis of whether or not it’s Christianity in the first place.

Protestantism is Not Progressivism

The Young, Textless, and Reformed4 Comments

The Protestant Reformation was not an invitation to progressivism into God’s church. I do not mean progressivism in the Western political sense (though I suppose it applies), but rather the idea that the focus of the church should always be forward progress. This point is relevant to many different topics, but especially that of Scripture. If you have been in Reformed circles long enough, you will have heard “Semper Reformanda“. The banner of Semper Reformanda is often used as a reason to abandon the core doctrinal distinctives of the Reformation in the name of the Reformation. This in itself is a hilarious concept. “We must abandon the doctrines that defined the Reformation for the sake of being Reformed!”

What many do not understand is that the term “Reformed” has always been defined as an identification with the Christians who protested the Catholic church for specific doctrinal reasons. At the time, they claimed that the church had strayed from truth, and the Reformation was a return to doctrinal and ecclesiastical purity in accordance with the Scriptures. These great men of God codified the discussions, debates, and synods in writing, producing artifacts such as the Belgic Confession (1561), Heidelberg Catechism (1563), Second Helvetic Confession (1566), Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion (1571), Canons of Dort (1619), and later the Westminster Confession (1646) and London Baptist Confession (1689).

What is important to note, is that the phrase itself did not originate with Calvin, Luther, or Zwingli. This was a post reformation idea found in the Dutch Reformed. In it’s original context as found in the 17th century Dutch Reformed tradition, it is meant to convey, “The church must always be reformed to Scripture” or that the Christian himself must always be reforming in piety and practice. If you have ever engaged with the Dutch Reformed, you know that one of the major themes of the Nadere Reformatie was personal reform and piety. That is to say, that Semper Reformanda was not actually a Principle of the Protestant Reformation.

Interestingly enough, the popularization of the phrase is most often attributed to Swiss theologian Karl Barth. For those that are not familiar, Barth is one of the most influential and controversial Reformed thinkers of the 20th century. He is often labeled a heretic, and is exceedingly popular among liberal theologians today. If you have ever read Barth, you know that he discussed this phrase in the context of the church, “Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda”. This is a development from the Dutch Reformed, whose reform was typically aimed at personal and family piety. Barth would say that the Church must be willing to submit herself to the living word, or something along those lines. Note here that when Barth says “The living Word,” he does not mean it in the way that a Protestant would typically mean it. Barth taught that the Bible becomes the Word of God when God chooses to speak through it, and in that sense, it is the living Word. Scripture is a witness to God’s Word, Jesus Christ. The Reformed of the Protestant Reformation would most certainly take issue with Barth’s understanding of Scripture.

Many people often attribute the phrase to Augustine, but this is found nowhere in his writings, though he did write about the church’s need for moral and spiritual renewal. The phrase is not found during the Reformation, and first appears in the context of Dutch Reformed Theology, and then later in Barth’s writings. The point is this, Semper Reformanda is not actually a Reformation principle. If we are going to apply it in the context of the post-Reformation Dutch, it is typically in the context of personal and family reformation to the static standard of Scripture. Even Karl Barth, who many conservatives would avoid associating with, applied this concept to mean that the church should Reform to the living word. The point is that this phrase has never been used to mean, “We should always Reform forward unto progress” until recently. Semper Reformanda, in its most liberal context, has been used as a way to say “reform thyself by the standard of Scripture.”

What is strange, is that whenever I hear this phrase today, it is always used as a justification to move away from historical protestant doctrine. In the context of Scripture, it is used to justify new translations and Greek and Hebrew texts. In the context of the church, it is used to justify female clergy and modern liturgical productions. In the context of personal piety, it is used to justify private revelation through prophecy and tongues. In today’s context, when somebody says Semper Reformanda, it is almost always used to justify a move away from the historical Protestant tradition. Which is to say, that people who use this use the banner of the Reformation as a way to deny the principles of the Reformation. As we’ve already discussed, Semper Reformanda wasn’t even a principle of the Reformation, it came later. The way it is used today is somehow more liberal than the way Karl Barth used it.

So how do we respond to the Semper Reformanda Reformed Christians? Well, we say, “That’s not even a principle of the Reformation.” I would argue that Protestantism is mostly dead in 2025. Most “Protestants” have very little in common with the Reformed. The evangelicals, or Judeo-Christians, are modern Christians that are far removed from the Protestant confessions of the 16th and 17th centuries. Now, you may not be all that concerned with what such confessions and creeds state, but those documents have been used to define the lines of what is considered “Reformed.” Most likely, those that use the banner of Semper Reformanda are those that know very little of the Reformation, and are not overly concerned with whether or not they identify with such doctrines. In short, this phrase is actually a progressive statement, not a traditional statement. It is a forward looking idea that says, “We must move on from such ancient doctrines and traditions.”

TurretinFan Attempts to Make an Argument

The Young, Textless, and Reformed2 Comments

Introduction

On Monday, anonymous blogster TurretinFan published an article titled The “Stable Text” King James Version Argument which can be found here. The point of the article is to say that the “misleadingly labeled” Confessional Bibliology position is the same position that the KJV translators had to respond to, and is essentially the position of the Roman Catholics. I want my reader to notice that this article is about 10 sentences worth of assertions, and the rest citations which he claims prove his point. TurretinFan hasn’t actually made an argument in this article, nor has he addressed the material I have written. Let’s break down his assertions and see if we have anything to engage with from the article.

Confessional Bibliology is Misleadingly Labeled

In the first sentence of the article, TurretinFan asserts that the label “Confessional Bibliology” is a misleading label. He does not explain why or how it is misleading. He continues to say that Confessional Bibliology “seems to recognize the authority of the original languages” but “seems to conform to whatever Greek or Hebrew was followed by the translators/revisers of the King James Version.”

Apparently it is news to TurretinFan that the King James Version translators used the base text which we now call the Textus Receptus to create the King James Version translation. Again, no argument provided by our anonymous poster, simply an assertion as to what “seems” to be the case. In other words, there is nothing we can reasonably engage with here.

The Stable Text Argument is a Roman Catholic Argument

TurretinFan’s major blunder here is a common error that Critical Text advocates make, which is to confuse an argument for the text with an argument for the authority of a translation. He references Clement VIII who is making an argument for the stability of the Latin manuscripts, which are translations. This is a common argument made by James White, and not original to TurretinFan. This is not the argument I am making, nor have I ever made. Perhaps if TurretinFan understood the moniker “Confessional Bibliology,” he would know that the position I defend is simply the position of chapter 1 of the 17th century confessions, which state, “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 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. But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto an interest in the scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore the are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the scriptures, may have hope” (Westminster Confession of Faith, 1.6).

TurretinFan ends by stating that my objective is to move from manuscripts to a single, stable text. This is arguably the strangest assertion he has made in the article, as this is simply what happened in time and space. Is he arguing that the church uses manuscripts today? Do Christians carry around various manuscripts to church? It is already the case that the form of the Bible has moved from manuscripts to printed texts and translations. This is true for both the Critical Text and TR position. The question is not whether we should migrate from manuscripts to printed texts, that has already occurred as a matter of history, not my opinion. The question is what those printed texts represent, and which of those printed texts and translations should be used by the people of God.

Interestingly enough, in his critique of me, TurretinFan has critiqued the nature of his preferred text. If my desire is a single, stable text, and this is the “wrong priority,” then he is really saying that the Critical Text is not a stable text, and “it is a mark of wisdom to revise when we discover errors.” TurretinFan has no basis for determining what an “error” is, however, because his preferred textual methodology cannot say what is an error. His methodology can only determine what is most likely the oldest reading, which is an evaluation that is agnostic to the idea of original or authentic. The concept of error requires the idea of verity or authenticity, which the Critical Text methodology does not claim to provide.

Turretin Vs TurretinFan

So if TurretinFan’s critique of my position is that I am wrong to desire a single, stable text, then it is clear that his position is the opposite. The only history repeating itself is for gainsayers such as TurretinFan to question the authenticity of Scripture, such as 1 John 5:7, Mark 16:9-20, and John 7:53-8:11. Ironically, Turretin himself agrees with me in my doctrine of Scripture.

“By the original texts, we do not mean the autographs written down by the hand of Moses, of the prophets and the apostles, which certainly do not now exist. We mean their apographs which are so called because they set forth to us the word of God in the very words of those who wrote under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit” (Turretin, Francis. Institutes of Elenctic Theology. Volume 1. p. 106). In other words, Turretin rejects the idea that the Bible is inerrant in its autographs, but rather that it was kept pure in all ages via the copies or apographs.

Turretin continues by defining the difference between a textual variant and a corruption, “A corruption differs from a variant reading. We acknowledge that many variant readings occur both in the Old and New Testaments arising from a comparison of different manuscripts, but we deny corruption (at least corruption that is universal)” (Ibid., 111). In other words, Turretin does not agree with the modern critical text idea that there are variants which should be marked with a diamond, indicating corruption.

Turretin finishes by defending the passages that TurretinFan himself rejects, “There is no truth in the assertion that the Hebrew edition of the Old Testament and the Greek edition of the New Testament are said to be mutilated; nor can the arguments used by our opponents prove it. Not the history of the adulteress (Jn. 8:1-11), for although it is lacking in the Syriac version, it is found in all the Greek manuscripts. Not 1 Jn. 5:7, for although some formerly called it into question and heretics now do, yet all the Greek copies have it, as Sixtus Senesis acknowledges: “they have been the words of never-doubted truth, and contained in all the Greek copies from the very times of the apostles” (Bibliotheca sancta [1575], 2:298). Not Mk. 16 which may have been wanted in several copies in the time of Jerome (as he asserts); but now it occurs in all, even in the Syriac version, and is clearly necessary to complete the history of the resurrection of Christ” (Ibid., 115).

Here is the most entertaining conclusion that we can arrive at by actually reading Turretin:

  1. Turretin lots TurretinFan in with the heretics in his rejection of 1 John 5:7
  2. Turretin was aware of the manuscripts TurretinFan prefers (Jerome’s referenced manuscripts)
  3. Turretin details how doctrines are impacted by the removal of passages as found in the Critical Text (the history of the resurrection of Christ)
  4. Turretin rejects the notion of corruption (indeterminate readings, which are found in the ECM)
  5. Turretin rejects the reframing of the WCF by Warfield and the Chicago Statement

In other words, Turretin disagrees with TurretinFan on nearly every point as it pertains to Scripture, both textually and theologically. It is interesting that TurretinFan accuses me of making a Roman Catholic argument. This is a little known fact, but the Textus Receptus was actually the text of the Protestant Reformation. It makes no sense that defending such a text would be considered…Roman Catholic. I suspect the reason for such shoddy and inept argumentation is due to the fact that this is simply a regurgitation of assertions made by James White. Let me remind my reader that assertions are not arguments, and you actually have to explain why a quote supports your argument. This is persuasive writing 101. What we have to recognize is that a community college English 101 professor would send this article by TurretinFan back for revision because he hasn’t made an argument, he’s simply made assertions in between citations.

Conclusion

The greatest condemnation of this article is not it’s poor structure and lack of persuasion, it is the fact that Turretin himself disagrees with TurretinFan so fundamentally that he should really consider changing his moniker. Perhaps he should consider Dr. SpyOptics, the bargain bin version of Dr. Oakley.

Death of Logic

The Young, Textless, and Reformed7 Comments

Welcome to the new year, reader. In 2024, I fully expect that we will find ourselves debating the same arguments and talking points afresh. The reality is that many of the theological controversies prevalent today are already resolved. Consider topics such as soteriology and eschatology. These have been discussed at great length by men much more capable than anybody alive today, yet modern men exhaust themselves, thinking that they have come up with some clever argument. Despite this, Christians will descend upon internet forums to cast their thoughts into the void, regardless of outcome. Such is the nature of debate disconnected from the real world.

Many, if not all, of the popular debates can be resolved by logical rules as simple as the law of noncontradiction or excluded middle. In other words, two things that cannot be true at the same time or one of two things must be true, given the claim requires it. The entire textual discussion can, at the very least, be reframed by evaluating foundational claims by these two laws of thought. For example, if our primary claim is “Scripture exists”, then we can exclude any claim which posits that “Scripture does not exist.” By “exist” we mean here that the Scriptures exist in such a way that we can access and use it. Many modern views of Scripture attempt to redefine the term “exist” to mean that the words are out in the world, somewhere, we just don’t have access to them. Yet, this is an illogical claim, for this view also allows for the possibility that the words are not out there in the world. This is why textual scholars hedge their claims with words such as “possible” and “likely.” In short, if it is “possible” that a text is original, it is also possible that a text is not original. Using this type of language violates the law of noncontradiction if we are trying to defend something which is said to “exist.” Something cannot exist and “possibly exist” at the same time.

Herein lies the nuance which muddles the debate. If you are a Christian, your premise is that Scripture exists, not that it “possibly exists.” This is a requirement for all Scriptural truth claims. We do not say in evangelism that, “It is possible that God so loved the world..” and so on. When we present the Gospel, we do so assuming the premise that the words exist, and that the words we have in front of us are correct. There is not a scenario where a Christian can confidently present the free offer of salvation given that the words on the page could be inauthentic. Yet, if you inspect the average claim of the modern bibliology camp, this is how they argue for Scripture. In one context, they read their Bible, listen to sermons, and debate theology with absolute confidence in the words on the page, and in the text-critical context, they argue with varying degrees of “possibility.” We know that this is not logically valid.

If we investigate what it means for the Bible to “exist,” we find that this concept is captured within the doctrine of preservation. To the traditional camp, the Bible exists because we have always had it, despite attempts at corruption. To the modern camp, the Bible exists insofar as we have it today. The first group has, at the very least, logical consistency because the definition of “Bible” has not changed over the years. The second group has a serious problem because in order to make the claim that the Bible exists, they must change the form of the Bible to mean something different in every age. The Bible, in other words, is more of a concept than an object. This is the primary difference between the two groups, as far as I can tell.

The traditional group sees the Bible as an object with a defined number of words, whereas the modern group sees the Bible as an object with a defined number of ideas. This is the explanatory mechanism the moderns use to describe how the words can be added, removed, or changed, and the thing (Bible) still be the same. According to this model, so as long as the core ideas are preserved, the Bible is preserved. This is a clever formulation, but unfortunately it has no explanatory mechanism. It cannot be demonstrated to be true, which means it is purely conjectural. This is due to the fact that literary ideas are derived from words. A text cannot preserve an idea without words. So if it were the case that a text can change while the ideas remain constant, one would have to actually demonstrate that additions, subtractions, and substitutions do not alter the substance of the text. This of course cannot be demonstrated to be true because any addition, subtraction, or substitution must, by definition, alter the substance of a text. This is how words work. Unless a modernist is willing to make the claim that all omitted portions of text are void of meaning, or all substitutions are merely synonymic, this must be the case. Ultimately, this claim is evaluated true on the simple merit that it has been said out loud.

We see that the textual debate is really a matter of definitions. In order for the modernists to be correct, they must employ a functional definition of “Bible” and “exists” and “preserve” in a different sense than the traditionalists. This is how they use historical writings such as the Westminster Confession to defend their claims. “If by Scripture they mean this, and if by preserved they mean this, then the Scriptures are indeed preserved!” Yet we can all agree that simply changing the definition of words does not win an argument, it simply means that the argument itself is different. This is my main point, the modern position of bibliology is comprised of claims which are substantially different than that of the traditionalists. That is to say, when these two groups collide in debate, they are using different functional definitions of key terms such as “Bible” and “preserved.”

This is important to recognize the next time you engage in a debate over a text such as 1 John 5:7. The textual modernist views his Bible as a collection of concepts and ideas, not a defined collection of texts. That is why a primary argument against the importance of the Comma Johanneum is that “the idea is contained elsewhere.” What I want my reader to understand is that this is actually an argument in support of a different definition of “Bible.” Take time to notice when somebody argues that, “1 John 5:7 isn’t even about the Trinity” or “It wasn’t even quoted at Nicaea in defense of the Trinity.” They are arguing this because in their mind the Bible isn’t defined by the texts contained within it, but the ideas. Yet we have already established that in literature, ideas are derived from words. Thus, adding, removing, or altering the words necessarily adds, removes, or alters the ideas.

Herein lies the primary logical problem with the modernist position on Scripture. In order for the text to mean something in itself, the ideas must be derived from the text. If it is the case that the ideas themselves are preserved apart from the text, then it is the case that the ideas have another preserving mechanism. Let us return to the argument related to the Trinity and 1 John 5:7. One of the chief arguments presented by textual modernists such as James White is that the doctrine of the Trinity can be derived elsewhere. Note the framing demands that the doctrine exists, and it can be found in the text. The doctrine is assumed first, and collected from Scripture as it exists to the modernist. In other words, the doctrine is preserved apart from the text. In this view, the reader brings a fully built out doctrine of the Trinity into Scripture. This is the implied assumption of this argument against the Comma Johanneum.

So we see the foundational logical problems that exist in the current iteration of the textual discussion. The modern side must redefine historical terms in order to fit their view into the Protestant frame. That is why some textual scholars avoid referring to Scripture as “The Bible” and instead opt for “bibles.” This is because at the core of the Critical Text position, the assumption is that “bibles” exist, but “the Bible” hasn’t existed since the first or second century. This is obviously problematic for Christian bibliology. The answer the modernists give is that, “we don’t need the Bible, as long as the ideas are preserved in the bibles.” One of the main problems in the textual discussion is that when a textual modernist employs the term “Bible” or “Scriptures,” they mean, “the bibles.” This demonstrates one of the foundational disconnects in the debate, both sides are using different functional definitions.

This is why the debate will continue into 2024 the same as it has since I have been involved. There are two theologies of the text, two logical foundations, two sets of definitions. My prediction is that 2024 will continue to highlight the differences in the positions with each discovery and evolution of the textual scholars. Happy New year and may the Lord bless you and keep you, reader.

Modern Critical Text Advocates Cannot Say Anything About Originality or Authenticity

The Young, Textless, and Reformed4 Comments

Introduction

There are a number of ways the textual criticism discussion goes awry. Sometimes the conversation is hyper focused on textual variants and “textual data,” other times the topic of discussion is Erasmus or the Reformed. What is almost always ignored is what the Scriptures say. There is a reason the Critical Text advocates do not ever wish to talk about theology, and it is because the theology of the modern critical text system is completely bankrupt. It has strayed so far from Protestant orthodoxy that it shares similarities with Rome.

In this article, I will discuss why the Critical Text Advocate cannot justifiably debate variants in relation to the Divine Original.

The Methodological Gap

The Modern Critical Text methodology, which is allegedly the only “meaningful” and “consistent” apologetic, has what the scholars call a “methodological gap.”

“The reason is that there is a methodological gap between the start of the textual tradition as we have it and the text of the autograph itself. Any developments between these two points are outside the remit of textual criticism proper. Where there is “no trace [of the original text] in the manuscript tradition” the text critic must, on Mink’s terms, remain silent.” 

Peter Gurry. A Critical Examination of the Coherence based Genealogical Method. 93.

“There still remains a gap between the form of the text from which we conclude by critical examination that the extant witnesses must be descended and the yet older forms from which that oldest recoverable text must be descended…Recognizing that there is a gap between the oldest recoverable forms of the text and the creation of the work requires us to address one final topic…The New Testament philologist’s task is not to recover the original authorial text, not only because we cannot at present know on philological grounds what the original text might have been, nor even because there may have been several forms of the tradition, but because philology is not able to make a pronouncement as to whether or not there was such an authorial text”  

(DC Parker. Textual Scholarship and the Making of the New Testament. Kindle Edition. 26-27).

This means that the text critical methodologies employed by modern scholars and apologists cannot speak to the authenticity of any variant in relation to the original because modern textual criticism isn’t designed to deal with the concept of the original.

The scholars and apologists are quick to brag about the “scientific” nature of textual criticism, but in doing this, they give up the ground necessary to actually defend any singular textual variant as “authentic”, or the whole of Scripture for that matter. When such a methodological gap is recognized, so too is recognized the reality that this gap prevents advocates of the Modern Critical Text from speaking to the authorial text of Scripture based on the “textual data.” The textual data does is limited by the reality that there is nothing that connects the “earliest and most reliable manuscripts” with the autographic text. There is no way to verify that the reconstructed text is the original text, hence the methodological gap.

This is where the discussion of textual variants is extremely misleading and even deceitful. When Critical Text advocates make claims about the “authenticity” of a variant reading, they have stepped away from their “consistent methodology” to argue from a totally different epistemic starting point which assumes the concept of the Divine Original. As noted above by DC Parker, even the concept of one authorial tradition is not certain because of this methodological gap.

The concept of an “authorial” or “original” text is something that is theological in nature. It is something that is assumed a priori from Scripture. If the Scriptures were inspired by God(2 Tim. 3:16), there is one text that was inspired, and therefore Christians argue for one inspired text. This concept is not something that can be demonstrated from the textual data and is something that has been increasingly called into question in today’s world of textual scholarship.

“Books and the texts they preserve are human products, bound in innumerable ways to the circumstances and communities that produce them. This is also true of the New Testament, despite its status as a uniquely transcendent, sacred text, held by some to be inspired by God…Even if the text of the Gospels could be fixed – and, when viewed at the level of object and material artifact, this goal has never been achieved – the purported meaning of texts also change…Paradoxically, attempts to edit and preserve these important books multiplies rather than settles the many forms in which they appear, as each generation revises both the New Testament and the Gospels in concert with its own aspirations, assumptions, theological perspectives, and available technologies.”

Jennifer Knust & Tommy Wasserman. To Cast the First Stone. 15-16.

The Bible, according to these so called “Evangelical” textual scholars, is nothing more than a human product which reflects the communities of faith that produced it.

The methodological gap is the death of defending the Scriptures for Christians. It is an admission that any conclusion that scholars and apologists arrive to cannot be said about the authenticity or originality of any given verse or word in Scripture.

Conclusion

Think about this methodological gap the next time you engage with a Modern Critical Text advocate. They will vigorously debate passages such as Mark 16:9-20 and 1 John 5:7, despite the fact that they have no “consistent” reason to do so. What they actually can debate is whether or not those verses or passages should be printed in our Modern Critical Texts, but that’s it. The nature of this modern text has no credentials, no progeny. All that we know about these manuscripts is that they were created, and that a small number of them survived. We have no clue who created them or used them or if they were even a part of the manuscripts used by actual Christians. The methodological gap proves that modern critical text advocates have surrendered the ground necessary to defend any place of Scripture as authentic. It is simply inconsistent to do so, because the methodological and axiomatic foundation of the Modern Critical Text has nothing to say about the original, let alone if there ever was one original.

When a Critical Text advocate tries to argue for authenticity, they are borrowing a concept that does not exist in their system from another system, one that is theological. They borrow from a system that asserts the concept of an original from Scripture, which some would call an “a priori” assumption. This a priori assumption is one which is not consistent with the modern critical methodology. As some popular apologists point out, this is the sign of a failed argument. It proves that if the point of the discussion is the Divine Original, the Modern Critical Text advocate has no consistent reason to contribute. While the goal of some Evangelical textual scholars may be the original, there is certainly nothing in the methodology that can actually make that happen.

That is why those in the Received Text camp say that there are no modern critical textual scholars trying to find the original, because a desire to find the original doesn’t and cannot actually translate to anything tangible due to the methodological gap. Instead of rejecting the Modern Critical Text, scholars instead say, “No doctrines are affected” and hope that Christians don’t think too hard about it. It is a failed system if the goal is the Divine Original, and scholars know it. So when a Modern Critical Text advocate tries to say that a passage or verse is not original, the simple response is, “What does your system have anything to do with the original?” They cannot argue such claims from their system, and that is the brutal reality that Modern Critical Text advocates continue to ignore.