Back to the basics, what is a Christian?

All of this time spent during the past week defending the modern Biblical text against KJV Only advocates was necessary, but unfortunate when so much work is needed for the kingdom of God.  With that in mind, let me return to a topic that has been close to my heart for years and about which I wrote a book several years ago:  What defines a Christian?  How do we know if someone is a Christian or not?  The source for these thoughts is exclusively the first letter of the Apostle John, one of my favorite portions of Scripture, during which he repeatedly states this three-pronged thesis in a variety of ways.  The three part standard of John is reflected in fifty-two statements in his letter that will confirm or deny that someone is a genuine follower of Jesus Christ.  Those fifty-two statements are easily placed into three categories: (1) Belief, primarily that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, (2) Love, primarily for fellow Christian brothers and sisters, and (3) Obedience, focused on keeping the commandments of God.
In his letter, John makes 17 statements about belief, 14 statements about love, and 19 statements about obedience.  All three are necessary, to be a Christian, one MUST believe in Christ, one MUST love other Christians, and one MUST become obedient to the commands of God.  None of this is optional, none of this can be excused in the name of some other cause.  In other words, to defend Christ by showing hatred to other Christians cannot be the proper path.  Likewise, compromising any one of the three will endanger our ability to have any real confidence in our own salvation.

For a full examination of this issue, as well as an attempted application of it regarding various groups that hang around the fringes of Christianity like the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Mormons, please read my book.  And yes, I know the introduction needs to be updated to reflect my work here in PA and our newly arrived bundle of joy; I'll get to that at some point.

Christianity's Big Tent: The Ecumenism of I John

Sermon Video: "I have come to bring fire on the earth" Luke 12:49-53

Contrary to the expectations of the people that Jesus had come to bring peace, following his parables on the faithfulness needed by the servants of God, Jesus goes on to explain that his mission is actually to bring "fire" to the earth, and not peace but division.  Since we know that he is the Prince of Peace, and that he is the creator of the reconciliation between God and man that is our peace, it seems odd that Jesus would talk of such things resulting from his ministry as fire and division.
The "fire" in this context is closely related to his previous remarks about the faithfulness required of God's servants, a refining fire, that melts away impurities.  Before that process of transformation of God's people can begin, Jesus himself must undergo his own baptism, a time of trial unlike any that other.  Once Jesus' mission is accomplished, his people can begin to be made new by the fire that he will send of the Holy Spirit.  It is because of that transformation process, a process of leaving behind the old life and adopting new life in Christ, that Jesus' mission of reconciliation actually causes division within the families of those who believe.  Why?  Because all those who follow Christ walk upon a path that diverges greatly from those who remain on the path of self-destruction, even if it is their own families.  Father and son, formerly as close as can be, drift apart as one follows Christ and the other remain enslaved to sin.  This same division can occur between spouses, parents and children, siblings, and friends.  It is inevitable, to an extent, as long as one follows Jesus and the other remains apart from God's redemption.  What then do we do, knowing of the fire and division that Christ has brought?  Continue to pray for our Lost loved ones, continue to show them the compassion of Christ, continue to demonstrate to them the righteous living of his disciples, and continue to hope; hope that the same Gospel that saved you and I out of the darkness will one day bring them into the light of the Son as well.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

King James (or TR) Onlyism as a logical syllogism

In order for a logical syllogism to be valid, all premises must be true, and the conclusion must be forced by the premises.  With that in mind, and knowing that many KJV (TR) Only advocates will howl at the idea that something they take on faith is evaluated on the basis of logic, I offer this:

1. The Bible promises that God will preserve his Word

2. The only possible definition of preserve is "perfection"

3. The only text that is "perfect" is the KJV (TR).

The first premise is entirely true.  God did promise to preserve his Word.
The second premise is an interpretation of Scripture, that can be debated, as all interpretations must be, it is not correct by the standards of Church history to say that it MUST be the only interpretation.
The conclusion can no longer be valid, since the 2nd premise is untrue, but even if it was, the conclusion is not a result of the first two premises.  There is nothing different about the KJV (TR) from any other text or translation that sets it apart as "perfect".  Advocates of that position will claim otherwise, will make their chosen favorite the standard by which all others are judged, but they cannot escape the clear facts of history, and must in the end retreat into saying that their position MUST be taken by faith (with all the dire consequences of apostasy heaped upon those who disagree).

There is a lot of confusion, name calling, tangents that have nothing to do with the main issue, and outright lies being spread about this issue within the Church.  It is enough to make the head of an ordinary lay person spin, and not a few pastors as well.  But, in the end, everything comes back to premise #2 and the desperate attempt to prove that the KJV (or TR) satisfies that standard.

The sad thing is, none of this is necessary, we have an amazingly, providentially, preserved Word of God, living and active, powerful and mighty, available to us in English in an array of sound and beneficial choices.  Not only that, but this entire discussion relegates God's work through his Word among the other peoples of the world to sideshow, when in reality God's work among the English speaking peoples, and the Western cultures is but one part of his amazing work all over the world.  Everyday the percentage of Christians reading the Bible in English shrinks because the number of Christians reading it in other languages is growing by leaps and bounds!

An evaluation of the TR (and/or KJV) Only position's presuppositions

The presuppositions of the TR Only position, which for the most part match up with those of the KJV Only position seem to be as follows: (1) That the Bible’s passages on the preservation of Scripture require a “perfect” Bible, anything less makes God a liar and is thus a perversion of Scripture. (2) That the definition of “perfect” envisioned by this viewpoint can allow for no textual criticism, no revisions, no corrections of the text.  {Some of the KJV Only would add “no variants” to this list}(3) That other than the original autographs, this “perfect” example of Scripture exists only in the TR (or KJV). 

Let us for a moment assume each proposition to be true and see what the results would be. (1) If the passages of Scripture about preservation require a “perfect” Bible, they do not in any way indicate which text that would be.  Since it must be available in every generation, it must have first existed in the Hebrew manuscripts (aside from the Dead Sea Scrolls, all of which were lost prior to the Middle Ages), then in the Greek manuscripts, although it could only be in one text type, but without the original autographs there is no basis for choosing one and only one text type as the “perfect” text when the only thing we have to compare them to is each other. (2) If no textual criticism is to be allowed, and how can it be when the text is “perfect”, there is no ability to answer the clear evidence of a text which changed over time, with additions and corrections, throughout its history (NT in particular given the wealth of manuscripts we have of it).  If the text was already “perfect” and needed to remain “perfect” each and every generation, it could not change, at all, not even a single word.  Yet that is not the history of the manuscripts.  By comparing one generation of them to another, in any text type, this becomes clear, copyists made mistakes, both intentional and accidental that became accepted (for at least a time, by an unsuspecting Church).  But if God’s power and veracity stands or falls based upon an unchanging text, the only possible explanation is to ignore history and evidence and claim that the text must be taken on faith no matter what (that’s Sam Gipp’s stated position, any fault in the KJV, even typographical mistakes of the printer, are to be ignored and the result taken on faith). (3)  Who is the authority, Scripture is certainly silent about which future text will be the “perfect” one and which will be the corrupted ones, that determines that the TR, and only the TR (and hence the KJV) are to be deemed perfect over and against the Byzantine text, the Alexandrian, the Majority (which will always represent the Byzantine as the number of those manuscripts is such a clear majority), or the Eclectic blending of all sources?  Who designated Erasmus as the final authority on the preservation of Scripture, who sanctified his work and declared it without error?  Keep in mind, that Erasmus himself made significant changes to his printed editions with each new one, as did Stephanus and Beza after him.

In the end, I see no compelling reason to belief that we MUST believe any of those suppositions, if a TR Only (or KJV Only) advocate wishes to tweak them somewhat, fine, but the primary issues remain.  The Scriptures do promise preservation, but are silent as to how that will occur and by what agency, The text tradition does include many variants, all of them do, there are no perfect manuscript traditions, even within Erasmus’ exceedingly limited number of manuscripts representing one text tradition, there were variants that he had to sort out by doing textual criticism.  Lastly, the only way that the TR, and only the TR, can be elevated to such a status is an appeal to tradition or authority, both of which were supposed to be rejected by the Reformers, to resurrect them now would be a disservice to the ideals of men like Tyndale, Luther, and Calvin.

If you need a good laugh, watch Sam Gipp's, "What the big deal about the KJV?" video

I needed a macabre laugh today so I re-watched "Dr." Sam Gipp's "What's the Big Deal about the KJV?" video.  From the very first scene, this 40 minute video is one ridiculous example after another of the worst KJV Onlyism set in a fake college setting where "professor" Gipp enlightens his students about the "perfect" Word of God.  Straw Men abound, as per usual, as well as illogical argument like this: The KJV is from Antioch through the TR (not actually true, the 6 manuscripts Erasmus had were medieval Byzantine copies, but let that go for a minute), the Eclectic Critical text ("you should know that there's a problem right there when they say their text is critical", as if the term Biblical Criticism was somehow an evil practice, forget that Erasmus, the father of the TR engaged in Biblical Criticism, as did the translation team utilizing Tyndale, the Bishop's Bible, and Erasmus to put together the KJV and every other copyists or translator) is from Alexandria (Of course this too isn't true, the Modern Critical text utilizes all of the manuscripts Western, Alexandrian, and Byzantine, far more of them {5,500+ vs. 6} than the TR, plus Church Fathers, and other early translations).  Gipp then explains that Antioch is where the followers of Jesus were first called Christians, that must mean it is a holy place of all goodness and its manuscripts are perfect (forget that heresies also came from Antioch, such as Monothelitism and Nestorianism), and Egypt is always called a bad place in the Bible (forget for a moment, "Out of Egypt I called my son"), thus Alexandria is written off as a place full of heretics whose manuscripts must therefore be 100% corrupt.  FYI, Guilt by Association, even weak association, is a favorite KJV Only tactic.  (Such as labeling anything they don't like "Catholic" as if that somehow ruins and taints whatever person or manuscript they need to discredit).

Everything goes downhill from there, including a hilarious scene where Gipp has a Bible study group read Psalm 23 in half a dozen different translations to show them the "confusion" that results, as if unison reading not lining up somehow proves anything.  Another favorite "proof" of Gipp is that the Modern Critical Text omits verses from the Bible, thus throwing off the numbering system of the 16th century (What, those guys can't even count, he says).  Don't stop and wonder why those verses are in the margins in the modern text, don't ask why scholars know for certain that they were added later, just go along as Gipp tells you that they're taking things out of the Bible because he has already set up the KJV as the only standard, therefore any "change" in the text from the KJV is what counts, and don't worry about what the original Greek text says regarding the "changes" he points out, he doesn't say so in this particular video but he's said elsewhere that he wouldn't care if original autographs were found, he already has a perfect KJV.

The proof text of any KJV Only fanatic is I John 5:7, a verse that has zero manuscript evidence in Greek before the 16th century, which by the way Gipp accuses the Alexandrians of removing from the Bible because they hate the Trinity (something they couldn't have done, of course because it didn't appear until later Latin copies of the Vulgate), sad for him that none of the Byzantine manuscripts have it either, and that none of the Church Fathers quote the verse despite their blood feud with the Arians.  Thus in this one instance, Gipp is accusing other Christians of denying the Trinity by relying upon an verse addition that comes from the Latin Vulgate, the Bible of the Catholic Church (which Gipp and those like him hate with white hot fury).  Forget for a moment that the trinity is found elsewhere in the NT (in the modern texts as well), forget for a moment the horror if such an important verse could be expunged from the manuscript tradition for 1,600 years, all of this isn't supposed to matter as you feel anger toward those who deny the trinity by changing God's perfectly preserved Bible, the KJV.

In the end, "Dr." Sam Gipp, along with Peter Ruckman, Gail Riplinger, and those who follow in their wake, have faith in a perfect Bible, the same blind faith of the world's Muslims who also allow no variants in their text, and treat any questions as those of heretics, and they have a skeptics doubts about the Early Church, the manuscript copying process, and the preservation of the original text, just like that of Dr. Bart Ehrman who has no faith because the text isn't "perfect".

Keep making your propaganda movies, they're good for a laugh, at least they would be if you weren't trying to destroy Christian fellowship, the reputations of devout men of God whose work as scholars has only increased our knowledge of the real reason why our Bible can be trusted, and making things up as you go to fit a conclusion that you reached long before you started making up your conspiracy theory.  While you're at it, say hi to Dan Brown, he enjoys a good conspiracy theory.