The Faith Principle

What Should Be The Believer's Approach To The Doctrine Of The Preservation Of Scriptures?

By: Mr. John Krinke

Introduction

If I go way back to my catechism years in the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, I can still hear the man we called, Reverend Bentrup, say, "Every word, The Bible is true, whether we can explain or understand It, because It is God Word." That was a statement of faith, not history or science. It was to become what I have adhered to as the basic principle of my approach to God's Word, and all of the Doctrines that we derive from God's Word. It was because many within the synod of churches began to doubt that basic teaching that I chose to break fellowship with that group. They stated such things as, "Jonah was not an historic individual."[Note2] I have no doubt that many within the fundamental Baptist camp, wt even call themselves Biblicists, are following the same teachers of Bible textualism and translation who were followed by those in the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod. If one checks the history of the theology of the past 200 years, and checks I see who in the area of textualism and translation was influential even to this day, will be found that men who were anything but fundamentalist in their doctrine a, those who are being followed. My Bible believing Lutheran great grandfather Michael John Krinke, fled the effects of these men in Germany in the early 1860's order to experience freedom of religion and freedom of speech, as he put it to my grandfather, John Rudolf Krinke.

Those who, today, follow the German Higher Critical school in textualism and translation will, eventually follow them in other areas of theology. All one must do to prove this is to look at GARBC approved Cornerstone College in Grand Rapids (formerly Grand Rapids Baptist College). A professor who denies a Biblical eternal Hell who is kept on the faculty is an open invitation to universalism (everyone is going to Heaven; if there is a Heaven). A compromising position in or area is not going to be the only breach in Bible faith. Cornerstone recently had Dr. Ronald Nash speak in chapel. Previously, Nash was quoted as stating, "Strictly speaking, the Bible does not teach the inerrancy of its original contents."[Note3] Cornerstone left a position of faith.

What do many modern day Fundamentalist Baptist preachers and teachers have in common with many in the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod of almost thirty years ago? Both groups have left, departed, abandoned, forsaken, and disowned, the faith principle upon which the forefathers of their fellowships based the necessity of their fellowship in favor of a set of purely naturalistic, humanistic principles. It matters little of the doctrinal differences between the two groups if the faith principle regarding The Foundation of True Faith, God's Holy Word is violated. For both groups will further slide back into the dark and murderous shadows of the authority of the Harlot of Rome, or some other pantheon of gods, when they leave The Authority of God's Holy Word, Which promises to be our all sufficiency in matters of Bible Doctrine.[Note4]

If that sounds too radical, consider that once featured fundamental Baptist speaker and icon, Jerry Falwell, in order to gain accreditation, ceased teaching Creationism some years ago as a science at Liberty University (formerly Liberty Baptist University). Although that is old news, the real news is that as time has gone on, Dr. Falwell has slid further and further into a liberalizing, compromising, neoevangelical, and even ecumenical position.[Note5] What is at issue in this forum is that Dr. Falwell had to consciously leave a Biblical position on the nature of God in relation to God and His Creation to do what he did. Dr. Falwell left a position of Leaving the faith principle in the one area has led to a very slippery slope for Liberty University. Whether he left the faith principle for reasons of conviction or
for economic expedience, or some other reason is not as important as the fact that he did, indeed, depart from the faith in this area. Also, leaving the faith principle in the area of Bible textualism and translation has led to many areas of compromise an apostasy within the fundamentalist Christian community of churches and para-church organizations. This can only lead down a steep and slippery slope to full apostasy.

Although today it is widely believed among textual critics that God has not preserved His Word(s), stating that the history, so-called, and the science, so-called of modem textual criticism has proven that God has not preserved His Word, this erroneous belief completely ignores a Bible principle which is the very basis for calling oneself a Christian; the faith principle. The faith principle commands man concerning any issue of doctrine, to first and foremost predicate or base any study in any area of life or doctrine, upon what God very directly states in His Holy Word. To ignore, and even deny the existence of the Bible promise of the Theocratic Preservation of The Scriptures is the same as ignoring any other Bible Doctrine.[Note6]

The Roman Catholic Church denies the faith principle in the plain finding of Scripture in the definition of "what is a saint." They make the defining of a saint of very grotesque nature by putting man (the church hierarchy) as the determiner of who is a saint. According to what The Scriptures say about sainthood, man does not determine sainthood. The Scriptures define a saint as anyone who is a member of God's family by faith in The Gospel of Christ. The Roman Catholic Church does not use The Scriptures as the Authority in such matters, so using the faith principle is not a consideration when assessing their position.

So also, the modem textual critics and translators deny the faith principle by wildly erratic, inconsistent, ever changing, and subjective criteria say that they are the determiners of what is God's Preserved Word and what is not God's Preserved Word. Instead of God's very plain promises of the Preservation of The Scriptures being the measure, the canon, or the authority in this matter, modern critics say that they are the determiners, ignoring what God plainly says concerning the subject. They fail to recognize God's Hand of Providence over the centuries in the provision of vast evidence of a Theocratically Preserved Word. Although they claim to use history to determine whether God or man has the duty to preserve God's Word, they are very selective as to what history they utilize; largely ignoring early Church lectionaries and Scripture quotations of the early Church fathers which would disprove their narrow, humanistic, non-faith based criteria and presuppositions for research. They lump the vast majority of manuscript evidence into a tiny package they call less trustworthy than their proven corrupt Alexandrian texts.

This ignoring of the faith principle has caused erroneous doctrinal assertions regarding the nature of The Doctrine of Preservation of The Scriptures. The Hort and Westcott Theory of Textualism upon which all new Bible versions are based, denies the very existence of The Doctrine of the Theocratic Preservation of The Scriptures. The fact that the Hort and Westcott edition of The Greek New Testament is vastly different than the Textus Receptus which history proves existed in vast majority status for 1800 years before Hort and Westcott's Text shows a primary disregard for The Doctrine of Preservation of The Scriptures.

Their theory

of textualism states that no consideration of faith

may be used in determining the best Greek New Testament text

Their theory of textualism states that the more grammatically incorrect a reading of the text is, the more probable that it is more accurate to the Original Text

To demonstrate this theory that readings with poorer grammar are the better to use, they said that if an alternate reading was too smooth and grammatically accurate, it had been corrected at some point by copyists.

Their theory of textualism states that although the vast amount of evidence is not in agreement with their theory, they conveniently box all evidence that disagrees with them into a tiny category of insignificant weight, thus making only their "approved" evidence "the best texts ".

Modern textualists have followed in the pattern of Hort and Westcott in disparaging The Doctrine of Preservation of The Scriptures.

God supernaturally interfered with the normal human processes in the writers of Old and New Testaments to guarantee the accuracy of His message in syllabic detail ... With to preservation, however, no Scripture explicitly declares anything of this sort of guidance to apply to the manuscript copyists as far as the precise wording of the text is concerned

[Note7]

No Scripture that I know of uses the words, "manuscript copyist(s)," but there is ample Scripture to support that God supernaturally has and does guide men to insure that His promises of preservation of The Scriptures is carried out. Although it is not currently within the ability of men, today, or at any time in history to lay out an item by item lineage, this does not prove that God has not preserved The Scriptures to this generation. Men simply have not found the evidence. Obviously, The Lord would have men to have faith in His Promise of a Preserved Word simply because He promised. Nowhere in the neo-textualists' basis or foundation of study is found the faith principle. One can find, however that the neo-textualists abhor the faith principle.

[Note8]

Schnaiter's term "theological presuppositions" is a camouflaged way of saying "Bible Doctrines."

Another contemporary teacher of many current and new professors within militant Baptist seminaries says,

[Note9]

Wallace is saying this under the subtitle "The Doctrinal Underpinnings of the Traditional Text Theory." He is saying that doctrinal presuppositions are not allowed in the study of textualism of The Bible. Wallace's "theological a priori" is the same as Schnaiter's "theological presuppositions." Wallace's "fideism' is a sneaky way of saying the word, "faith," to those who do not know the Latin (which are most preachers, today, including this writer). Why did Wallace not say, "faith" It is refreshing when someone comes out and actually clearly says what one means. Sadly, they hide their view and disdain of the Doctrine of Faith in the occult language of academia until it is too late to correct the errors. When someone reveals that what they are really saying is an attack on Bible faith, they can counter that they have been saying the same things for decades, and no one disagreed with them, so it must be right,

What such men who speak in this manner do not do is give God's Holy Word the benefit of the doubt; they do not exercise the faith principle. The fact that they try to hide this fact in occult and obscure language of the theological laboratory shows that they probably know exactly what they are doing, which is to lay a foundation upon which many will eventually stumble over the truths of God's Holy Word.

Using Science, So-called, As the Criteria for Doctrine –
Does Science Produce Faith?

Creation versus Evolution

Do we believe what secular science says until Bible believing scientists prove that evolutionary science[Note10] has some major problems in producing a workable scientific model? Science, properly administered, can produce knowledge to a point. Science can develop systems of explaining various phenomena in the Universe. However, as secular science's adulation of various forms of Darwinism, and consummate hate of the very idea of Creationism, especially a young Earth, science has demonstrably fallen short of being able to keep their hate of God out of their science, so-called. However, who would have believed that after a strong Creationism has been ably defended by science, as well as The Scriptures, that Darwinism is rearing its grotesque head in allegedly Christian institutions? Dr. Henry Morris, in one of the Creation Research Institute's newsletters, has lamented the sad occurrence of some form of evolutionary beliefs existing in almost all those educational higher learning places which call themselves, evangelical. What has happened to the faith principle in these colleges? On the Internet much heresy abounds, but the following is an example of who supports some of it. I am sure you may find it in your local Christian bookstore.

A New Look at an Old Earth: What the Creation Institutes Are Not Telling You About Genesis

[Note11]

The position that God's Creation provides evidence of incompatibility with a young Earth is Biblically ludicrous, but scientifically sound. Which do you choose to follow? It should be no problem to have those in the fundamental camp following this new thought which is not new within just a few years. I would be astonished if some were not already following the neo-Darwinism of [c]hristianity.

As has been ably stated by someone, "The Bible is not a science book, but whatever The Bible states concerning science is true." Therefore, if science and The Bible disagree, guess who is wrong. The Scriptures do not say in vain, "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science [gnw,sij] falsely so called: I Tim 6:20. The faith principle is the only Bible way to resolve such conflicts;

By application to the matter at hand, it is my opinion that those who might fall backward, be broken, and snared, and taken are those of the intellectual head of Christian higher education who refuse to exercise the faith principle in RH spiritual matters. The people who ruled Jerusalem those who refused to five by the faith principle, were those who hounded and murdered the true prophets of God, as Cain slew Abel.

Using History, So-called, As the Criteria for Doctrine –
Does History Produce Faith?

Nineveh versus no Nineveh

Do the disciplines of history and archaeology produce faith?[Note12] An associate of Zola Levitt was interviewing a Jewish archaeologist in Israel concerning the dig of an ancient city destroyed by immense heat. During the conversation the Levitt associate asked the question of the archaeologist whether or not archaeological finds had done much to validate Scripture in the minds of skeptics as to what The Scriptures state concerning the finds; often the very existence of the site is highly doubted prior to the find, let alone any assertions made about the, site by The Scriptures. The archaeologist stated that, indeed, many had come to more confidence in The Scriptures because of what historical science had found. This revealed to me, immediately, that this could be the crux of the downgrade of the faith principle in fundamental Christian circles. When someone does not have fall confidence in what The Scriptures state concerning a matter of history, science, or Doctrine until humanly discovered facts reveal the truth of the matter, that individual is not a person of faith, but sight. That individual, in the element under consideration, is a modem day "doubting Thomas," whom The Lord Jesus did not commend for faith. The Lord Jesus did not consider it an honor to be glorified by a man who had refused to glorify Him by faith, before the man saw with his eyes the evidence of The Risen Lord.[Note13]

Until men found the ruins of Nineveh, some men who professed Christianity believed The Scriptures where it referred to the existence of Nineveh; some men who professed Christianity did not believe of the city's existence until the archaeologists' spades uncovered it. Many supposedly Christian theologs followed the historians of their day rather than follow what The Scriptures plainly stated concerning Nineveh. It is probably certain that the "best" scholars and "best" colleges and seminaries of that day taught as truth what was erroneously and Bible denyingly being stated by historians. That did not mean that Nineveh did not exist until it was found. As certain as the Bible doubting attitude of many theologians of that day would have been the certainty of many so-called unsophisticated believers who simply believed all along that Nineveh existed as The Scriptures simply proclaimed. One can cite The New Testament quotes of The Lord Jesus to bolster the Bible believer's view of Nineveh and Jonah. However, if only the Book of Jonah gave evidence of their existence prior to the archaeological dig, the individual living by the faith principle must accept the historicity of Nineveh and Jonah, or they are guilty of denying God's Holy Word. The sadness is multiplied because those who chose not to believe prior to agreement by naturalistic history, had to, also, disbelieve The Lord Jesus.

The lack of evidence of the existence of an exact textual lineage bothers many within what is commonly called, the fundamentalist camp. For over one hundred years they have been looking, searching, investigating the textual archives, trying to find The Word of God. They cannot seem to find The New Testament; they cannot seem to find The Old Testament. They think they are on the right track, but one man's opinion is as good as another in this eclectic exercise. What historical textual data put the blood of The Lord Jesus back in Colossians 1: 14 in the last Nestle-Aland version of The Greek New Testament after an absence since the Hort and Westcott edition of over 100 years ago? Did someone find it in Scrivener's TR? Did the pressure of folks of faith, not limited to, but such as The Dean Burgon Society coerce them to add back some precious words of our God?

What bothers me is that the neo-textualists refuse to simply allow God's Holy Word to be their Authority in this matter, especially since most would state they believe God's Word to be the Authority in matters of faith and practice. They appear to be being less than candid concerning what they really believe concerning matters of faith and practice. For how can God's Word be their Authority if, in their minds, The Preserved Word does not exist, today, for everyday practical use? What the neo-textualist insists is that one may not use The Scriptures to support the Doctrine of Preservation of The Scriptures. He insists that one forget all that one, over the decades of one's life, has been taught by The Scriptures, Themselves, and put oneself at the mercy of the neo-textualist exegete, that he might fully expunge or exorcize all faith in this Promise of God.

I also ask you to remove from your mind all your preconceived ideas about the biblical teaching on the preservation of Scripture

[Note14]

The question should be, "Do you want to trust the exegesis of someone who has a naturalistic bias regarding Bible Preservation?" Theodore P. Letis, in the preface of Hills' book, states that preconceptions are a fact of life in the study of any issue. The question should be, "Should a believer give God's Word the benefit of any doubt when entering a study concerning God's Word?" The question should be, "How can you refuse to use Scriptural presuppositions as The Foundation of your study of textualism if you say you are a Christian?"

[Note15]

One of the real problems is that there is no "neutrality" when dealing with God's Word.[Note16]

An eclectic Bible version which one man possesses differs with the different eclectic Bible version of another man; both men cannot possess The Preserved Word, for God has only One Bible. If the words of those versions are translated or transliterated from varying original language texts, the very words of the translations must vary. God has only One Bible; God's Words are not changed from day to day, or generation to generation. In today's textualism it is certain that both men cannot possess The Preserved Word, for they have forgotten, or have been ignorant of the faith principle regarding what is God's Word.

If the critics had confined themselves to only the variances in the Majority family of evidence it would be one thing, but the prevailing view of modernistic textualism is essentially the same as the German Higher Critical school, which culminated in the work of Hort and Westcott. This view, in short, is that:

Erasmus was a bad scholar as he compiled his Textus Receptus; thus, the TR is a bad document; (the only man of whom it was said since his day, that "he knew all that there was to know"). It is not likely that even with much reference material on computer today's scholars could begin to know and follow in kind what Erasmus knew and accomplished. Much of today's myths concerning Erasmus' lack is just myth, not fact. But as Michael Maynard has revealed[Note17], the neo-textualists continue to repeat exploded myths concerning Erasmus.

Conclusion

Many other observations could be made concerning what the German Higher Critics wrought through their students, Hort and Westcott, others of that generation on both sides of the Atlantic, and sadly, those of this generation, who we would formerly think of as "those of like faith." These latter individuals have taken the little used torch of their teachers and have started a forest destroying fire in a spiritually dry land in which the people are prone to ". . . heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; {2Tim 4:3}." For which of their quoted teachers and mentors, but only behind closed doors, or whispered in graduate classes, would have said they were not out to destroy the King James Version, but then go on to attack it in a most vile manner? Today, the attack on King James Bible is being done quite openly in most avenues of graduate theology by those who call themselves fundamentalists and Biblicists.

What standard should be used in the discussion of which approach to textualism and translation is better? If the faith principle is forbidden from use in textual studies, there can be no discussion, for that is the foundational criteria of the TRJKJB position. The WH/Poly Version flock, in my opinion, is mostly willingly ignorant of what is very obviously God's wonderful promises of the Preservation of His Word to all generations, not in thought or idea, but Word for wonderful Word. Their principle is that man is the measure (the canon) of all things textual. History and science can provide much data for drawing many enlightening findings about the evidences, however, without faith it is impossible to draw a Biblically, and thus an ultimately historically and scientifically correct conclusion, for God has not chosen to provide any smoking gun evidences which will prove in a scientific or historical sense either position. But I would not want to stand before God and explain to am why I did not just choose to believe that His Promises were enough for me. I do not want to say that I did not have faith in the "things not seen" referred to in Hebrews I 1: 1, for the things not seen are the things if which I do not have faith concerning, I shall be rightly perceived by God to be without faith! And if I am perceived by God to be without faith, God's Soul shall have no pleasure in me, according to Hebrews 10:38.

We all have a choice as to whether or not to exercise the faith principle.

faith

You may add any number of other faith versus 'whatever' options.

Faith does not require sight; what is seen does not require faith. The Lord Jesus asks the question, ". . . Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" [Luke 18:8] The expected answer is not encouraging.

Charismatics deride Biblicists who rely on The Scriptures, alone. Charismatics castigate them because the Biblicists reject the charismatics' newrevelation ministries. Their divergent approach to Scriptural authority is easily understood; they do not believe in Scripture, alone, as their foundation to ministry. Thus, Biblicists and charismatic are opposed to one another's approach. However, why is it true that many who claim to be Biblicists ridicule those who use sola Scriptura as the first principle of looking at all doctrinal issues, including all areas of Bibliology, including textualism? Many advocates of new translations based upon the faithless product of the new textualism are strong advocates of separation. If that is true, then why do they advocate using the textual product of Roman Catholics and post modernists, who compile all of the ever changing texts of Nestle-Aland, and the United Bible Society? Could it be possible they are unknowingly committing spiritual adultery with the coming "great whore that sitteth upon many waters?" [Note18]