Back to Bible Version Reports
Back
to the Fundamental Baptist CD-ROM Library Main Page
Way
of Life Literature Online Catalog
REVIEW OF “FROM
THE MIND OF GOD TO THE MIND OF MAN”
[Distributed
by Way of Life Literature’s Fundamental Baptist Information Service. These
articles cannot be stored on BBS or Internet sites or sold or placed by
themselves or with other material in any electronic format for sale, but may be
distributed for free by e-mail or by print. They must be left intact and nothing
removed or changed, including these informational headers. This is a listing for
Fundamental Baptists and other fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians. Our
goal in this particular aspect of our ministry is not devotional but is TO
PROVIDE INFORMATION TO ASSIST PREACHERS IN THE PROTECTION OF THE CHURCHES IN
THIS APOSTATE HOUR. If you desire to receive this type of material on a regular
basis, e-mail us, give us your name, address, and the name of the church you are
a member of, and request to be placed on the list. Please note that this is not
a free service. We take up a quarterly offering to fund this ministry, and each
subscriber is expected to participate. To unsubscribe or to submit a change of
address, send your name and the request to fbns@wayoflife.org. This is not an
automated list. Changes in the database can require two to four days to
activate. Some of these articles are from O Timothy magazine. O Timothy is a
monthly magazine in its 18th year of publication. Way of Life publishes many
helpful books. The catalog is located at the web site: http://www.wayoflife.org/.
Way of Life Literature, P.O.
Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061-0368. 866-295-4143 (toll free),
519-652-2619 (voice), fbns@wayoflife.org (e-mail)]
December 14, 2000 (Fundamental Baptist Information
Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061-0368, fbns@wayoflife.org) - The
following excellent review of “From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man” is by
Dr. Thomas Strouse (Emmanuel Baptist
Theological Seminary, 296 New Britain Ave., Newington, CT 06111):
The recent volume entitled From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man (Greenville, SC:
Ambassador-Emerald International, 1999. 231 pp.) is the product of James
B. Williams and his eleven authors. These writers and their book appear to
represent Bob Jones University and the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship. This
inference is established by the connection of the authors to BJU and the
endorsements by the leadership of the FBF. Williams states that his purpose is
“to provide accurate, understandable information that will serve as a guide for
laymen when selecting a translation” (p. 10). Although this may be a
commendable goal and many may therefore read the book, it should be received
with extreme caution for two reasons: first, it falls short of its stated goal;
and second, it points toward a dangerous trend.
From
the Mind of God to the Mind of Man should be received with
extreme caution in the first place because the book falls short of the editor’s
stated task. It does so due to the following eight factors.
TO BEGIN WITH, IT IS OF QUESTIONABLE LITERARY
QUALITY. There are glaring spelling, grammatical, and format gaffes. For
instance, Westcott is regularly misspelled (e.g., pp. 172-178). Typos and
misquotes (e.g., p. 3) and noun-verb disagreement (e.g., p. 170, footnote 2)
appear, and font sizes vary (e.g., pp. 2-3). It appears that the rush to
publish jeopardized the literary quality of the book. While some may excuse
literary errors as inconsequential, they do reflect on the arguments raised by
the writers. Careless literary preparation may suggest careless scholarship as
well. More significant, though, are the seven additional factors that cause the
book to fail in the editor’s purpose.
FOR INSTANCE, A SUBSTANTIAL REASON FOR THE BOOK’S
FAILURE IS ITS CURIOUS APPROVAL OF APOSTASY. The cover of the book pictures a
copy of the Revised Standard Version. Since its publication in 1952, this
version has been identified with apostate liberalism (p. 198) through the
National Council of Churches because of its anti-supernatural renderings of
Isaiah 7:14 and II Timothy 3:16. Why would those purporting to advance
fundamentalism use the liberal’s version of the Bible on their cover?
Furthermore, Williams accurately outlines the theological battles
fundamentalists have had with liberals, neo-evangelicals and charismatics, yet
the editor and authors, in toto, commend
the textual works of liberals, neo-evangelicals and charismatics. They give
absolutely no warning or condemnation about the men or their heresies (cf.
footnote 5, p. 71). Is the uniting of fundamentalists with liberals in the
text/translation issue a new way to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ?
A THIRD FACTOR FOR THE BOOK’S FAILURE IS
ITS MISSTATEMENT OF FACT. Several authors declare that the variants between the
modern texts/translations and the Textus
Receptus (TR) and the Authorized Version are so small (“less than
one page of my entire Testament” p. 86) that no concern should be taken (pp. 97, 183). The fact of the matter is
that the Critical Text of Westcott-Hort differs from the TR, mostly by
deletions, in 9,970 words out of 140,521, giving a total of 7% difference. In
the 480-page edition of the Trinitarian Bible Society Textus Receptus this would amount to almost 34 pages, the
equivalent of the final two books of the New Testament, Jude and Revelation.
This certainly does not sound like “no cause for concern.”
Furthermore, no fundamentalist would deny that the
93% common text is the very inspired and preserved wording of the autographa. What one does with the
remaining 7% is the crux of the issue. Does one receive the preserved words of God as found in the Received Bible,
or does one attempt to restore/reconstruct
what God allegedly has not preserved?
Another misstatement of fact is that Textual
Criticism is a pure, objective, and untainted discipline. Shaylor states,
“textual criticism, not to be confused with other types of criticism, is not a
negative attitude toward the inspiration of the Bible. It is in reality an
effort to assure us that we have the inspired Word of God” (p. 24, cf. p. 61).
This statement is insensitive to historical fact and oblivious to Biblical
teaching. Historically, Biblical Criticism as a movement (17-19th
Century) and all its spawned criticisms (higher, lower [textual], form,
literary, historical, etc.) are permeated with anti-supernatural, evolutionary
rationalism. The tenets of Textual Criticism, such as the oldest is best and
the shorter is probable, bespeak the evolutionary principle of simple to
complex. The Received Text is not the product of evolution and conflation, whereas
the Critical Text not only is the product of rationalism but also manifests
textual “deflation.” Man cannot restore what God allegedly has not chosen to
preserve. Biblically, the Lord Jesus Christ promised to preserve all of His
Words (logoi, Mt. 24:35) for every
generation (Jn. 12:48). Assurance in God’s having inspired and preserved His
Words does not come through Textual Criticism but through “faith [which] cometh
by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10:17). This is the
historical faith of those of whom Jesus declared, “My sheep hear my voice” (Jn.
10:27).
A FOURTH FACTOR FOR THE BOOK’S FAILURE IS THE EXTREME
DEFENSE OF FALLIBLE MORTALS SUCH AS WESTCOTT AND HORT. WILLIAMS ASSURES THE
READERS THAT “THESE MEN ARE NOW WITH THE LORD” (p. 4). This is a gratuitous
assumption that cannot possibly be proved and shows the “hero-worship”
mentality of the Critical Text proponents (pp. 6, 212). The proponents of the
Received Text position do not, on their part, magnify the men involved. The originator
of the Received Text is not Erasmus, Stephens, Beza, Burgon, Wilkinson, Hills,
or Fuller, but the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. He it was Who promised to
preserve all of His words perfectly and requires believers to receive them (Jn.
17:8, 20). He is the sovereign One alone worthy of exaltation, Who both
promised verbal plenary preservation and used fallible men to achieve it.
A FIFTH FACTOR CAUSING THE FAILURE OF FROM THE MIND OF GOD TO THE MIND OF MAN
TO ACHIEVE ITS PURPOSES IS THE UNBIBLICAL NATURE OF THE MAJOR PREMISE OF THE
WESTCOTT-HORT POSITION. The very title of the book suggests that God gave His
concepts to man so man could translate His concepts into translations.
Fundamentalists have rejected the liberal Conceptual Inspiration View of Scripture
and presently defend Verbal Plenary Inspiration. It is very difficult to
understand why fundamentalists resist the Biblical and theological teaching of
the Verbal Plenary Preservation View and yet default to the dangerous
Conceptual Preservation View. Westcott and Hort wanted to restore the 4th
Century text, based on Catholic (B) and Egyptian (papyri) MSS, arguing that
there was no textual tampering and utilizing inapplicable Genealogies, assumed
Text-types, and the supposed Lucianic Rescension to dispose of the Textus Receptus. The goal of modern Textual Criticism is to restore or
reconstruct the Biblical text (p. 106) that God apparently chose not to
preserve. The liberals’ humanistic approach seems obvious, but why do some
fundamentalists fail to see that the Lord does not need man’s help? It is
strange indeed for fundamentalists to countenance liberal views, either
deliberately or by default.
A SIXTH FACTOR FOR FAILURE IS THE BOOK’S ACRIMONIOUS
SPIRIT NOT TOWARDS LIBERALS, MODERNISTS, NEO-EVANGELICALS, OR CHARISMATICS, BUT
TOWARDS OTHER FUNDAMENTALISTS. The very attitude Pickering denounces in his
Preface runs rampant throughout the essays. He bemoans that some KJV proponents
have practiced “vilification of character, personal attacks, and a generally
unchristian spirit.” He assures the reader that “the authors of this work have
presented their information objectively and without attacks on the character of
their opponents” (p. ix). But such is not the case. The author who betrays the
most glaring example of an acrimonious spirit is Williams the editor. He
deliberately lumps all that use the KJV into one of the five categories of King
James Version Onlyism concocted by James White (who is no expert in the field
of bibliology). Williams labels all of these who are lumped together (where do
fundamentalists of his stripe fit in?) as extreme (pp. 2-3). Without any
evident distinction, Williams attacks representatives from the various
categories of the whole spectrum as “misguided” “mis-informers,” whose heresies
are a “cancerous sore” (p. 7). The book thus gives evidence of a double
standard.
HYPOCRISY IS THE SEVENTH FACTOR FOR THE BOOK’S
FAILURE. Both Minnick and Gephart argue that the text/translation issue may be
a “rabbit trail.” They argue that no one should be beating their drums for or
against the KJV but rather be preaching Christ. Gephart questions the worth of
the issue, asking, “can we afford to spend so much time on this issue?” (p.
218; cf. 97-98). Is not their hypocrisy apparent that they can spend time and
money writing this 231-page book, using twelve authors and the input of eight
academicians, and yet the defenders of the KJV have no right to do the same?
They evidently feel that the time spent to produce their book is well spent,
but time spent by their opponents is ill spent. Such an attitude is partisan
hypocrisy. It shows a Catholic-like lordliness of silencing the opposition and
has no place among fundamental Baptists.
THE EIGHTH AND FINAL FACTOR FOR THE BOOK’S FAILURE IS
THE UNSCRIPTURAL CALL FOR UNITY AT THE EXPENSE OF DOCTRINE (pp. xii, 2, 98).
Since verbal plenary preservation is a teaching of Scripture (Psm. 12:6,7;
119:111, 160; Lk . 21:33, et al), it is a doctrine. Those who hold to
differing doctrinal views concerning preservation or any other doctrine cannot
and should not unite. Paul taught the Thessalonians to separate from those who
held to a different eschatological doctrine and its resultant practice (2
Thess. 3:6, 14). Should not fundamentalists follow this Pauline principle with
regard to all biblical doctrines? Theological compromise is far worse than the
lack of unity.
This dangerous call to compromise for the sake of
unity is the second reason that From the
Mind of God to the Mind of Man should be received with extreme caution.
Historically, Bible-believing people have not hesitated to part from those
taking a differing view of biblical doctrine. Now, however, the reader is being
told that this issue, doctrinally significant though it may be, is nothing to
separate over. Unity is more important. This is certainly an alarming trend
among those who would call themselves fundamentalists.
In contrast to the opinion of the book’s
contributors, God has revealed both His intention to preserve perfectly all of
His words for every generation and His means of doing so through the local
churches (Mt. 4:4; 5:17 and Mt. 28:20; 1 Tim. 3:15, respectively). Liberals
hold to Dynamic Inspiration. This leads to Dynamic Preservation, as manifested
in the Critical Text, translated with Dynamic Equivalence to produce the Modern
Versions. Historic fundamentalists hold to Verbal Plenary Inspiration which
demands Verbal Plenary Preservation, manifested in the Textus
Receptus, and translated with Formal Equivalence to produce the KJV.
Strangely and dangerously, neo-fundamentalists hold mixed views regarding
Verbal Plenary Inspiration, Dynamic Preservation, the Critical Text, Dynamic
Equivalence, and Modern Versions (see
chart below). This mixed and fluid position moves in only one direction:
away from fundamentalism and into liberalism. For one to take the initial step
into this moving stream, either deliberately or by default, may lead to
drowning in the ocean of apostasy.
The Lord Jesus Christ has required believers of all
ages to receive His preserved words (Jn. 17:8, 20; Acts 2:41; 8:14; 11:1;
17:11; 1 Thess. 1:6; 2:13). Since man cannot restore what God allegedly has not
preserved, it is folly for fundamentalists to embrace any of the modern
translations. Fundamentalists must return to the centuries-old confidence of
God’s people in the Traditional Text. They must not be swept away with the
relatively recent, rationalistic theories of Westcott, Hort, and others.
Fundamentalists must realize that we have the Lord’s preserved words in the received
texts of the Bible (Masoretic Text and Textus Receptus). May
Christians believe that the WORDS OF GOD
have been given to the HEART OF MAN.
Comparison of Textual Views
Inspiration Preservation Text Translation
Technique Version
Historic
Verbal, Plenary Verbal, Plenary TR Formal Equivalence
Authorized
Fundamentalists Version
AV
New Evangelicals/ Verbal, Plenary Dynamic CT Dynamic Equivalence
Modern
New Fundamentalists (conservative)
NASV, NIV
Liberals Dynamic Dynamic CT Dynamic
Equivalence Modern
(Conceptual)
(liberal)
RSV