In 1980 a book appeared that addressed a problem of mathematics: the quest for certainty. The author, Morris Kline, entitled his book, Mathematics: the Loss of Certainty.

In it he outlines how the philosophy and use of mathematics went beyond its capabilities. Newton, for example, in his science abandoned physical explanation of phenomena, and instead employed mathematical concepts. “Newton’s crowning work presented mankind with a set of only mathematically expressible physical principles. . . . The Newtonian scheme was decisive in convincing the world that nature is mathematically designed and that the true laws of nature are mathematical” (p. 57).

Anyone who thinks that nature can only be explained mathematically soon finds themselves with some unanswered questions. And it is easy to see how this kind of rationalism has contributed to a lack of faith in the world in which we live.

But the problem does not end there. Mathematics is not a unified field of study or knowledge. According to Kline, for example, “creations of the early 19th century, strange geometries and strange algebras, forced mathematicians, reluctantly and grudgingly, to realize that mathematics proper and mathematical laws were not truths. They found, for example, that several differing geometries fit spatial experience equally and well. All could not be truths. Apparently mathematical design was not inherent in nature, or if it was, man’s mathematics was not necessarily the account of that design.” (p. 4).

The Age of Reason and the search for a naturalistic explanation of the world was at a dead end.

This search for certainty is opposed to the biblical notion of faith, and there is no wonder that faith has declined as “natural” mathematical explanations have become the standard. Yet these contemporary explanations are a last-ditch effort by humanists to explain the world in naturalistic terms. This last-ditch effort has been going on for two centuries.

This same quest for certainty, however, is endemic in the Christian community in another context: the search for a certain and fixed Word from God.

This has led, in one area, to the idea that unless there is Divine Preservation of every letter and word in the original manuscripts, then it is not possible for us to have an accurate Word from God in written form, the Bible. This is one of the key arguments of those who propose that the Majority Text (or the related Textus Receptus) is the “right” one for us today, and that it alone carries God’s preservation through the ages.

The arguments they propose for this are curious, since the MT itself is a later compilation of early manuscripts, and does nothing to solve perplexing issues. For example, biblical scholar Kurt Aland has suggested there are fifty-two variants in the Majority Text sources in just two verses: (2 Cor. 1:6-7).

Now how on earth do we determine which one of these variants is correct? It would be reasonable to conclude that some of the variants are spelling related, or perhaps word order, neither of which changes the meaning of the text. But the existence of these variations seriously calls into question the idea that God has providentially preserved the copies in the same way He created the originals.

As for the TR, it was unknown before 1516, and was a result of the work of Erasmus. What happened to God’s preservation for 1515 years?

Such uncertainty in the biblical manuscripts is the reason for textual scholarship, and it is true that this, in turn, rests upon a systematic theology that governs our response to the issues. We are caught in an interesting “circular reasoning” conundrum.

Given this uncertainty in the manuscripts, how strong is your faith? And what is the basis of your faith?

Something to think about.

Click here for Part 2

The first part of commentary raised questions about the biblical manuscripts and the way we view them. We must have, it seems, a “scientific” approach to textual purity in order to be secure that we actually have the Word of God. Yet the more we search for certainty, the more elusive it seems.

Dr. Marvin R. Wilson makes this interesting contrast between Hebrew and our modern thought patterns.

The biblical authors never argue the existence of God; they only assume it. God is not understood philosophically, but functionally. He acts. The Hebrews primarily thought of him pictorially, in terms of personality and activity, not in terms of pure being or in any static sense. That is, to express the divine attribute of love, the Hebrews would normally think in terms of a “loving God” (i.e., a God who loves), rather than “God is love.” Certainly, therefore, the Hebrew mind-set of Bible times would find little or no interest in many of the issues the Church has debated over the centuries. These issues include theoretical arguments for the existence of God, the nature of the Godhead, free will and predestination, the specifics of the life to come, and the precise way in which the divine and human mesh in the inspiration of Scripture.

The Hebrew knew he did not know all the answers. His position was “under the sun” (Eccl. 8:17), so his words were few (5:2). He refused to oversystematize or force harmonization on the enigmas of God’s truth or puzzles of the universe. He realized that no one could straighten what God has made crooked (7:13). All things, therefore, did not need to be fully rational. The Hebrew mind was willing to accept the truths taught on both sizes of the paradox; it recognized that mystery and apparent contradictions are often signs of the divine. Stated succinctly, the Hebrews knew the wisdom of learning to trust in matters that they could not fully understand.

In an attempt to formulate the idea of inspiration to preserve an infallible Bible, Christians may have gone just a little overboard by operating on non-Hebraic assumptions. The influence of Greek thought in our culture is pervasive, and helps explain many of the issues that have driven Christendom underground and almost caused its complete demise.

If you’re really interested in finding out more, read Wilson’s essay, “The Contour of Hebrew Thought.” It should be compulsory reading for all seminary students and serious Christians. You will find it here: The Contour of Hebrew Thought

The Search For Certainty – 3.

In the quest for certainty, some biblical scholars are willing to give up all logic to prove a point.

At the heart of the certainty debate is this issue. It’s syllogistic in form, two premises followed by a conclusion.

Premise 1: God gave his Word through inspired writers who wrote down what God intended for them to write down. These are the original manuscripts of the Bible, of which we have none.

Premise 2: In order for us to have God’s word today, the words in the original manuscripts must be preserved by God so that they still exist.

Conclusion: ?

Do you see the problem? No conclusion is possible for this reason: at least one of the premises is not necessarily true.

Today we have a multitude of manuscripts and fortunately or unfortunately, God appears to have left it to the textual scholars to figure out which ones contains the “original” text.

Or, just possibly, God has preserved His Word on not one single manuscript but all of them combined, and taken together they give us the certain word of God.

There are some people willing to give up logic in order to argue that the majority text and its derivative, the Textus Receptus, used as the basis for the KJV translation, is the “right” one, and this is God’s preserved Word.

But this is logic run amok, for it is not based on logical necessity but just assumed to be the preserved text. Forget that the TR did not exist for 1515 years. Forget that while it may have been based on the Byzantine Text tradition (also known as the Majority Text tradition) it has nearly 2,000 variations with the Byzantine texts.

Then there’s the Magdalen papyrus, which some people claim is the majority text from the first century. Forget that the Magdalen papyrus has only one scholar suggesting its origin in the first century, while all the others give it a much later date. And then there is not clear evidence from the scholars that this papyrus is the wording of the later TR.

There is, unfortunately, absolutely no way you can arrive at the textual answer using the Bible itself. It simply does not tell us which manuscripts we ought to be using, just as it does not tell us which “books” belong in the New Testament.

Herein lies the weakness of our presuppositional apologetic, for this is one area we cannot go to the Bible to find the answer. The best we can do is assume that God has in fact not left us in the dark and that the Bible we have today is the Bible God wants us to have.

The real issue is this one. It is not a question of whether God has preserved His word. It is a question of how has God preserved His word through the ages. The Scriptures themselves do not tell us. So whether we like it or not, we are at the mercy of the textual scholars to provide an answer. And we might need to choose carefully so we do not get led up the many rabbit trails that lead to false conclusions about the KJV, the Majority Text tradition and the Textus Receptus.

Throughout the ages, the Christian church has not been able to determine which are the writings that finally belong in the list of the canon. It took an arbitrary decision of the framers of the Westminster Confession of Faith, and the Belgic Confession before them, to make a decision that had evaded the total Christian church to that point. Different groups have different ideas, which can only serve to confuse.

It is apparent you are left with no alternative but to live by faith, remembering there are limits to your ability to answer some of the questions that lie at the back of life. But you do need to live by faith, trusting that the Bible you are reading today, no matter which version it is, is God’s Word for you today. And that’s about as good as it’s going to get.

In my discussions with my host it was evident that he relied completely on a New Testament theology. No matter how many times I tried to get the discussion going from the Old Testament, my host would say words like, “That’s fine, but the New Testament says . . .” And off he would go quoting the New Testament.

As I thought about this, I realized something that had not been so clear before. It was the willingness of my host to hold not just to the Bible in general, but to the idea in particular that irrespective of what might be taught in the Old Testament, the New Testament now offered a “correction” to the older Testament.

In my essay “Unequal Testaments” I explored the question of how and where does the New Testament get its authority. Here’s something else to add to those comments.

Consider the teaching of the Old Testament itself in one of its key passages, Deut. 4:2. “You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.” Thus spoke Moses.

It is an interesting fact, according to McDonald, that “All Scriptures after the Torah received their authority from the Torah and were always viewed in relation to it” (Lee McDonald, The Biblical Canon, p. 176). Now the Torah was the Law of God as found in the first five books of the Bible. And here we see a consistent pattern of scholarship:

* The Torah is the original standard
* Everything following was judged in relationship to it
* Jesus said he did not come to abolish the law
* And if people understood the law and the prophets, they would understand Jesus.
* Jesus agreed with the Torah
* The Apostle Paul followed Jesus and he never disagreed with the Torah
* The other apostolic writers also followed Jesus, and they never abandoned the Torah either.
* No one EVER added anything to — or subtracted anything from — the Torah.
* And the writer of Revelation, for good measure, added the reminder about adding or subtracting from the Word of God (Rev. 22:18ff)

Do you see now why it is not possible for interpretations that dismiss the Old Testament law or any part of it? Do you see now the consistency there is between the two testaments? They are not unequal. If anything, the Old Testament is superior to the New, for it provides the defining and governing principles for everything that follows.

Since Christians are having trouble understanding the two testaments and their unity, I wonder if there is some correlation between this and the fact that our nations around the world are moving further and further away from the Word of God. Whatever happened to Christendom?

Something to think about.

The other night I was speaking with a friend, John, who’s a member of this list. The topic: the canon.

I keep asking the question: what is the authority that determines the canon? The question really needs to be split in two: What is the authority that determined the Old Testament canon? What is the authority that decide these 27 books were the New Testament canon?

For those who hold to the authority of Scripture in the Protestant and Reformed tradition, the answer is in the Confessions. Article 5 of the Belgic Confession of Faith, in dealing with the Authority of Scripture, says this:

“And we believe without a doubt all things contained in them– not so much because the church receives and approves them as such but above all because the Holy Spirit testifies in our hearts that they are from God, and also because they prove themselves to be from God.”

Read carefully. “We believe without a doubt . . . above all because the Holy Spirit testifies in our hearts.” In other words, it is the Holy Spirit that is the highest authority because the Spirit authenticates Scripture.

And those words “because they prove themselves to be from God.” What do they mean? How do they prove themselves to be from God?

Consider these words in the Westminster Confession of Faith: “our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.” (What happens if I believe the Spirit has given a different witness than the one you have? How does that get resolved? I know: I’m right and you are less “spiritual” than I am.)

Now ask yourself this question: What is the highest authority? Is it Scripture or is it the Spirit?

And if it is the Spirit, by what authority does the Spirit get this position? (I know, circular question. Forbidden. But ask it anyway.)

You also need to understand that the reason the Confessions were written this way is because the Reformers did not want to use the “other” argument. That being that the Church determines what is Scripture.

It does not take a genius to figure out why so much contemporary Christianity holds prayer meetings to discover God’s instructions rather than hold a Bible study. The commitment to the Spirit as ultimate authority rather than the Scriptures is evident. On top of this, since most Christians accept the NT is a higher authority than the OT, the commitment today is really to “half-Bible” Christianity. The other half is not needed since the Spirit will now reveal to us everything we need to know.

And there we see why the church is failing to change the culture, even Reformed churches. Everyone, it seems, is ready to abandon Scripture and replaced it with the Spirit.

And when the Spirit contradicts Scripture . . . . ? The late Dr. Greg Bahnsen’s enigmatic question comes to mind: “How do I know if the “intuition” or “feelings” I have are caused by the Spirit, or by the breakfast I ate this morning?”

Meditate on this.

I keep asking the question: what is the authority that determines the canon? The question really needs to be split in two: What is the authority that determined the Old Testament canon? What is the authority that determines these 27 books were the New Testament canon?

For those who hold to the authority of Scripture in the Protestant and Reformed tradition, the answer is in the Confessions. Article 5 of the Belgic Confession of Faith, in dealing with the Authority of Scripture, says this:

“And we believe without a doubt all things contained in them– not so much because the church receives and approves them as such but above all because the Holy Spirit testifies in our hearts that they are from God, and also because they prove themselves to be from God.”

Read carefully. “We believe without a doubt . . . above all because the Holy Spirit testifies in our hearts.” In other words, it is the Holy Spirit that is the highest authority because the Spirit authenticates Scripture.

And those words “because they prove themselves to be from God.” What do they mean? How do they prove themselves to be from God?

Consider these words in the Westminster Confession of Faith: “our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.” (What happens if I believe the Spirit has given a different witness than the one you have? How does that get resolved? I know: I’m right and you are less “spiritual” than I am.)

Now ask yourself this question: What is the highest authority? Is it Scripture or is it the Spirit?

And if it is the Spirit, by what authority does the Spirit get this position? (I know, circular question. Forbidden question. But ask it anyway.)

You also need to understand that the reason the Confessions were written this way is because the Reformers did not want to use the “other” argument. That being that the Church determines what is Scripture.

It does not take a genius to figure out why so much contemporary Christianity holds prayer meetings to discover God’s instructions rather than hold a Bible study. The commitment to the Spirit as ultimate authority rather than the Scriptures is evident. On top of this, since most Christians accept the NT is a higher authority than the OT, the commitment today is really to “half-Bible” Christianity. The other half is not needed since the Spirit will now reveal to us everything we need to know.

And there we see why the church is failing to change the culture, even Reformed churches. Everyone, it seems, is ready to abandon Scripture and replaced it with the Spirit.

And when the Spirit contradicts Scripture . . . . ? The late Dr. Greg Bahnsen’s enigmatic question comes to mind: “How do I know if the “intuition” or “feelings” I have are caused by the Spirit, or by the breakfast I ate this morning?”

Meditate on this.