A Few Thoughts on Fundamentalism and the Evangelical Manifesto

One result of the Evangelical Manifesto released a couple weeks ago has been discussion about the differences between Evangelicals and Fundamentalists. The manifesto portrays Fundamentalism as a threat to the gospel, and yet many people may not even know the difference between the two terms. These terms are loaded with historical baggage, and for that reason they perhaps have fallen out of use. This causes confusion as to what connotations they may have today.

This confusion is not helped by the manifesto. It paints Evangelicals as the center of Biblical Christianity, with compromising liberals on one side, and isolationist Fundamentalists on the other. Yet it does so without really defining or identifying who they were calling fundamentalists. This ambiguity is unfortunate because historically, Fundamentalists and Evangelicals have defined their differences with clear statements signed by their followers, in similar fashion to the one released last week.

In the strictest sense, there are clear differences between Evangelicals and Fundamentalists. Fundamentalists are marked by a separation from culture, a separation from denominations, holding to inerrancy and inspiration, a negative view toward mass evangelism (crusades), a premil/pretrib eschatology, and an unwillingness to cooperate with theological liberals on social work.

Evangelicals are marked by a tendency to attempt to influence the culture, the desire to work within denominations, holding to inspiration instead of inerrancy, a willingness to participate in crusade-style evangelism, a tolerance of other eschatological views, and openness to working with liberals on social issues.

These are all obviously generalizations, but they were often defined through the 1900’s, and perhaps this recent manifesto would have done us a service had they indicated if they were using the term “fundamentalism” with these historical connotations.

It seems that today these distinctions are somewhat outdated. I know of few pastors who would be entirely comfortable with one label or the other. Many would not have the desire to be known for a separation from the culture and from social work that perhaps marked last century’s fundamentalism. But at the same time, they are not comfortable with the traditional Evangelical view of Scripture that perhaps minimizes doctrinal issues, such as eschatology or even a literal creation.

I have often heard people joke that perhaps we need a new term that defines what it is we are, and what we believe. Unfortunately, this latest manifesto is of little help in that regard.

For more on the history of these terms, and their movements, see George Marsden’s Fundamentalism and American Culture, or (harder to find) Bruce Shelly’s Evangelicalism in America. Also, of interest, is John Piper’s post on why he doesn’t take pot shots at fundamentalists.

Last week, a group of evangelical leaders released “An Evangelical Manifesto: The Washington Declaration of Evangelical Identity and Public Commitment.” The most prominent names to sign it have been Max Lucado, Jack Hayford, Os Guinness, and Mark Noll. The document is 20 pages long, and is worth the read (click here to read the manifesto, or a summary can be found here).

I must confess that my initial response to manifestos and public declarations is usually one of skepticism followed by indifference. However, I enjoyed reading this one, was challenged by it, and found myself agreeing with much of it. It contains a description of what it means to be an evangelical, and a seven-part statement of faith that I would consider a good summary of what I believe.

There is much in this self-described manifesto that is excellent. Mostly it is a call to allow Christians into the public square—the market place of ideas, politics and culture—on the same terms as that of the secular world. There is a very thoughtful and helpful description of religion’s roll in shaping politics and culture. The manifesto warns that the public square is being dominated by liberal elitists who try and drive religion out, and thus alienate most real cultural and political conversation, while capitulating to a militant form of atheism.

Beyond that, this statement is a clear denunciation of the fads that seem to most threaten the Gospel’s clarity from inside Christian circles. The seeker-sensitive movement, Olsteen-esqe churches, prosperity churches, and churches that embrace post-modern values are all clearly repudiated. Consider this section:

“All too often we have trumpeted the gospel of Jesus, but we have replaced biblical truths with therapeutic techniques, worship with entertainment, discipleship with growth in human potential, church growth with business entrepreneurialism, concern for the local congregation with expressions of the faith that are churchless and little better than vapid spirituality, meeting real needs with pandering to felt needs, and mission principles with marketing precepts. In the process we have become known for commercial diluted, and feel-good gospels of health, wealth, human potential, and religious happy talk…”

I felt like I was reading John MacArthur’s The Truth War.

This document also clearly says that Jesus is the only way to heaven, and that his followers become his servants, and spend their lives in submission to Scripture. But there is some ambiguity. For example there are a few sentences that seem to call Evangelicals to be involved with stewardship of the earth, which I guess I agree with, but also don’t understand quite what it means. Do they want churches to start recycling programs, replace busses with hybrids and grass with xeriscape? They don’t really say. There is a another sentence that implies, in PEACE plan fashion, that Jesus was involved with fighting illiteracy. I would have liked a verse for that one.

Also, the manifesto distinguishes between liberal Christians and Evangelicals on the one hand, and between Fundamentalists and Evangelicals on the other hand. I’m not sure quite what they had in mind, and this is why the document in my mind ultimately falls short. Their description of Fundamentalists is not really clear, and I’m not sure if they were not talking about me. They defined Fundamentalists as those content not to be engaged with the culture, but did not really define “culture” or “engaged,” and I’m probably on the fence of that description anyway.

I must agree with Wheaton’s Alan Jacob’s when he asked why the document was written and structured like it is.  It is unclear what the main thrust is. If I had to guess, I would say its main call is for Christians to simultaneously distance themselves from both political parties, to continue their work for social change through loving the poor and fighting injustice in the world, while keeping that work and fight subservient to the Gospel itself.

Because this is a call that I would agree with, I would not have viewed signing this document negatively. But because of the ambiguity surrounding “Fundamentalism” I will not add my name to the growing list.

I also can’t help but wonder what the point of such a document is. I understand that it is healthy to recognize that the body of Christ is larger than my particular statement of faith, and that it is helpful to clarify how wide of a circle can be drawn. However, I also can’t help but see public manifestos unveiled at the National Press Club as some form of grandstanding. Who is the target audience? What is the goal of this document? Because that is not clear, I am not entirely sure how much impact this manifesto will ultimately have.

ARGUMENT 8
 
Statement:
 
There is no evidence that the TR resulted from a revision and is thus a secondary text type. This is the supposition on the part of Westcott and Hort to account for the Byzantine text, of which the TR is a portion.
 
Response:
 
True. This revision is discounted by most scholars today and is the most obvious error in the entire Westcot-Hort theory.   
  
ARGUMENT 9
 
Statement:
 
Textual critics are all rationalists and therefore incapable of desiring God’s truth or determining to preserve it. God would not use liberals, such as Westcott and Hort, to rediscover and resurrect true texts.
 
Response:
 
Not all textual critics are rationalists, nor are they unbelievers. To assume this is guilt-by-association in its purest form. It is simply not true that scholars necessarily deny the orthodox foundations of the Christian faith when they investigate all of the manuscript data to resolve textual variants. There have been many godly men, including Westcott, Tregelles, Tischendorf, Robertson, and Machen, who worked on these issues years ago. More recently, a group of committed believers worked on the New International Version, including such godly men as Laird Harris, Charles Ryrie, Gleason Archer, Kenneth Barker, John Davis, S. Lewis Johnson, Ken Kantzer, Homer Kent, Meredith Klein, Alfred Martin, Leon Morris, Barton Payne, Merrill Tenney, and Leon Wood. The issue of the King James Version versus modern translations of the Bible cannot be equated with the issue of fundamentalism versus modernism. By the way, few people today, believers or unbelievers, embrace all of the Westcott-Hort theory of textual criticism. 

SUMMARY
 
Controversial claims have been made for the inerrancy of the King James Bible. The supporters of the “God wrote only one Bible” theology have mistakenly equated the 1611 King James Bible with the original manuscripts of the New Testament written in the first century. It is true that God wrote only one Bible, but it is also true that it was not the King James translation.
 
What approach should be used to determine the variant which accurately represents what God originally wrote? It is the opinion of the elders of Grace Community Church that the “balanced eclectic” approach is best. It gives equal weight to both internal and external evidence and it gives unbiased consideration to the various manuscript families without claiming one is better than another.
 
The argument that defends the Byzantine tradition by appealing to the fact that most manuscripts in the Greek New Testament represent the Byzantine text type is logically and historically weak. It is not a truism that a majority of manuscripts necessarily preserve the best text.
 
The argument that defends the Byzantine text by appealing to the providence of God is theologically false. The determination of the best variant in an individual case is not a theological issue alone, but is primarily a textual issue.
 
Textual arguments that depend on adopting the “textus receptus” and then comparing it to other text types are guilty of bias. To condemn a modern version because it does not include something that is included in the TR, or it adds something which the TR does not add, is to argue that the modern versions and their translators are guilty of adding to or subtracting from the true text. It could be equally true that those who translated or copied the TR were the ones who added or deleted text.
 
There is no necessary connection between the adoption of the Byzantine Text or the King James Version and the inspiration of Scripture. There are equally godly, scholarly men on both sides of this issue, all of whom strongly embrace the historic, orthodox understanding of the inerrancy and infallibility of the Scriptures. Adoption of the TR or King James Version should never be made a point of theological orthodoxy or ecclesiastical fellowship.
 
Bible versions such as the New American Standard Bible and the New International Version have been translated by godly men of demonstrated academic repute from the very best manuscript evidence that is available today. Incidentally, the manuscript evidence that is now available is far superior to that which was available to the King James translators in 1611. It should be noted that the New King James Version recently published by Thomas Nelson is not an improvement over the KJV. While the original intent was to do new translations from the Byzantine, or Majority, Text, what ultimately happened in the midst of the commercial endeavor was merely to change the English text by modernizing a number of archaic words.
 
 A FINAL NOTE 
  
The following quote from the helpful brochure published by Grace Theological Seminary and written by its president, Dr. Homer A. Kent, Jr., is a fitting capstone to this discussion of textual variants: 

It needs to be remembered that the differences between the Alexandrian and Byzantine text types are not nearly as great as might be supposed. If one could remove the old English style from the King James Version so that the comparison would be fairer, the differences between these text types can be seen by noting the difference between the King James Version and the American Standard Version. The gospel is crystal clear in either version. It is regrettable that an issue is being made over this matter in evangelical circles, especially when some extremists are making one’s attitude toward the King James Version an article of faith, and unwarrantedly raising suspicions against those who do not. The issue is forcing many Christians to make a choice where they lack the necessary knowledge and skill to do so. How much better it would be to thank God that His Word has been preserved intact for centuries, and that the wealth of manuscripts assures us that none of the words have been lost. In a few cases, we may not be certain which of several variants is the original, but our problem is an embarrassment of riches, not of loss.

This is a continuation (from last week) of our evaluation of the arguments used to support the King James Only position:

ARGUMENT 4 
 
Statement:
 
The age of a manuscript does not determine its value. The oldest manuscripts survived only because they were faulty and did not wear out through use.
 
Response:
 
It is true that the value of a manuscript is not determined by its age. A late manuscript could be a copy of a very ancient one, whereas an older manuscript might be a copy of one not much removed from it in time. All things being equal, however, the oldest manuscripts are closer in time to the autographs. The shorter time interval implies fewer copies and fewer chances for error. This is a principle of all literary textual criticism, not just textual criticism of the Greek New Testament. Also, the assertion that the oldest manuscripts survived only because they were faulty is disproved by the scribal corrections evident on these manuscripts. Logic demands that faulty manuscripts would have been destroyed or corrected rather than shelved for future use or discovery. 
  
ARGUMENT 5 
 
Statement:
 
The Greek manuscripts upon which all modern versions of the New Testament are based come from Alexandria, Egypt. The Alexandrian manuscripts, touted by Westcott and Hort as the best manuscripts, cannot be the most reliable because they have been in the possession of gnostics and other heretics, such as Marcion, Origen, and the Roman Catholic Church, and have been altered to teach doctrines which differ from those found in the TR. These errors include justification by works, Arianism, and the belief that the Apocrypha is part of the text.
 
Response:
 
There is no factual substantiation to the claim that Aleph, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, or any other of the earliest Greek manuscripts in existence today were of gnostic origin and altered to conform to their heresies. Marcion is an example of a gnostic who mutilated the Bible text; however, he did not limit himself to texts, but he published a canon of the New Testament which included only eleven books. An avowed anti semite, Marcion included only the gospel of Luke and ten epistles of Paul in his version of the New Testament. He deleted Paul’s pastoral epistles.
 
Several passages of Scripture are commonly cited as examples of the way heretics have removed key doctrines from the text of manuscripts other than those of the TR. These passages are noted below:
 
1. The phrase “For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever” is deleted from Matthew 6:13 in modern versions but is included in the KJV. If this was the work of heretics, why did they leave the phrase intact in 1 Chronicles 29:11, the Old Testament attestation of this great truth?
 
2. Matthew 18:11, “For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost,” is deleted in some manuscripts but the same phrase is present in Luke 19:10. The fact that the text has apparently been added to or subtracted from does not demand that it was necessarily in the original text.
 
3. Mark 16:9-20 has evoked no end of critical discussion. Many believe that this questionable passage should be deleted since it is used to back up the claims of charismatics; others, Grace Church included, believe that it should be considered part of the authorative text and rightly interpreted.
 
4. Some claim that the word “father” is added to Luke 2:33 to discredit the virgin birth of our Lord, yet the quotation from the Old Testament in Matthew 1:23 is a powerful affirmation of the fact of the virgin birth.
 
5. In John 3:15, the idea of perishing is not included in some manuscripts, yet the same idea is present in verse 16. This obviously cannot be the work of one trying to delete the idea of eternal punishment.
 
6. In Acts 2:30, the idea of Christ being raised up is deleted, and some have concluded that those who removed it were trying to deny the resurrection; however, the term “resurrection” is present in the very next verse. 
  
7. In Ephesians 3:9, the name “Christ” is omitted from a phrase that would give Him credit for creation. Why, then, is the same idea left in the parallel passage, Colossians 1:16?
 
8. Perhaps the biggest error of fact is the claim that 1 John 5:7-8 is a part of the autographa and should be included in all versions of Scripture. To say that to delete the phrase in verse 7, “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are One” is to deny the tri  unity of God is not true. The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except four, and these four contain the passage of what appears to be a translation from a late edition of the Latin Vulgate. These four manuscripts are dated very, very late.

The passage is quoted by none of the Greek fathers, who, if they had known it, would certainly have used it in the trinitarian controversies of the early centuries. The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions. It is quoted first in time not in a Bible text but in a Latin treatise about the Bible in the fourth century A.D. Its inclusion in the TR seems to have come through the pen of Erasmus, a humanistic Roman church scholar. When charged by Stunica, Erasmus replied that he had not found any Greek manuscript containing these words, but that if a single Greek manuscript could be found that contained it, he would include it in a future edition. The one manuscript that was later presented to Erasmus to substantiate inclusion of that verse has now been identified as a Greek manuscript written in Oxford about 1520 by a Franciscan friar who took the words from the Latin Vulgate. Erasmus inserted the passage in his third edition of 1522 but indicated in a lengthy footnote his own personal suspicions that the manuscript had been prepared in order to refute him. These are the facts. 
  
As can be seen from the discussion of these verses, it is unlikely that doctrines were manipulated by heretics since truths were not consistently deleted.
 
Another interesting fact surrounding the translation of the KJV is that a portion of the manuscript used to translate the book of Revelation came from Erasmus. He translated the last six verses of chapter 22 from the Latin Vulgate back into Greek because his Greek manuscripts lacked these verses.
 
One final note. The King James translators originally included the apocrypha as part of the King James Bible. This certainly is no evidence of their orthodoxy.

ARGUMENT 6

Statement:
 
The Alexandrian Text was not in general use from the eighth to the nineteenth centuries. This is evidence that God’s providence has kept the TR as the authoritative text. God would not allow the church to have the “wrong text” while keeping the “true text” hidden from public view for such a long time.
 
Response:
 
The TR was not the text of the early church in Egypt, Palestine, or the West. God’s providence has preserved all text types, and the Christian message is intact in each of them. Also, God’s providence has allowed the church to lose things of much more importance than differences between competing text types, for example, the doctrine of justification by faith. In addition, as was discussed in the response to Argument #1, the TR manuscripts differ even among themselves. If God had preserved His Word inerrantly in the TR manuscripts only, then there should be no variation whatsoever in all of the manuscripts that make up the “textus receptus”. 
   
ARGUMENT 7
 
Statement:
 
The TR manuscripts are the only manuscripts that properly exalt the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. When the Alexandrian manuscripts are compared with the TR, many places are found where the words “Lord” and “Christ” are missing in reference to Jesus, showing that the Alexandrian writers tried to deny or play down the deity of Christ.
 
Response:
 
Throughout church history there have been heretics who mutilated the Bible to conform with their errors. The Jehovah’s Witnesses are a classic modern example. In their New World Translation, they have stripped the text of all support for the deity of Jesus Christ. Note carefully, however, that they did it consistently and completely; it was not a half hearted, random attempt. We should expect this kind of thoroughness when any cult or heretic tries to denude God’s precious Word of vital truth. It is highly unlikely that one would be so inconsistently selective as to leave obvious references to the deity of Christ in a manuscript if his purpose was to remove it. 

(To be concluded tomorrow)

Advocates of the “King James only” and the “Majority Text only” positions on the issue of textual variation have argued forcibly for their stance and have also sought to refute the Westcott Hort theory. The following summaries accurately portray frequently used arguments championing the King James Authorized Version of the Bible. Responses to each argument are presented from the “balanced eclectic” approach, held by the elders of Grace Community Church.  

ARGUMENT 1
 
Statement:
 
The doctrine of Biblical inerrancy necessitates not only that the original manuscripts of Scripture were without error, but also that there must be existing copies without error to preserve its inerrancy. Otherwise, even liberal theologians can believe in the inerrancy of the originals but deny the inerrancy of the Bible we have today if all extant copies have textual errors. In the Greek, the inerrant manuscripts are the “textus receptus” (TR) which underlies the King James Authorized Version.  
 
Response:
 
A significant problem encountered whenever the accuracy of the KJV is discussed is the misunderstanding of the term “textus receptus”. The term “TR” as it applies to the text of the New Testament originated in an expression used by the Elzevir brothers in the preface to their second edition of the Greek New Testament in 1633. A portion of that introduction reads in English, “Therefore, you now have the text received by all in which we have nothing changed or corrupted.” In the Latin it reads, “Textum…Receptum…”  The King James Version was first published in 1611 and did not use in their entirety the manuscripts that were used to produce what the publishers called the TR. The TR is simply a subfamily of a much larger family called the Byzantine, or Majority, Text. Note carefully that the TR comprises just a portion of the Byzantine Text and is not the entire family.
 
The Trinitarian Bible Society exists for the purpose of circulating uncorrupted versions of the Word of God, namely the KJV. Terrence H. Brown, the TBS secretary, makes this honest admission, “One problem is that many people use the term ‘textus receptus’ without defining it, and give the impression that this received text is available somewhere in a single manuscript or printed copy, but this is not the case. No copy, written or printed, was called the ‘textus receptus’ until the Elzevirs used this description in the preface to their addition in 1633. It should therefore be understood that the King James Version translators, who published their work in 1611, did not use an addition of the Greek text actually known by this name.” 
 
It is interesting to note that there are approximately 190 differences between the “textus receptus” and the King James Version. Some of these differences are listed below:
 
1. In Romans 12:11, the TR has “serving in season”, but KJV and all modern versions has “serving the Lord”.
 
2. In 1 Thessalonians 2:15, the TR has the pronoun “you” while the KJV, as well as all modern versions, uses the pronoun “us”.
 
3. Revelation 11:1 in the KJV reads, “And the angels stood.” The TR and all modern versions do not include this phrase.
 
4. In 1 John 2:23 in the KJV, the translators included in italics the phrase, “But he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.” The phrase is omitted in the TR but included as a part of the text in most modern versions.
 
5. Luke 17:36, which reads, “Two men shall be in the field; and one shall be taken, the other left,” is included in the King James Version but is omitted in the TR and all other modern versions.
 
6. Matthew 23:24 is a humorous example of a printing error, not a translation error. The KJV reads, “Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.” It is obvious to every one that the word “at” should be “out”.
 
Other differences will be discussed in response to Argument #5 (see below).
 
It must be understood that even the KJV translators did not claim for their work what modern promoters insist. The original translators were uncertain at times of the correct textual variant and made marginal notes to indicate other possibilities. In the preface to the original KJV, the editors acknowledged the benefit of consulting other versions. They wrote, “Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversitie of signification and sense in the margine, where the text is not so cleare, must needes doe good, yea, is necessary, as we are perswaded.” 
  
ARGUMENT 2 
 
Statement:
 
Although God has allowed textual errors to occur in all of the Greek copies of the original New Testament manuscripts, He has preserved the best text in the vast majority of these copies. The best text is found by looking through all of the existing Greek manuscripts and choosing the wording of the majority of those manuscripts. Since eighty to ninety percent of the manuscripts have almost identical texts for any given passage, it should be obvious that the majority text is God’s providentially preserved text.
 
Response:
 
It is true that eighty to ninety percent of the extant manuscripts generally conform to what is called the Byzantine, or Majority, Text. While this family may be the best family, it is not because the majority of texts available today come from it. Quite honestly, we do not know how many manuscripts have been destroyed and what family they represented. The logic that “the most implies the best” is non sequitor. Research about the discipline of textual criticism in literature other than the Bible where evidence is abundantly available reveals that the greater the number of copies and the greater the passage of time, the more errors are present in later writings. The process is similar to passing a verbal message and watching it become distorted as it passes through the greater number of people over the longer period of time. 
  
ARGUMENT 3 
 
Statement:
 
Manuscripts tend to multiply in more or less regular fashion. The text type with the most descendants must have existed the longest; therefore, the TR family of manuscripts must represent the oldest text type. Also, new evidence shows that the TR text type is earlier than scholars once thought.
 
Response:
 
It is historically naive to assume a uniformitarian approach to the transmission of manuscripts in that no evidence exists to demonstrate it. In addition, the fact that TR manuscripts are older than originally thought does not make tham necessarily superior to other text types but would only allow for an even treatment. New papyrii discoveries from the second and third centuries A.D. do evidence that Byzantine text type variants were available, but do not support recognizing them as superior to coexisting manuscripts. The Alexandrian manuscripts are the oldest we presently possess. It is logical to expect that if there were other early families, they would have circulated to Egypt and thus would have been preserved there also. 
  
(To be continued next week)

We’ve noticed that the King James Only discussion has appeared in some of the recent comment threads. So we thought we would take a brief detour to address that issue, before continuing our study of the charismatic gifts. The following is a study our elders at Grace Community Church put together regarding the King James Version. This detour will take us just a few days, after which we will resume our discussion of the gifts.

Is the KJV the only version of the Bible we should use?

A growing literature crusade claims, “God wrote only one Bible,” referring to the King James Bible published in 1611. These people contend that the King James Version (KJV) is the only English version of Scripture which faithfully preserves the original writings, and they support their claim in articles with titles such as “My Stand on the Inerrancy of the King James Version.” They build their case upon such doctrines as providential preservation of Scripture, Scriptural inerrancy, and one’s commitment to God.
 
Grace Community Church regularly receives letters from “Grace to You” listeners all over the country who react to statements in the radio broadcasts that better and older texts differ from those used for the KJV and conclude we teach that the Greek manuscripts on which the KJV is based are inaccurate. They ask, “If the King James Version is not the most accurate translation of the Bible, then which translation is and why is it regarded so?”  
 
At the heart of the controversy lie several questions: Is one Scripture version inherently superior to the others? Is one family of original language manuscripts superior to another, and if so, which one? How can we determine which manuscripts are reliable? The evaluation of the relative merits of various Biblical manuscripts and translations is a very complex issue, especially for those who are not trained in the field of the Greek language and New Testament textual studies, and cannot be addressed fully in a short pamphlet; however, we trust this brief study will prove helpful.

BACKGROUND

Some basic facts about the existing manuscripts of the New Testament are necessary to an understanding of the historical background of the issue of textual variations. These facts are summarized below:
 
1. The Old and New Testaments were not originally written in the English language but in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
 
2. The original writings, or autographa, of all the books of the Bible do not exist today.
 
3. God never promised the perfect preservation of the original manuscripts, but He did promise to preserve their content, as evidenced in Numbers 23:19, Isaiah 55:11, and Matthew 5:18. The content is preserved within the body of currently existing manuscripts.
 
4. There are differences among the existing original language manuscripts of both the Old and New Testaments. These differences are the source of the controversy.
 
5. Far more manuscripts are in existence today for the New Testament than for any other piece of ancient literature. There are at least four Scripture manuscript families that are widely recognized. They include the Alexandrian Text, the Western Text, the Caesarean Text, and the Byzantine, or Majority, Text.
 
6. Because of the large number of manuscripts in existence, the sources of textual variants in the Greek New Testament are usually simple to identify.
 
7. Textual variations are almost always incidental and do not significantly affect the meaning of Scripture. Once the easily explained variants are removed, 99.9 percent of the text of our Bible can be confirmed as accurate without reservation.
 
8. Many textual problems have already been resolved satisfactorily and are no longer in question.
 
9. No doctrine in all of historic orthodox Christianity is dependent upon the solution to any one textual variant. 
 
The facts listed above are vital in order to maintain a proper perspective toward the controversy surrounding the issue of the textual accuracy of the Bible.

APPROACHES TO THE PROBLEM OF TEXTUAL VARIATION
 
Because there are variations of the same portions of Scripture in different manuscripts, there must be guidelines to use in evaluating which manuscripts are the most faithful to the original writings. Several approaches to this issue have been proposed. They include: 
 
1. ”King James only” 
 
2. “Majority Text only” 
 
3. “Thorough going eclectic” 
 
4. “Westcott Hort” 
 
5. “Balanced eclectic”
 
These approaches are described briefly in the paragraphs below.
 
The “King James only” approach suggests that the English translation made in 1611 is inspired of God. It equates the Word of God, in the very real sense of the autographa, with the King James Version Bible. In the October 1978 issue of Bible Believers Bulletin, Peter Ruckman states, “…the Holy Ghost…honored the English text above any Greek or Hebrew text…” By this he meant that the KJV translators were guided more accurately in their translation by the Holy Spirit than were those men who copied the original manuscripts. This sentiment is echoed by the “King James Bible Preachers Fellowship,” a group of pastors who characterize themselves as “men who are unashamed to proclaim the King James Bible, A.D. 1611, as God’s holy, perfect word. God still has a few men who have not bowed the knee to the Baal of scholarship.”
 
The Bible Truth Mission in Millersburg, Pennsylvania has issued the following challenge in an attempt to resolve the controversy surrounding the KJV: “We have decided to have a standing offer of $10,000 for anyone who can disprove, to our satisfaction, the authenticity and historicity of the facts surrounding the King James Bible as compared to other versions, paraphrases, translations, etc. We are making this offer to permanently silence the small group of biased news journalists, self appointed scholars, Bible book stores and publishing companies, who question why the vast majority of born again Christians use the King James only.”
 
The second approach is the “Majority Text only” school. This reasonable approach, championed by Zane Hodges, professor of New Testament and Greek at Dallas Theological Seminary, also promotes the King James Bible. The Dean Burgon Society was recently formed to advocate this position, and Thomas Nelson Publishers of Nashville issued the New King James Version under the academic leadership of Dr. Arthur Farstad with this position in mind.
 
The “Majority Text only” approach argues that God preserved His Word in the text which is found in the largest number of manuscripts. Because the largest number of manuscripts is found in the Byzantine, or Majority, family, this family is considered by supporters of this approach to most accurately represent the autographa. The King James Bible is based upon the “textus receptus” (TR), a segment of the Byzantine family of manuscripts.
 
The “thorough going eclectic” approach to the textual variation controversy is advocated by liberal theologians who reject any consideration of manuscript families, date of manuscripts, and other external evidence. They concentrate their attention on internal content of the manuscripts and draw conclusions based only upon a literary analysis of the text. This school has little support among conservative theologians.
 
The “Westcott Hort” approach has long been publicized as the position held by most modern conservatives. Westcott and Hort suggested that the Alexandrian family of manuscripts are the oldest in existence today and, therefore, are to be preferred. They also concluded that external evidence, i.e. manuscript families, outweighs internal evidence. An in depth explanation of this position can be found in the Westcott Hort Greek New Testament.
 
The fifth approach to the problem of textual variation is the position actually espoused by many conservative theologians. This “balanced eclectic” approach holds that each text type is to be evaluated independently without premeditated bias as to which manuscript family is most authoritative. It also posits that internal and external evidences are to be considered equally. This school basically suggests that each textual variant be investigated thoroughly and considered on its own merits.

(To be continued tomorrow with an evaluation of the arguments supporting the King James Only position)

V. The Fundamental Doctrines Are All Summed up in the Person and Work of Christ

Paul wrote, “No man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 3:11). Christ Himself embodied or established every doctrine that is essential to genuine Christianity. Those who reject any of the cardinal doctrines of the faith worship a “christ” who is not the Christ of Scripture.

How are the fundamentals of the faith personified in Christ?

With regard to the inspiration and authority of Scripture, He is the incarnate Word (John 1:1, 14). He upheld the written Word’s absolute authority (Matthew 5:18). Christ Himself established sola Scriptura as a fundamental doctrine when He upbraided the Pharisees for nullifying Scripture with their own traditions: “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far away from Me. But in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’ Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.… You nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition” (Mark 7:6-9). Our Lord had much to say about the authority and infallibility of the Word of God.

In the doctrine of justification by faith, it is Christ’s own perfect righteousness, imputed to the believer, that makes the pivotal difference between true biblical justification and the corrupted doctrine of Roman Catholicism and the cults. That is what Paul meant when he wrote, “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes” (Romans 10:4). It is also why Paul wrote that Christ is become to us righteousness (1 Corinthians 1:30), and it is why Jeremiah called Him “The Lord our righteousness” (Jeremiah 23:6). The Lord Himself, Jesus Christ, is our righteousness (Jeremiah 33:16). That is the very essence of justification by faith alone, sola fide.

Of course, all the fundamental doctrines related to the incarnation — the Virgin Birth of Christ, His deity, His humanity, and His sinlessness — are part and parcel of who He is. To deny any of those doctrines is to attack Christ Himself.

The essential doctrines related to His work — His atoning death, His resurrection, and the reality of His miracles — are the very basis of the Gospel (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:1-4; Hebrews 2:3-4). Reject them and you nullify the heart of the Christian message.

The fundamentals of the faith are so closely identified with Christ that the apostle John used the expression “the teaching of Christ” as a kind of shorthand for the set of doctrines he regarded as fundamental. To him, these doctrines represented the difference between true Christianity and false religion.

That is why he wrote, “Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son” (2 John 9). Far from encouraging union with those who denied the fundamental truths of the faith, John forbade any form of spiritual fellowship with or encouragement of such false religion (vv. 10-11).

So What?

It has not been my purpose here to attempt to give an exhaustive list of fundamental doctrines. Such a task is beyond the scope of this article. Furthermore, the attempt to precisely identify and number such a list of doctrines would be an extremely difficult thing to do. However, a reasonable list of fundamentals would necessarily begin with these doctrines explicitly identified in Scripture as non-negotiable: the absolute authority of Scripture over tradition (sola Scriptura), justification by faith alone (sola fide), the deity of Christ, and the Trinity.

But what are we to do with this understanding? First of all, we should resist any temptation to wield these doctrines like a judge’s gavel that consigns multitudes to eternal doom. We must not set ourselves up as judges of other people’s eternal fate.

On the other hand, we must recognize that those who have turned away from sound doctrine in matters essential to salvation are condemning themselves. “He who does not believe has been judged already” (John 3:18). Our passion ought to be to proclaim the fundamentals with clarity and precision, in order to turn people away from the darkness of error. We must confront head-on the blindness and unbelief that will be the reason multitudes will one day hear the Lord say, “I never knew you; depart from Me” (Matthew 7:23). Again, it must be stressed that those who act as if crucial doctrines were of no consequence only heap the false teacher’s guilt on themselves (2 John 11).

We have no right to pronounce a sentence of eternal doom against anyone (John 5:22). But by the same token, we have no business receiving just anyone into the communion and fellowship of the church. We should no more forge spiritual bonds with people whose religion is fundamentally in error than we would seek fellowship with those guilty of heinous sin. To do so is tantamount to the arrogance shown by the Corinthians, who refused to dismiss from their fellowship a man living in the grossest kind of sin (1 Corinthians 5:1-3).

We must also remember that serious error can be extremely subtle. False teachers don’t wear a sign proclaiming who they are. They disguise themselves as apostles of Christ (2 Corinthians 11:13). “And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness” (vv. 14-15). In view of the current hunger for ecumenical compromise, nothing is more desperately needed in the church right now than a new movement to reemphasize the fundamental articles of the faith.

III. Everything Essential to Saving Faith Is Fundamental

Third, a doctrine must be regarded as fundamental if eternal life depends on it. Scripture is full of statements that identify the terms of salvation and the marks of genuine faith.

“Without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him” (Hebrews 11:6). That verse makes faith itself essential to a right relationship with God. It also expressly identifies both the existence and the veracity of God as fundamental articles of the Christian faith.

Elsewhere we are told that eternal life is obtained through the knowledge of the true God and Jesus Christ (John 17:3; 14:6; Acts 4:12). Since Jesus Himself is the true God incarnate (1 John 5:20; John 8:58; 10:30), the fact of His deity (and by implication the whole doctrine of the Trinity) is a fundamental article of faith (see 1 John 2:23). Our Lord Himself confirmed this when He said all must honor Him as they honor the Father (John 5:23).

The truths of Jesus’ divine Sonship and Messiahship are also fundamental articles of faith (John 20:31).

Of course, the bodily resurrection of Christ is a fundamental doctrine, because 1 Corinthians 15:14 tells us, “If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.”

Romans 10:9 confirms that the resurrection is a fundamental doctrine, and adds another: the lordship of Christ. “If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved.”

And according to Romans 4:4-5, justification by faith is a fundamental doctrine as well: “Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.” In other words, those who seek acceptance before God on the ground of their own righteousness will find they fall short (Romans 3:27-28; Galatians 2:16-3:29). Only those who trust God to impute Christ’s perfect righteousness to them are accounted truly righteous. This is precisely the difference between Roman Catholic doctrine and the Gospel set forth in Scripture. It is at the heart of all doctrine that is truly fundamental.

In fact, an error in understanding justification is the very thing that was responsible for the apostasy of the Jewish nation: “For not knowing about God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God” (Romans 10:3). Is that not the precise failure of Roman Catholicism? But “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes” (v. 4).

IV. Every Doctrine We Are Forbidden to Deny Is Fundamental

Certain teachings of Scripture carry threats of damnation to those who deny them. Other ideas are expressly stated to be affirmed only by unbelievers. Such doctrines, obviously, involve fundamental articles of genuine Christianity.

The apostle John began his first epistle with a series of statements that establish key points of the doctrine of sin (hamartiology) as fundamental articles of faith. “If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth” (1:6). That condemns wanton antinomianism (the idea that Christians are under no law whatsoever) and makes some degree of doctrinal and moral enlightenment essential to true Christianity. A second statement rules out the humanistic notion that people are basically good: “If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (v. 8 ). And a third suggests that no true Christian would deny his or her own sinfulness: “If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us” (v. 10).

First Corinthians 16:22 makes love for Christ a fundamental issue: “If anyone does not love the Lord, let him be accursed.” And a similar verse, 1 Corinthians 12:3, says that no one speaking by the Spirit of God can call Jesus accursed.

The truth of Jesus’ incarnation is also clearly designated a fundamental doctrine: “Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; and this is the spirit of the antichrist” (1 John 4:2-3). “For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist” (2 John 7). Those verses by implication also condemn those who deny the Virgin Birth of our Lord, for if He was not virgin-born, He would be merely human, not eternal God come in the flesh.

And since those who twist and distort the Word of God are threatened with destruction (2 Peter 3:16), it is evident that both a lofty view of Scripture and a sound method of Bible interpretation (hermeneutics) are fundamental tenets of true Christianity.

(Final Part Tomorrow)

How can a Christian determine which doctrines are essential and which are not?

To begin with, the strongest words of condemnation in all the New Testament are aimed at false teachers who corrupt the Gospel. Therefore the Gospel message itself must be acknowledged as a primary point of fundamental doctrine.

But what message will determine the content of our gospel testimony? Let’s turn to Scripture itself and attempt to lay out some biblical principles for determining which articles of faith are truly essential to authentic Christianity. 

I. All Fundamental Articles of Faith Must Be Drawn from the Scriptures

First, if a doctrine is truly fundamental, it must have its origin in Scripture, not tradition, papal decrees, or some other source of authority. Paul reminded Timothy that the Scriptures are “able to make thee wise unto salvation” (2 Timothy 3:15, KJV). In other words, if a doctrine is essential for salvation, we can learn it from the Bible. The written Word of God therefore must contain all doctrine that is truly fundamental. It is able to make us “adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:17). If there were necessary doctrines not revealed in Scripture, those promises would ring empty.

The psalmist wrote, “The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul” (Psalm 19:7). That means Scripture is sufficient. Apart from the truths revealed to us in Scripture, there is no essential spiritual truth, no fundamental doctrine, nothing essential to soul-restoration. We do not need to look beyond the written Word of God for any essential doctrines. There is nothing necessary beyond what is recorded in God’s Word.

This, of course, is the Reformation principle of sola Scriptura -- Scripture alone. According to the Bible itself, no supposed spiritual authority outside “the sacred writings” of Scripture can give us wisdom that leads to salvation. No papal decrees, no oral tradition, no latter-day prophecy can contain truth apart from Scripture that is genuinely fundamental.

II. The Fundamentals Are Clear in Scripture

Second, if an article of faith is to be regarded as fundamental, it must be clearly set forth in Scripture. No “secret knowledge” or hidden truth-formula could ever qualify as a fundamental article of faith. No cryptic key is necessary to unlock the teaching of the Bible.

The truth of God is not aimed at learned intellectuals; it is simple enough for a child. “Thou didst hide these things from the wise and intelligent and didst reveal them to babes” (Matthew 11:25, KJV). The Word of God is not a puzzle. It does not speak in riddles. It is not cryptic or mysterious. It is plain and obvious to those who have spiritual ears to hear. “The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple” (Psalm 19:7).

The point is not that every fundamental article of faith must be supported with an explicit proof text. The doctrine of the Trinity, for example, is certainly essential to true Christianity-and it is very clear in Scripture-but you will find no comprehensive statement of the Trinity from any single passage of Scripture.

This does not mean that a doctrine must be non-controversial in order to be considered a fundamental article. Some would argue that the only test of whether something is essential to true Christianity is whether it is affirmed by all the major Christian traditions. By that rule, hardly anything of any substance would remain to distinguish the Christian Gospel from the “salvation” offered by pagan morality or Islamic theology. “There is much truth in the remark of Clement of Alexandria; ‘No Scripture, I apprehend, is so favourably treated, as to be contradicted by no one.’” (Herman Witsius, Sacred Dissertations on the Apostles’ Creed [Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1993 reprint], 1:21)

(To be continued tomorrow)

The following is adapted from John’s upcoming book, The Truth War (Nelson, Spring 2007). 

Postmodernists are generally suspicious of rational and logical forms. They especially do not like to discuss truth in plain propositional terms.

Postmodernists are uncomfortable with propositions for an obvious reason: they don’t like the clarity and inflexibility required to deal with truth in propositional form. A proposition is the simplest form of any truth claim, and postmodernism’s fundamental starting point is its contempt for all truth claims. The “fuzzy logic” of ideas told in “story” form sounds so much more elastic—even though it really is not. Propositions are necessary building blocks for every means of conveying truth—including stories.

But the attack on propositional expressions of truth is the natural and necessary outworking of postmodernism’s general distrust of logic, distaste for certainty, and dislike for clarity. To maintain the ambiguity and pliability of “truth” necessary for the postmodern perspective, clear and definitive propositions must be discounted as a means of expressing truth. Propositions force us to face facts and either affirm or deny them, and that kind of clarity simply does not play well in a postmodern culture.

Truth simply cannot survive if stripped of propositional content. While it is quite true that believing the truth entails more than the assent of the human intellect to certain propositions, it is equally true that authentic faith never involves anything less. To reject the propositional content of the gospel is to forfeit saving faith, period.