Fundamental Christians are in unison in the doctrine of verbal and plenary inspiration of the word of God. They all agreed that God has breathed out every word of the whole of the Scriptures. Thus, it has no error in any aspect whether in the areas of science, history, and geography. For a while, this position was carried in all fundamental circles. The non-believers of this doctrine have been spewed out, if not separated, from the local churches. Largely, fundamental Christians have severed even from new evangelicals who still believe this doctrine on the basis of the separation issue.
Some fundamental ones thought the battle is over that they even became less militant due to battle weariness and desire to become more positive if not unity-conscious leaders. The devil began to sow error, at least in thought, then in preference, and later in doctrine among the fundamental Christians. The commonly held view among new evangelicals, that God preserved His words only to the extent of the essential doctrines of the faith and not the very words, dawned in the fundamental camp. This they explained as there are “scientifically established” copyist errors, and transmission errors. The devil succeeded in sharing this false view into the fundamental camp as some scholars of the latter position began to look into the academic pursuits of the former camp. Then without admission of possible influence they began to consider that indeed the new evangelical camp has some truth in their hands on this issue of preservation.
The result of this adventurous scientific pursuit of some fundamental Christians led to their belief that God did not promise at all the preservation of His word both in every word as well as in its entirety. This fundamental group recognizes preservation only in a partial or essential manner. Other groups believe that God’s preservation promise is only in heaven. Another group denies preservation in totality. My belief as well as that of others who were ahead of us in the appreciation of this truth is that God has promised the preservation of His word both in every word and in its entirety. This is called the verbal plenary preservation of the word of God.
My concern in this article is to show you that God truly promised the preservation of His word. Some fundamental brethren believe in this but only in essential or partial extent. As they establish their doctrine, they reject the usage of the above text (Psalm 12:6-7) as teaching the doctrine of preservation. In fact, they weaken the force of it’s meaning by using at best only one possible interpretation of the text that suits the new evangelical position. These fundamental scholars chose to adapt the new evangelical thought about the text rather than the interpretation of their fellow fundamental brethren which is equally valid in Hebrew grammatical understanding. I sense some serious problem here among these fundamental brethren. Probably, they were mesmerized by their own academic scholarship or that of the new evangelical fame.
Setting aside what the scholars say, though that is what they seem to convey, let us study the above text if indeed God has promised to preserve His word. Only by fully comprehending the truth of the text will we be able to thwart the devil’s way of sowing discord among the brethren through this erroneous view of preservation- that God did not promise absolute preservation. Without using the Hebrew Bible, as many may not have the capacity to use it, our English Authorized version (King James Version) is clear on the promise of preservation.
Psalm 12 is about the contrast between the ungodly and godly men. The words of the ungodly are described in verses 2-4 and compared with the Words of God in verses 6-7. David mourned over the evil words of the ungodly and its effects. But he realized Gods promise in verse 5 to deliver the godly from the ungodly. This realization was based on the view of the quality of God’s word in verses 6-7. And verse 8 is David’s realization of God’s help. So David was certain of God’s help on the basis of God’s promise anchored on God’s words.
David described the ungodly in verses 2-4 as unreliable in their words. They are flatterers, vain speakers, double-tongued, proud, and self-sufficient on their achievement. Do we have such people today among fundamental brethren who count on their scholarship in the pursuit of constructing their preservation doctrine? In such midst, he saw also the failure, indifference, and neutrality of some godly people. Could this be the fundamental brethren who are equally godly as you are yet indifferent to join the battle between absolute preservation and essential (partial) preservation? David was greatly burdened by these two groups that he asked God for deliverance.
However, David was comforted by the divine promise of deliverance. Our fundamental brethren would like to stop here and attempted to wipe under the concept of the truth of divine promise of preservation by the use of a single Hebrew grammar rule. They say that the word “them” in verse 7 can not refer to the “words of the Lord” in verse 6 because of a Hebrew grammar rule. But we reject such explanation as it will nullify the truth of verses 6 and 7. Who will do the keeping of the words? Verse 7 says the “Lord”. Which is the object of the act of preserving? Verse 6 clearly says the “words of the Lord”. This is clear in our English King James Version. Why suggest ambiguity and invoke Hebrew grammar when the very same grammar allows the same difference? Consider reading Psalms 119:111, 129, 152, and 167. These parallel psalms clearly show similar structure with our text Psa. 12:6-7. They also refer to the words of our God. They were written in Hebrew in the same structure. So we must reject the new evangelical and some fundamental brethren’s view that the text does not teach divine promise of preservation. Without resorting to Hebrew grammar, the ordinary fundamental Christians who understand English, with faith on God’s word will see the truth taught in the text. He/she will also see this truth reinforced by the above similar psalms in 119.
As we continue, David anchored this divine promise of deliverance not on his own perception nor observation, but on the very words of God which he wrote in verses 6 and 7. Here he described the words of God as first pure, second as perfectly purified, and third as preserved. The promise of preservation is also not static at the time of writing but the effect of God’s act of preservation continues through generations. This is what we call special providential preservation.
In contrast to the evil and unreliable words of the ungodly in verses 2-4, David saw the words of God as perfectly pure, perfectly purified, and perfectly preserved. The text categorically taught these qualities. Is it wrong or mere theological presumption to assert that God’s words are perfect? Are there clear passages that teach God has preserved His word only in an essential, partial manner?
Psalms 119:111, 129, 152, 167 speak of the words of God using “testimonies” to represent it. Though they are not about preservation but they are about God’s word. Note how the psalmist responds to it. First, he takes it as a heritage and rejoices in its possession. If God has not preserved the words then this is not possible for us today for it might have been lost at least partially, i.e., maybe 1% of the entire words of God. Second, he was amazed over its wonders so he desired to keep it. Indeed, the absolute preservation of God’s word is wondrously amazing and is historically evident. Third, he understood that God has fully kept it. Finally, he committed to keep it as he loves it. You can not say you love and keep the preserved KJV Bible and yet replace it with other versions. Neither can you claim the same while you teach and speak to sow doubt among the people and to pontificate that there are transmission and translation errors in our King James Bible.
What are the implications of undermining the above text? First, to undermine the exegetical truth of Psalm 12:6-7 by citing a Hebrew grammar rule without consideration of other rules is an attempt to weaken a strong passage that teaches divine promise of absolute preservation. Second, reliance upon the way of new evangelical interpretation of the text rather than the real fundamental interpreters is questionable. Is it not endorsing the correctness of new evangelical thought on bibliology considering their continual reliance upon their high scholarship? Third, if we follow the essential preservation view and reject the absolute preservation view then we indirectly rely upon the Hebrew Bible to comprehend the word of God as the KJV Bible is unclear (as they alleged) due to complexity of grammar rules. Do they suggest that we depend upon the scholars or those who know grammar to understand the word? Can not the ordinary Christian understand the truth that God has promised to preserve all His words by carefully reading these passages in Psalms? What happens now to the promise of Jn. 16:13? Fourth, as David was burdened by the indifference of some godly believers due to their refusal to help the godly who rely upon the words of God, so we too, are striving to put up a defense against this error – that God did not promise absolute preservation. Fifth, the increasing number of fundamental brethren who stand on essential or partial preservation view and its undermining of the absolute preservation view proponents is quite alarming. The error that was once among the new evangelical camp only is now within the fundamental camp. Could this be the devil’s way of destroying fundamentalism from within? I believe so.
History is being fulfilled. The error has already occurred and is being established in a few fundamental USA institutions. Its proponents have been working to raise it high and forewarn their fellows to stay away from defenders of absolute preservation doctrine. Those who defend the King James Bible are regarded as “schismatic”, “isolationist”, “extremist”, “cultist”, and “Ruckmanite”. They are also succeeding in sending their missionaries-teachers and professors into fundamental schools and churches. These are “hitting below the belt” strategy of the contrary position.
Brethren, it has arrived in our beloved country. Within our generation, we might see the great change as this error will be popularized among fundamental brethren here. I have seen it in the lives of a few fundamental brethren and if they gain the applause of some they will influence our fundamental churches. Some colleagues are undergoing re-education in this doctrine. So when they return will they not reinforce their comrades here who are already imparting their new found doctrine–that God preserved only the essentials? Some students and ministers are quite naïve in swallowing the teaching and have started promoting the same with zeal. Local churches and institutions without a sound grasp of the truth of absolute preservation view will entirely capitulate to the error. Some might be divided as the remnant will not tolerate it. There will be great havoc among our churches and institutions. Is there not a cause to stand up and use the preserved words of God as a sword to put a stop against this error? Must we allow this error to be promoted among ourselves in the name of fundamental unity?
We thank the Lord that there is hope. God has a solution to it. God’s word commanded us to separate from such error. Consider 2 Thess. 3:6, 14, 15 and 2 Tim. 3:5, 8-9, 13-14. We may be in the small minority as God’s true people always are in this battle. But we have the perfectly preserved words of God sufficient to base our doctrine in bibliology. We must obey the exhortation of Psalms 119:104, 128. After seeing the truth of divine promise of absolute preservation you can not leave without hating error and separating from its proponents. Cornerstone people, beware of the influence of that error. Do not get discouraged if some would embrace it. Take heart. Rise up and take up the words of God and thrust it into the heart and mind of our people. Sunday school teachers teach this truth to every child, every youth, and singles as well as adults. Meekly teach those who oppose this sound doctrine until they accept it. Love them as the devil has deceived them through their scholarship and desire to depart from the truth. If we do not stand up now then we shall see before our eyes the capitulation of this blessed Cornerstone people into the error of some deceived fundamental brethren. Amen.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment