Dr. Peter Van Kleeck, Sr., Providence Baptist Ministrries, 6/25/23 Faith, Motherhood, and Revolution

Dr. Peter Van Kleeck,Sr., Providence Baptist Church 6/11/23 Happy courageous, godly, risk-taking day

Of the word of the Lord. The circumstance of the person sending, the efficient, and author, as of other prophecies, so of this; he comes not unsent, he spoke not of himself, he came not without the Lord, but from him. So he affirmeth, and truly, to get more reverence, credit, and authority with them. And that it was thus from the Lord, and so canonical, the testimonies of Christ and his apostles, alleging him divers times for confirmation of doctrine and reformation of manners, proveth it; but he addeth ‘the word of the Lord,’ not only to shew that he had but the word, — the rod and execution would come after, God making his word good,—but, as some think, to shew that he had not a free embassage, but that he was to deliver it in certain and set prescribed words. Sometime, when prophets were more frequent and perpetual in the church, and God spoke to them by dreams or by visions and apparitions, they had divers kinds of words, and had liberty for divers manners of speaking and delivery; but our prophet was such a messenger, that the commandment he had received and was credited with he must deliver in so many words, and the same he received them in ; and so he doth, for in the whole he never useth his own person, but the Lord only, as chap. i. 2, and ii. 1, and hi. 1, and iv. 1. Here we might observe that the writers of the Scriptures are not the authors, but God himself, of which Rev. ii. 7. But one particular may we herein observe, this following: This prophecy is the very word of the Lord. It is of divine, not human authority, which is not only here affirmed, but, lest it should be doubtful, it hath the testimony of the New Testament: the 3d chap. ver. 1, hath testimony, Mark i. 2; and chap. iv. 2 hath testimony, Luke i. 78; and chap. i. 2, 3, Rom. ix. 23.

Reason 1. Because this was written by a prophet, for, as all the Old Testament was written by the prophets, so whatsoever was written by them was and is canonical Scripture; therefore, 2 Peter i. 19, Luke xvi. 39, Heb. i. 1, Eph. ii. 20. Now all men hold Malachi for a prophet, the last among the Jews till the coming of John Baptist.

Reason 2. Because the church of the Jews, the only church of God, did receive this, and so acknowledged it as the word of God. That they did so appears Mat. xvii. 10, and the apostles and the evangelists alleging of it, for it is a far more impious and heinous thing to take away scripture than corruptly to interpret them, or to add scripture if it were not of it.

Use 1. I take instructions from hence, entering the opening and expounding of this prophecy, how I ought to labour with my own heart, and to seek from the Lord assistance and grace to handle this as his word, not carelessly, handling the word and work of God negligently, taking his name in vain, coming to speak out of it without due preparation and constant study and speaking; so talk as of the word of God, 1 Peter iv. 11; not handling it with vanity, and affectation ; not making merchandise and playing the huckster with it; delivering it with a sincere affection, dealing faithfully with it as a faithful dispenser, giving to everyone his portion where and to whom the Spirit of God hath set them down,—to priest and people, to old and to young, to married and unmarried, to the good and profane,—without fear and flattery, or any other sinister affections, remembering that this in the first is in the whole, and to every verse, it is the word of the Lord, fearing to corrupt as well as to add, lest as it is Prov. xxx. 5, ‘Add not to his words lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar;’ remembering that of Luke xii. 42, that I may be a faithful and wise steward;

Richard Stock (1568/69-1626), “A Commentary upon the Prophecy of Malachi” (1651), Nichol’s Series of Commentaries, Thomas Smith, ed., (Edinburg: James Nichol, 1865), 11-12.

“There are some who think many things needless to be known and heard, many things not fit to be taught, as before, ver. 6. Besides that was then said, I say, let them see if this be not to check the wisdom of God, who hath both written and preserved the whole to the church; and if pride did not transport them beyond themselves, it could not be they should be so affected. As wisdom would teach them that many things are necessary, though not the present profit of them appear. For as in instruments only the strings sound, yet there are other things in the whole body, as that whereunto they are tied, the bridge, the pins, which help the music. So in the prophets, though all be not prophecies, yet they are things to which these are tied and illustrated (Aug. de Civ. Dei, lib. xvi. 2). And sometimes for those things which signify something, are those things which signify nothing added. As the ground is only ploughed and rent up by the ploughshare, yet that this may be, other parts of the plough are necessary. And humility, if they had any, would teach to suspect their own wisdom in not seeing the use and end, the profit and fitness of things, rather than questioning and reasoning against God. Others can be content to hear all pleasant things, as the promises and mercies of God; but judgments and reproofs, threats and checks, that they cannot brook; like unto those who, in medicines affect only the smell, or trimness, or gayness of them, as pills rolled in gold, but cannot away with the force of purging and preserving. And see not that a great company more go to hell by presuming in their lives than by despairing at their deaths. Some can willingly hear that which concerns other men and their sins, their lives and manners, but nothing touching themselves at all and their own sins: as men can willingly abide to hear of other men’s deaths, but cannot abide to hear of their own. Oftentimes they will make the minister to believe as they did, Jer. lxii. 5, 6, ‘Then they said to Jeremiah, The Lord be a witness of truth and faith between us, if we do not even according to all things for the which the Lord thy God shall send thee to us. Whether it be good or evil, we will obey the voice of the Lord God, to whom we send thee; that it may be well with us, when we obey the voice of the Lord our God.’ But when he shall declare unto them the will of God that crosseth their affections, they will entertain him, and answer, as chap, xliii. 2, ‘Thou speakest falsely, the Lord hath not sent thee to say thus.’ These, and such like, are here reproved and convinced of the breach of this duty, that the receive not, nor desire the law of God.”

Richard Stock (1568/69-1626), “A Commentary upon the Prophecy of Malachi” (1651), Nichol’s Series of Commentaries, Thomas Smith, ed., (Edinburg: James Nichol, 1865), 146.

Lecture 4 considers the ramifications of Psalm 119:89 and God’s word being forever settled in heaven. Additionally, this episode addresses the idea of a predestined text.

An Exegetical Grounding: Episode 4

Lecture 3 is part 2 of a study on that much maligned portion of Scripture found in Psalm 12:6-7, the passage we were informed of by Dr. Ward et al, does not teach Scripture’s providential preservation. Indeed, according to contemporary evangelical scholarship no one can find a single scholar who argues that this passage teaches Scripture’s providential preservation. Last week we examined syntactical issues of Hebrew gender and number discontinuity. In this episode we discuss the translational testimony regarding Psalm 12:6-7.

An Exegetical Grounding: Episode 3

For the Church to possess such a doctrine there must be a sound exegetical grounding for this element of Systematic Theology and specifically, the Doctrine of Scripture or Bibliology. Since the mid-19^th century what was once a robust element of Orthodox Theological formulation and grounding has dwindled even among advocates of the TR and KJV. If Christian theology and apologetics are ever again to meet the challenges of transcendentless, radically historical, solely empirical arguments, it must return to its exegetical roots. This series lays the groundwork for Volume 3, Theological Grounding, and a traditionally cohesive, timely formulation of the Doctrine of Scripture’s Providential Preservation.

An Exegetical Grounding for a Standard Sacred Text: Episode 1

Tomorrow evening 1/24 at 7:30pm EST we will begin a 10-week series on the Biblical basis for the theology we call the Providential Preservation of Scripture. For the Church to possess such a doctrine there must be a sound exegetical grounding for this element of Systematic Theology and specifically, the Doctrine of Scripture or Bibliology. Since the mid-19^th century what was once a robust element of Orthodox Theological formulation and grounding has dwindled even among advocates of the TR and KJV. If Christian theology and apologetics is ever again to meet the challenges of transcendentless, radically historical, solely empirical arguments, it must return to its exegetical roots. This series lays the groundwork for Volume 3, Theological Grounding, and a traditionally cohesive, contemporary formulation of the Doctrine of Scripture’s Providential Preservation. Hope to see you Tuesday evening at 7:30pm.

The most recent critically based “better” version fails the Church because:

1. it is not the theological or exegetical standard.

So let’s say we capitalize the pronouns referring to Deity, add some ilatics, and change the name of God by transliteration and not translation in the new version. Are we to gather because this the “better” version that all other versions in the MVO family must make changes to rise to the new standard? While one new version makes changes, there are plenty remaining that read differently and are not in translational alignment. In reality, all a new version gives the reader is more optional readings to consider, mudding the interpretive water while hoping to achieve a larger market share for its investors. There is no recent critically based “better” version that occupies the place of theological or exegetical standard. Indeed, one more versions solidify the truth that with the disparagement of the King James Version, the design of the critical camp was no make every assurance that the Church would never again have a standard sacred text. The best arguments for another non-standard would be the introductions to all the versions in the MVO family. After all, they are all the finest translations, that the finest modern scholars, with the best access to manuscript evidence, can produce.

• it’s creators only pretend it is infallible Scripture. “Pretend” is defined, “to give a false appearance of being, possessing, or performing.”

The most recent critically base “better” fails the Church because it gives the false appearance of being the Word of God, of possessing self-attesting, self-authenticating, self-interpreting, inspired, infallibility, and of performing the unifying work of a standard sacred text. Once the Church pretends it has the Scripture, the essential realities that make Scripture God’s infallible Word are no longer necessary. Those transcendent qualities and characteristics are disregarded, the inauguration of the modern version’s acceptance grounded in an academic consensus to pretend it is the Scripture. Because pretending begins with a willingness to suspend reality, once the pretend Bible is adopted, all reason based, systemically formulated empirical arguments to the contrary are as irrelevant as saying the water in the little teacup in from of the teddy bear is really tea and that the stuffed bear actually requested a cup of tea. This is the apologetic and polemic sphere in which the defense of the pretend Scripture resides. The best argument for the pretend Bible is by analogy. Water is a liquid and so is tea or, the Bible contains elements of God’s Word. As for the talking stuffed bear, the Evangelical text critic will do the talking for everyone around the table. After all, he or she is preeminently skilled in pretending.

And you are required to pretend the new bible is Scripture because of legacy institutions’ information dominance assuring you that pretending is acceptable and normative. Introductions to the new bibles assure the reader that novel literary and translational conventions are an improvement of the prior iteration. Not even in the Reformation Bible tradition did most recent mean better when considering the inability of the Bishops’ Bible to surpass the utility and popularity of the Geneva Bible. There are abundant reasons even within the multiple version only universe why novel renderings and translational conventions have been avoided. Why is 151^st Psalm only found in the NRSV? Why the inclusion of the long reading of Mark 16 when the critical philosophy rejects the pericope as Scripture? Why is El-Shaddai translated “Almighty” and not “the breasted God?” Because even for the MVO advocate, some additions, subtractions, and translational changes are too extreme for people to pretend it is or is not Scripture. And it is the capability of the market, or Church, to pretend, that governs the shape of the modern translation. After all, the version is only as good as its marketability.

• It is merely another addition to the pantheon of versions contributing to the theological and ecclesiastical malaise characteristic of multiple version onlyism.

It is impossible that the most recent new version is superior to the King James Version for the following reasons:

1. It has not been vetted; it has only been endorsed. No one knows how the new version will withstand historical critical scrutiny. Will it show some utility or drift away as an anomaly?
2. It cannot rise as the superior translation and remain part of the multiple version only library of bibles. The fact that it is not a standard restricts its ascendancy within the translational ranks to versional widespread mediocrity.
3. And because of this versional mediocrity it is illegitimate to say that the chosen means of translation and adjusted literary convention is better than its predecessors.
4. It is essentially the same as the other formally equivalent modern translations of the bible, hemmed in by the same underlying textual principles and methods. The most recent version is not better because all the previous modern versions have not been better because of the common textual base.
5. The new version cannot be spoken of in autographic terms because empirical evidence cannot connect the version and underlying text with the autograph. One can only say “Thus saith the Lord,” when reading the new version by pretending the Lord said it.
6. The new version will add to the cacophony and impossibility of corporate responsive reading.
7. The new version will lead to further confusion in the church as pastors replace the last best version with the most recent best version in the pews. This action will demonstrate that it is not the Scripture that governs the church but the man who governs the bible. Under the guise of evangelicalism, the pastor functions more like a little pope than the undershepherd.
8. The new version will lead to further schisms in the church as sides are taken based on the testimony of endorsers and personal opinion on which of the MVO versions are the best.
9. The King James Version brought exegetical, theological, institutional, and societal stability to the English-speaking world. Another new version among the many is not going to reverse the present trend toward diminished exegetical grounding, theological ambivalence, institutional deterioration, and societal chaos in the church and culture.
10. With the world going to “hates in a hat basket,” publishers and apologists throw the church a lifeline that is moored to nothing. “Grab ahold,” they say, “I’ll pull you to safety.” But you find that the so-called lifeline is perpetually changing, always lengthening, and while you pull with all your might, you remain in the raging seas of contemporary culture and sinking. Publishers and apologists for new bibles are in the business of giving false hope, a cruel and despicable trade when what we all need is the sure and certain promises of God in His Holy Word. This is how you speak of a text and version in autographic terms.

Is Evangelical Textual Criticism Compatible with the Traditional American Christmas? The answer must be no, and for the following three reasons:

While White pusillanimously failed to answer the question posed by both Dr. Van Kleeck and Dr. Riddle as to whether any portion of Scripture is open to question or change based on manuscript evidence, his obfuscation argued that even the Christmas event of Luke 2 given additional manuscript evidence would bring the account into question.

The inception of text criticism was a German idea, later adopted by the British and then the Americans. Of the German scholar Johann Semler (1725-1791), popularly known as the “father of German rationalism,” Knittel writes, “He denied the divine inspiration of the Scriptures. He was, if not the originator, certainly the great promoter of that Infidel system so fashionable amongst the modern Neologians or Rationalists of Germany: I mean the Accommodation Theory.” Francis Antony Knittel, New Criticisms on the Celebrated Text, 1 John 5:7, translated by William Alleyn Evanson (London: C. and J. Rivington, St. Paul’s Church-yard, J Hatchard and Son, Piccadilly, 1829, 1785), Translators Preface, xvii-xxiii. Semler, “became notorious as the founder of the modern school of so-called historical critics of the Bible.” https://www.biblicalcyclopedia.com/S/semler-johann-salomo.html

And, modern evangelical textual criticism’s attack on the King James Version strikes at the heart and religious traditions of American culture. Christopher Flannery, in an article ran in Hillsdale College’s Imprimis, writes the following:

“And from Dickens to Die Hard, running through and making possible all these charming and uplifting stories that have become part of American Christmas, is the original Christmas story, which most Americans from the earliest days would have read from the King James Version—even as Linus did in the 1965 animated classic A Charlie Brown Christmas:

And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.” Christopher Flannery, “American Christmas, American New Year,” Imprimis 51, no. 12 (Dec. 2022): 3.

Of the King James Version, editors Robert Alter and Frank Kermode in The Literary Guide to the Bible write, “Here is a miscellany of documents containing ancient stories, poems, laws, prophecies, which most of us cannot even read in the original languages, and which are a best, if we are English speakers, in an English that was already archaic when the King James (or “Authorized”) Version was published in 1611, and may now often seem distant and exotic: ‘that old tongue,’ as Edmund Wilson once vividly expressed it, ‘with its clang and flavor.’ Yet, as Wilson went on to say, ‘we have been living with it all our lives.’ In short, the language as well as the message it conveys symbolizes for us a past, strange, and yet familiar, which we feel we somehow must understand if we are to understand ourselves.”

Yes, we have been living with it our entire lives, but now, the Christmas story has been changed thanks to the Carsons and Whites of this world. Rather than the passage cited in the Charlie Brown Christmas I heard a pastor read, “Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.” Even the words of the Christmas event are subject to the text critic. “Peace” in the KJV, through the sending of Christ would bring peace and good will to all men. That is, Christ is benevolently disposed to all men not simply to some. “The gift of the Saviour is an expression of good-will or love to people, and therefore God is to be praised.” https://biblehub.com/commentaries/pulpit/luke/2.htm.

So, is evangelical textual criticism compatible with the traditional American Christmas? The answer is no, and for three reasons. 1. The evangelical critic casts doubt on the validity of the Christmas event and record; 2. The evangelical critic has adopted a foreign method that has no altruistic reason for supporting the American church or culture. Indeed, historically, the two countries have twice been at war with one another; and 3. The traditional Christmas record has already been changed by the multi-version onlyists.

Maybe if White, Carson, and Ward see Marley’s ghost they will be less “Bah, Humbug” and more Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas!